When your told not to take photos

<p>Joseph has already clearly stated that the injured were being attended to by police and emergency medical personnel. So these arguments about compassion and woulda-shoulda-coulda are irrelevant to this specific incident.</p>

<p>I was a Navy Hospital Corpsman (1976-'81) with diverse training including emergency medicine. In the past 30 years I've been the first responder on the scene of four horrific vehicle accidents - all when I was off duty and merely driving home. In one of those incidents, just a few years ago, I had to give CPR. And in every case the rest of the well meaning people who stopped to gawk were absolutely useless. I had to tell them to call for help. Most people panic in these situations, especially when they see blood or brains.</p>

<p>And in every case as soon as the official emergency responders arrived they wanted me and everyone else out of the way. At that point there is virtually nothing you can or should do unless specifically asked by the emergency responders.</p>

<p>So Joseph's decision to photograph the event was perfectly valid. There was nothing else appropriate for him to do.</p>

<p>And if you object to his decision to take photos with the goal of selling them to the newspaper, you might as well get a wake up call now. Fewer and fewer newspapers have any staff photographers. Without freelancers, stringers and ordinary citizens who just happen to be on the scene with a camera, these photos wouldn't be taken. And these photos serve a very valid purpose that has absolutely nothing to do with sensationalism and opportunism. These events need to be documented for purposes of accountability.</p>

<p>Instead of criticizing the photographer's motives, I'm surprised that no one has asked what the carnival organizers did or failed to do that led to the accident. Who inspected the rides to ensure they were safe? Who is accountable for this?</p>

<p>Getting immediate documentation is absolutely essential in these cases. I've also been a safety inspector for the federal government and in most cases we arrived on scene hours, days or weeks after an accident depending on how soon we received the report. The scene changes quickly. Evidence is lost, whether due to negligence or outright attempts to hide evidence from investigators. Witness accounts become less credible with time when investigations are delayed.</p>

<p>I can also assure you that you cannot depend on the authorities or government officials to share the full story with the public. They can and will withhold information and will make it as difficult as they can, within legal boundaries, to extract information about what really happened.</p>

<p>That's why we have a free press. And the 1st amendment applies to every U.S. citizen, not just to an elite class of designated journalists.</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm astonished and disappointed by the number of times I have to repeat this same lecture on photo.net. Too many people seem to want the fruits of a free society but don't want to pay the price for it. The fact is it's not always pretty and getting the documentation - facts and photos - has little or nothing to do with hand-wringing or ill conceived notions of compassion. True compassion is not hiding your head in the sand, thinking happy thoughts or saying "poor babies" to victims. That's sympathy and pity. True compassion demands action and part of that action includes accountability. If you prefer to trust the designated officials to handle all the unpleasantness so you don't have to, well... I hope that works out for you. But history shows that designated officials must be held accountable in some way to the people. That's where a free press comes in. And as a citizen of the U.S. you are part of that process.</p>

<p>I sell a photo or get published in a newspaper once or twice a year. I enjoy extending my passion for photography into photojournalism. I wish that more ops would present its self. This was a scene on a public street that authorities had under control and wanted no help or interference with as far as the rescue. Being there as it happened I saw no reason not to document it. When I get published in a newspaper, the money if any is negligible and does not come into the equation. I feel that its a chance to put photography to one of the uses that its designed for - to document an event and share it with others either weather horrific or comical. Newspapers extend that to many. <br /> <br /> <strong>Being there, I was given the distinct impression that the effort was being done to avoid bad publicity</strong>.<br /> <br /> This I feel was completely wrong as it was on a public street and a news worthy event. There were no scenes that were so horrific that it would be an intrusion to anyone involved.<br /> The only photos that surfaced were taken a block away as people were placed into ambulances. A large amount of volunteers were placed into service to prevent photos and videos from being taken. This was a deliberate effort to prevent bad press for the event</p>

 

<p>Lots of talk about whether the photographer has the right or not, whether he should have helped or not, whether people's suffering should be documented or not...these questions have been answered ad infinitum.<br>

