Moral issues in regards to fighters Tattoos...

Hey all,
I got to shoot my first amateur MMA/Kickboxing event last night.
Going through the photos last night, I have a great shot of a fighter after the break in between rounds. The really bad lighting worked really well to create a dramatic scene of him walking to his corner. I edited the photo and posted it to my FB and instagram only to look at it from a different perspective, and notice he has a rather big swastika tattoo intermingled in a design that wasn't apparent right away to me. I deleted the photo from my personal pages and am not sure exactly what to do with his photos.

I 100% do not support the hate that the swastika represents, but I was hired to cover the event. Do I overlook it as It's not my place since I'm only hired to take the photos? Do I just delete/crop the photos showing his tattoo? And do I even bother to explain my stance to the promotion? I just would not want anything with my name attached to it to be used in any connection to that kind of lifestyle.

Has anyone came across an issue like this?

Thanks for looking and for any advice you may have.
I'd be happy to share it here to give you all a better idea or the image/fighter.

Matt

Can you elaborate on ehat hired to cover the event mesns? Who hired you and for what purpose?

You have a contract with the promoter to photograph the event. The terms and expectation of the contract determine how to handle this. I would get with the person who hired you for the shoot, explain your position on the swastikas, and go from there.

If the promoter does not allow you to edit the photos, or just to simply not include the photos the tattoo is visible in, do what your contract requires. Then in your next contract include a "moral clause" in it where you specify something like this will be edited out. If that means you will not get to shoot an MMA event again, so be it.

Well, if the person you hired likes/wants the image, you can deliver it, but not share it in your own portfolio or on your personal sites. You've posted it so the "cat's out of the bag" as the saying goes. You can still contact the client, explain the situation, and see if they want the image. I'd imagine that if it's a business they may feel the same way about it as the people who complained on your facebook page and decide they don't want it either.

The event promoter hired me. There was nothing related to a "morality claws" in the contract. That's my fault for overlooking it, as it's nothing I've come across or even came to mind as something to anticipate.

I was hired to simply cover the event and provide them with edited photos they choose to be use for print and web based promotions. I've known the promoter for years and I'm confident that he will agree with my stance, but thought I'd try to get another perspective before I talk to him tomorrow.

Thank you all for taking the time to chime in.

You agreed to provide images, not censor content. If the promotor chooses to use or not use the images based on that content its up to him. If he doesnt know about the fighters tattoo then it's his own fault. By raking the photos you are not endorsing or promoting the swastika or the fighters political views.

Thanks, Gonzogolf. Very clear cut and direct. Like I said, just wanted to get another perspective.

If someone should have problem because of this, it's the guy wearing that tattoo, not you shooting it. You are there to cover event, and that tattoo is part of it. So personally, I don't care. I shoot, I send, I get paid. If guy has stupid tattoos, it's his problem, not mine. So for me this is no issue at all.
If for you, this is issue, then send different set of photos. Don't include the one with offending tattoo and that's it. But certainly don't clone image to cover that tattoo. That is something what everyone will have issues with, no matter what was reason for doing it.
So if you really don't want to have that photo out, just don't send it. Big deal, there are other photos. From some 200 photos I shoot last night shooting KHL ice hockey match, I have sent less then 30 of them. I guess you make selection too and not give every single photo you took. Selection is photographer's choice (unless you have remote editing and someone else does editing for you), so it's up to you to pick what you send in. For me, it's about good composition, sharpness and stuff like this, for you it's also about some moral stuff (ok I don't send photos where athletes might looks "stupid" either so we all check to send nice photos not stupid ones). Fine. Pick photos you send based on this, and noone will hold this against you. At least noone with at least a bit of common sense.

What if you were hired to cover a National Socialist rally, or a gay pride parade, or the opening of a Mormon temple or a mosque? Take the shots and turn them into the best images you can. It doesn't mean you support or condone whatever it is you're shooting.

Matt_Ferris wrote in post #17289679
Hey all,
I got to shoot my first amateur MMA/Kickboxing event last night.
Going through the photos last night, I have a great shot of a fighter after the break in between rounds. The really bad lighting worked really well to create a dramatic scene of him walking to his corner. I edited the photo and posted it to my FB and instagram only to look at it from a different perspective, and notice he has a rather big swastika tattoo intermingled in a design that wasn't apparent right away to me. I deleted the photo from my personal pages and am not sure exactly what to do with his photos.

I 100% do not support the hate that the swastika represents, but I was hired to cover the event. Do I overlook it as It's not my place since I'm only hired to take the photos? Do I just delete/crop the photos showing his tattoo? And do I even bother to explain my stance to the promotion? I just would not want anything with my name attached to it to be used in any connection to that kind of lifestyle.

Has anyone came across an issue like this?

Thanks for looking and for any advice you may have.
I'd be happy to share it here to give you all a better idea or the image/fighter.

Matt

The Associated Press guidelines set an industry standard. "The content of a photograph must not be altered in Photoshop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by Photoshop or any other editing tool."

Just because you're documenting it doesn't mean you agree with it.

You guys are conflating journalistic standards with professional responsibility to a client. I dont think the photographer serves as a gatekeeper in either circumstance, but the two standards have differences

maybe the tat symbolizes something totally different to the fighter.
Wikipedia:
The swastika (also known as the gammadion cross or cross cramponnée) is a symbol that generally takes the form of an equilateral cross, with its four legs bent at 90 degrees (as a Chinese character: 卐 or 卍). It is considered to be a very sacred and auspicious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

It appears as a decorative element in various cultures since at least the Neolithic, and is mostly known as a symbol in Indian religions, denoting "auspiciousness", adopted as such in pre-WWI-Europe and later, and most notably, by the **** Party and **** Germany. Because of its use in ****sm, in many Western countries the swastika is stigmatized, while it remains commonly used as a religious symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism.

The word swastika derives from the Sanskrit svastika "lucky or auspicious object". The older term gammadion cross derives mainly from its appearance, which is identical to four Greek gamma letters affixed to each other.

All very good points, and really clarifies the issue I was having internally. It was my job to cover the event and that's what I did. I'll turn over the photos to the promoter as was outlined. I just won't display the photos in my portfolio. But the promoter paid for the coverage, and that is what he is entitled to regardless of my personal feelings.

Thank you all for the open dialog with me. Still being pretty new in this game, I have
a lot to learn and really appreciate the help and experience of the photographers on this board.

Matt

ericcrazyman wrote in post #17290600
maybe the tat symbolizes something totally different to the fighter.
Wikipedia:
The swastika (also known as the gammadion cross or cross cramponnée) is a symbol that generally takes the form of an equilateral cross, with its four legs bent at 90 degrees (as a Chinese character: 卐 or 卍). It is considered to be a very sacred and auspicious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

It appears as a decorative element in various cultures since at least the Neolithic, and is mostly known as a symbol in Indian religions, denoting "auspiciousness", adopted as such in pre-WWI-Europe and later, and most notably, by the **** Party and **** Germany. Because of its use in ****sm, in many Western countries the swastika is stigmatized, while it remains commonly used as a religious symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism.

The word swastika derives from the Sanskrit svastika "lucky or auspicious object". The older term gammadion cross derives mainly from its appearance, which is identical to four Greek gamma letters affixed to each other.

Ummm yeah right because MMA fighters are widely known for their expertise is eastern philosophy and accompanying symbolism. I'm sure thats a lot more likely than a skinhead brawler turning pro..