Per the description, Joesph had a right to photograph the incident, personally or professionally. He was in a public place. He was stopped by "private" security (volunteers). He attempted to assert his rights (maybe not strongly enough), but failed. His ultimate goal was to sell the images to local news for editorial use. He was exercising his rights; the volunteers were denying him those rights. He lost income because of the volunteers actions. If I were him, I would take the case to court, and sue for lost income and possible damages. If the volunteers had tried to physically stop me or take my equipment, I would have had them arrested. If this happened enough, then incidents like this would wane.<br>

My dos centavos...<br>

Brian</p>

<p>Lex, just to be clear I wasn't compassionate, merely practical because I know both sides. Of course Joseph was in his right to try to shoot but the officials there had every right to get people, photographer or not, out of the way as well. And although my comment wasn't even directed at Steve per se describing those volunteers as thugs I find inappropiate to say the least. That's why I found it necessary to react to that specific comment. People who are in the business of providing professional aid get hindered, threatened and even physically abused more and more while the only reasonable thing you want is getting these morons out of the way. If that means threading on someones legitimate rights, tough. If you perform CPR (your example) the last thing you need is some amateur breathing down your neck and getting in the way, you should know that.<br /> And please, spare me. There is a huge difference between the average amateur (I'm talking in general here Joseph, not directed at you) and a pro PJ. At least the last one as a rule knows how to stay out of the way and still get his shots.</p>

<p>What some here don't understand is that in some cases there are more important things than a constitutional right to take a photo. As a pro you might have a business to be there, as an amateur the first and decent thing to do is to stay out of the way first and foremost.</p>

<p>And besides, what some may not realise is that if you get in the way you might be liable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ton<br>

once again I have to apologise for my poor choice of language, thugs might be too strong a word, but surrounding Joseph and doing everything in their power to stop him taking photographs seems more like damage control for the organisers than compassion and caring for the injured.<br>

This is all about mindset none of us except Joseph were there so we really don't know what happened, I spent years covering stories and events where people didn't want me to, hence I automatically take the photographers side, you I'm guessing have done the same from the other perspective, that's how we see this and without being there we we should really agree to differ. I will say that if you are a dedicated professional doing his job or an opportunistic amateur trying to make a buck your first priority is to be a human being and if you can help save lives or ease suffering that comes before taking pictures, but that's a given. It shouldn't even be a point of discussion .</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><strong>Being there, I was given the distinct impression that the effort was being done to avoid bad publicity</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sounds like more of a photo op than the victims. I'd have quickly talked to somebody else with a camera and arrange a deal where we'd alternate trying to get pictures of the scene, while the other one backed off and took pictures of the volunteers obstructing the photographer.</p>

<p>That seems like a better photo op than taking pictures of the injured.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Ton, you're building strawman objections here. Nowhere in this thread has it been demonstrated that Joseph was interfering in any way. The objections based on hypothetical interference with law enforcement or emergency medical personnel are irrelevant unless someone can show that Joseph was in any way interfering.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"And please, spare me. There is a huge difference between the average amateur (I'm talking in general here Joseph, not directed at you) and a pro PJ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, there is not a "huge" difference. In the U.S. there is no constitutionally defined distinction between a "professional" journalist and any ordinary citizen in the U.S., and I hope there never will be. Certain legalistic distinctions are made at various levels but it's doubtful those distinctions would be upheld in the Supreme Court if anyone cared to put up an effective challenge.</p>

<p>The differences have always been relatively minor and the gap is closing as the entire field of journalism has changed dramatically during the past decade. Newspapers are paring back. Locally our Fort Worth Star-Telegram is a ghost of its former self. In less than two years it has gone from a still viable major daily to little more than an advertising sheet full of press releases. Even a recent feature page that was supposedly dedicated to readers' photos of favorite Fort Worth spots consisted mainly of old photos already in the archives. This is happening everywhere and the future of journalism is the independent person or small group, primarily using electronic publication.</p>

<p>The distinctions traditionally made between journalists and citizens are primarily for the sake of convenience and crowd management. Essentially, we defer to designated journalists as our representatives in the same way we elect politicians to be our representatives. When elected officials fail to represent us we vote them out of office. And when "professional" journalists fail in their duties we replace them directly by doing independent research and blogging or otherwise disseminating information.</p>

<p>Those journalists have been replaced already by independent websites, bloggers and, increasingly, by messaging services such as Twitter. This is a paradigm shift and there is no going back. Traditional print journalism failed to adapt. Wherever citizens perceive an absence of coverage of events that affect their lives, they will fill that gap independently. Whether we like it or not, approve or not, journalism is being done by ordinary citizens and will continue to be done that way.</p>

<p>These untrained citizen journalists will make mistakes. So do the pros. And just as the pros learned from experience to cope, so will citizen journalists. They will face opposition and will learn how to overcome that opposition. Apparently, one hurdle they still face is disabusing people of the notion that journalists are an elite class.</p>

<p>First to Ton, I respect your view as an RN... being torn between two passions is a difficult one and I understand your choice to offer help rather than to document the event. Joseph said NOTHING about being qualified in any way to help at the scene so he is not torn between two passions and to vilify him for taking photographs is just ridiculous. I have a thing about seeing peoples' brains or skeletal structure protruding from their skin, should I be rushing to the aid of the injured even though I would have no idea how to help and there's a distinct possibility I might puke all over the victim?</p>

<p>Second, by documenting a public event, Mr. Leotta IS a photojournalist, whether anyone buys his images or not. He's taking the pictures for the purpose of selling them to a news agency. So, to all of you who are saying things like "if you're not a PJ". By definition, he is. End of story.</p>

<p>Our local Los Angeles ABC affiliate has a program called "See it! Shoot it! Send it!... If you have pictures or video of a breaking news event send it to ABC7 and you might see it on the air [three exclamation points]" I wonder what you all think of that? I think it's brilliant for ABC, not so great for the salaried or freelance PJ who now has to compete with every person with a cell phone camera hoping for their 15 seconds of fame in order to keep his job. It's becoming very competitive out there and Joseph was well within his rights ethically and morally to do (or attempt to do) exactly what he did.</p>

<p>Next time I would suggest insisting that you be allowed to document what you are seeing and if you have to, use evasive techniques to get the shot you want while being very careful not to interfere with rescuers.</p>

<p>To add a little levity here, I think there's a scene in a movie, <em>The Bonfire of the Vanities, </em>(I could be wrong about the movie title, but I read the book, and I think that's it) where a neophyte photographer is sent to get her first assignment photos. She's shy, mouse-like, very timid. Her first assignment for the big paper is to photograph a "perp walk", a short chance at a look of some criminals being escorted from a bus to the courthouse (fictitious incident). </p>

<p>In the drama, there's a whole lot of pushing and shoving. The little girl just about gets trampled. A large mob is trying to photograph these people. People all around are also protesting. Pushing, shoving, pandemonium! </p>

<p>Have a look at the movie and see if she got the photo, if you don't know. </p>

<p>What would we do? Truth is, unless you are there, and it is happening to you, we wouldn't know what we would do. You win some; you lose some; on this one, you came back with no photos. You might be more savvy next time. But, don't let one bad spot bog you down in the future. Proceed with confidence and make your pictures.</p>

<p>Ideally, I'd like to tell you that I'd say, "I'm John O'Keefe-Odom, you @#$%^&*( ! Get out of my way!" Or, maybe turn mister Frowny Face blocker into the subject of, "Frowny Face Tries to Hide Horrible Accident From Public Scrutiny." Yet, truth is, you were there, I wasn't; you did what you did; they did what they did; learn from it; drive on. Keep making photos.</p>

<p>Public property, public place. You have every legal right to take your shots. You might have added the people trying to stop you in the photos that may have added to the photo value. They had no legal right and you could have complained to the police about their obstruction and won. I am sorry but in a situation you were in I would have taken the shots. A photographer is a photographer and if you had the camera take the shot. As you said those who did were rewarded and you taking the shot would have and did have no effect on the rescue efforts or outcome of the incident.</p>

Learn to shoot overhead. Find something to climb. If you know in advance that there's going to be interference bring a

monopod and a remote release to go way overhead. If one approach isn't working try something else.

<br><br>

Realize that most organizations go nuts to avoid bad PR. Don't take it personally, don't let them get away with it.

<br><br>

Get really solid on your local laws. The best spine-stiffener is a well-researched assurance that you're right.

<br><br>

Go back and read Lex's posts again.

<p>I think if you read carefully what I've written there's nowhere were I criticised Joseph for trying to shoot his photos. also as was already pointed out none of us has been there but Joseph. I'm merely trying to point out there is a different side to it as well. It's not all about rights and if so it's applicable to both sides in such a situation. Sure I would make a different choice because I'm in fact able to provide professional help where a lot of people aren't. Nor am I a pro photojournalist. So yes, I'm biased. I didn't say anyone should forget to shoot and provide help. If you're not trained to do that giving help might do more harm than good.</p>

<p>Lex your talking politics and legalities, I'm talking practicalities. As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a citizen journalist least of all in such a situation. There we disagree fundamentally it seems. A crash site needs to be controlled and kept accessible and anyone who doesn't need to be there needs to be removed, it's dictated by common sense rather than your Bill of Rights. A seasoned PJ more often than not relies on his contacts with police to get what he wants, i.e. acces and his photos anyway. At least over here they do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They had no legal right and you could have complained to the police about their obstruction and won.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Joseph said he was on the spot almost as it happened. Although I'm not that familiar with American law I very much doubt James that he would have a case in stating that he was prevented taking his shots. It's a panicky situation at best and uncontrolled to start with. Mistakes happen, there is no case unless there is fysical or material damage.</p>

<p>Let's all not forget that there is a big difference between a pro and an amateur. Sure, you could make a few bucks at best but what's the point? If you don't have to rely on your photography to make a living it's best to stay out of the way.</p>

<p>Steve, no need for any apology. Been there, done that. I know all about poor wording. Besides, as I said it wasn't directed at you as such.</p>

<p>I honestly don't understand why so many of these debates revert so easily to rights, constitutional or otherwise. Sure you may have a right by law but having rights implies also a fair amount of responsability. It's something that's too easily forgotten I think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Realize that most organizations go nuts to avoid bad PR. Don't take it personally, don't let them get away with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Roger, having such an accident is more than enough bad PR . In my experience the firts thing on their mind, luckily, is getting people attended to rather than worrying about PR on such a moment. That's why they do what they do and while on some occasions they may be overzealous your statement is naive, no offense.</p>

<p>at no rime was I anywhere near to interfearing with any authorites or did any authority at any time ask me to move from where i was. I was accross the street and our of the way when I was approached by the local volunteers and asked not to take photos, When I replied they have no right to syop me they =said just try and take photo and we'll just keep blocking you. after ten minutes of fighting with them, i left and tried to find different vantahe points, but were hounded by these people. <br>

it was a pure example of abuse of preceived authority that they didn't have. They story ended up being they lead story on all local television newscasts, even without action shot</p>

<p>Contact the church and express how disappointed you are that "their" volunteers attempted to prevent you from exercising your 1st Amendment rights to take pictures. You have a legitimate right to take pictures and an incident like that is of public interest and concern and is newsworthy. That the workers interfered with you and others and even pursued you off the property and around public streets is particularly upsetting and that they should be as conscious and aware and protective of your 1st Amendment rights as they are of their own to conduct legitmate religious activities without having to worry about people chasing them around and intentionally interfering.</p>

<p>Then move on and don't worry about it. Poo happens.</p>

<p>My issue with Ton's stance stems from his initial post...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In this case I wouldn't have shot anything because I'm not a photojournalist</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is this to suggest that I should not shoot landscapes or portraits because I'm not a landscape or portrait photographer? And what qualifications do I need to qualify as such?</p>

<p>I am not a salaried photojournalist but have shot newsworthy images, some of them quite dramatic and reasonably worthy. I can assure you that if someone would have told me 'where I could put my constitutional rights' as I stood (or laid) on a public street and a friendly conversation did not resolve the misunderstanding, things would not have worked out well for them.</p>

>>> My issue with Ton's stance stems from his initial post...

 

" In this case I wouldn't have shot anything because I'm not a photojournalist"

 

Everybody fashions themselves as a "citizen journalist" today. It's the new in thing - everybody has a camera. Ton's a

great photographer, but very realistic in self-assessment. As am I. I am no more a photojournalist than a plumber (I can replace a faucet).

Even though I shoot at ton of stuff on the street, some very newsworthy.

<p>Joseph has sold photographs to news agencies in the past (one recently, probably from the same fair). Who are we to decide whether or not he's qualified or to deny him the opportunity to pursue his photographic passion? If you could make a little extra money replacing faucets would you do it? I'll warn you though, some might fancy you a plumber.</p>

<p>This is not an attack on Ton, I have a great deal of respect for him as a member of this community. It's simply a debate about our rights, as photographers. In the end, we don't have to agree and it will not deminish my regard.</p>

<p>Joseph, as you surely must have gathered by now this discussion went a bit broader then the exact situation you where in and described. So please, you and all others read the following in that context.</p>

<p>Most of you keep talking about your right to photograph because it's public property. Bear with me, I'll get back to rights in a second.<br /> For all intents and purposes in the most practical of ways a crash site or the site of an accident is no longer public property. Law enforcement will take over control there so first of all ambulances can get in and paramedics can do their work on site and evacuate them after that. Than still the site will still be sealed off to secure forensic evidence. Not at any given time during that period has any member of the public any business there so they are kept out of it. That's exactly how it should be.</p>

<p>Now to rights. As I already said I'm not all clear on US law but let's establish a few things first. Sirens and flashlights on ambulances and police cars also represent rights as does the tape around the site of an accident. Believe me, you don't want to mess with that.<br /> A PJ has a legitimate reason to be there but essentially that doesn't give him any more rights at such a moment. Most rely on having and maintaining good contacts with the police which often will provide enough leeway to get their shots. It's up to them however to get their shots <strong>as long as they stay out of everybody's way.</strong> The ones I know have no difficulty understanding that concept<strong>.</strong> <br /> An amateur photographer has none whatsoever legitimate reason to be there and trying to establish your rights there is the act of a fool. Getting in the way on purpose will indeed lead to them ending up before a judge. Not to have their rights established however but having the book thrown at them.</p>

<p>Some of you seem to look upon the law and the rights based on the law as absolutes. They're not. That's why it's treated and evaluated case by case.<br /> Over here when you get in the way on purpose while having no business there you're liable and will end up in court. The law doesn't recognise "citizen journalists". I can't imagine all that being very different under US law.</p>

<p>Jeff don't worry I don't feel attacked this is a civil and I think important discussion with some opposing views. You misunderstood me however.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can assure you that if someone would have told me 'where I could put my constitutional rights' as I stood (or laid) on a public street and a friendly conversation did not resolve the misunderstanding, things would not have worked out well for them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>there isn't any time on such a moment to have a friendly conversation, that's the point. You (and I mean "you" here metaphorically) shouldn't be there in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people shooting all they want outside of a perimeter as long as they stay out of everybody's way. But you better believe me things often can get real nasty where otherwise reasonable people go totally ape. I've seen it and of course it's a wellknown psychological phenomenon. That simply needs to be controlled.</p>

<p>Lastly, it's not because I'm a nurse but because I'm trying to see some people here that there is also a thing as common sense. Is a few potential bucks a valid reason to behave like a jerk? Because that's how it often ends up. Most people are only there for one single reason, curiosity.<br /> <strong><br /> </strong></p>

<p><strong>"there is no such thing as a citizen journalist"</strong><br>

Yes there is! I can cite you numerous times where police over reacted and started beating someone and a citizen with a camera was there to capture the moment. Or how about when the Twin Towers went down, powerful photographs shot by the "average joe" displayed side-by-side with the photographs shot by the photojournalist. <br>

Here in the Chicago area, this year marked an important annivesary of the worst air disaster to hit the area. The local newspapers retold the story featuring the only photo's of the impending fate of the plane, shot by a citizen at the airport. The first photo is the plane taking off with smoke coming from one of its wings. The second photograph is the plane banking 90 degress before it hit the ground. Again, poweful photographs. The photojournalist can't be everywhere, that's were a citizen journalist can have a big impact.</p>

<p>I don't think I would have bothered to try and get those pictures as I was a newspaper photographer for sometime and have done a few of those unpleasant things. However, if I were working for a paper I would have found a way to get the picture. After I left the paper a drunken woman ran into my house. I initially aided her until the medics got there. She was more drunk than hurt. I went in the house got my camera, stepped in front of the guy doing a picture for the paper and my picture went above the front page fold. After all it was my house. </p>

<p>Ton - your disscusion is missing the mark here. The problem in this case was not with getting access to a area that was sealed off by authorites to conduct a rescue. This was a case of private indivual volunteer workers, taking matters into their own hands to prevent bad publicity. <br /> Of course authorites need to control accident sites and set up a perimeter which photojournalist should stay clear of, no argument there. This is a case where I was across the street from that perimeter. I have stated that the poice had no issues with me. Volunteer church workers surrounded me across the street from the accodent to prevent me from taking pictures. I was was pubic property and the accident was on public property. Indivuals tried to control public property, not cordoned off by the police for the personal reason to prevent bad press.<br /> You said in your first post</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if someone asks me not to take a photo of something out there I'll do it anyway</p>

</blockquote>

<p>thats what this is about, They did not want me to take the photos</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Even though I shoot a ton of stuff on the street" --Brad</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder how he feels about that :)</p>

<p>In the end, I think that Ton and I actually agree but are talking about different situations. I am speaking specifically to the one Joseph referred to while Ton is speaking in general. I don't believe that it's within a person's rights to interfere with a rescue in any way and I think that (in most situations) it is best to heed the direction of those paid to take control of the scene. I say "in most situations" because there are political and other events where over-zealous patrols infringe on our civil liberties but that's different than what we're talking about here.</p>

<p>Common sense is a photographers most valuable asset in the scenario described by Mr. Leotta and from what he has described, he exercised that sense and was bullied by volunteers, not emergency personnel. That bullying may have been a result of adrenalin or it might have been their desire to avoid bad publicity, I don't know and even Joseph seems to be speculating as to their motives. Regardless of their motives, if common sense tells you that you're clear of the scene, outside a parameter, on public property, and in no way interfering with a rescue or police action then you are within your rights to photograph. If you're pushing your way in to take pictures or ignoring the direction of emergency personnel then your an idiot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I honestly don't understand why so many of these debates revert so easily to rights, constitutional or otherwise."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simple. Rights are specific and enumerated. Compassion, sympathy, empathy, pity, are non-specific, subject to interpretation and in many cases not even necessary to accurate documentation of a typical newsworthy incident of the type Joseph described.</p>

<p>The two are not mutually exclusive - documentation and compassion - but compassion is not always helpful or appropriate to solving a specific problem. As a health care professional you would understand this. There are times when compassion is essential. And there are times when one must respond without emotion or any hindrances, such as when engaging in emergency procedures to save a life and there isn't even a split-second to spare for words of empathy.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Is a few potential bucks a valid reason to behave like a jerk? Because that's how it often ends up. Most people are only there for one single reason, curiosity."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, Ton, you are continuing to build strawman objections by repeatedly describing scenarios that did not exist the in the specific situation Joseph described. Unless someone else witnessed the event and can contradict Joseph's story, none of the objections you repeatedly raise, such as interfering with the authorities or emergency medical personnel, behaving like "a jerk", etc., are even relevant here.</p>