Is it okay to destroy your own photographs if ... ?

<p>Do you think it's okay to destroy your own photographs* if people who know of them and who want them -- whether for historic, scientific, anthropological, ethnographic, or simply sentimental reasons; if such people either can't or won't pay what you are asking for the photographs?</p>

<p>What about if they will pay, but you don't want them to have them because, for example, you think the pictures suggest things that you don't agree with? Is it okay to destroy the photographs?</p>

<p>Is 'your' photograph in some cases (or all cases?) not entirely 'yours'?</p>

<p>[*<em>note that I'm <strong>not</strong> talking about photographers who were working for hire when the pictures were made</em>]</p>

<p>As I have always understood it, the photo belongs, legally, to the person holding (not OWNING) the camera when it is shot, unless you were working for hire or some other arrangement were made, which you weren't, and even then it's dodgy sometimes. (That's why the famous academy award "selfie" that Ellen took legally belongs to Jennifer Lawrence! She was holding the camera.)</p>

<p>So, if you took a photo under the circumstances you mention, it belongs to you.</p>

<p>If they can't afford them, tough beans. Don't take their calls until they can.</p>

<p>If you have serious issues with them, destroy them. I think I'd say they were destroyed but not physically destroy/delete them.</p>

>>> Do you think it's okay to destroy your own photographs* if people who know of them and who want

them -- whether for historic, scientific, anthropological, ethnographic, or simply sentimental reasons; if such

people either can't or won't pay what you are asking for the photographs?

 

Huh? You also have the option of simply not selling or giving *your* photographs to a party who may want

them, for money or no money. Being *your* photographs you can also "destroy" them if, desired. I'm assuming you are not speaking about photographs that might be considered evidence of a crime - there may be issues in such situations, especially if subpoenaed.

 

Why do you propose destruction as (apparently) the only option available if you do not want to sell your photographs to

a party that has expressed interest?

<p>I don't think Ms. H. is talking about legalities, but some sort of moral/ethical obligation to preserve pictures one has taken. I don't know, really. I have two I took of my beloved dying in the ICU, and while I don't feel I can show them to anyone, I can't bring myself to delete them. I'm probably going to pass the puzzle on to my kids when I die.</p>

<p>So few people have asked for one of my pictures that I would consider it an honor if they would. No one has ever offered to pay me for them. I would gladly sell them if the price was right and they can do with them what they like. But why would I burn it? Sure, if I've taken a picture that would embarrass me, I wouldn't want it to get out regardless of the situation so then I might destroy it. </p>

<p>Actually I see this happening with personal shots that I would take that doesn't show the subject well. In those cases I wouldn;t show them those shots, but the better ones. But that's just out of courtesy not to offend them. Although I'm not a pro, I would also not show my client the bad shots to protect my reputation. Customers are very funny that way. They all want to look like princes and princesses.</p>

<p>I don't understand why this question is being asked. The photographer can destroy any photos they own. They can do whatever they want except for situations that have legal constraints, e.g., photos used in advertising. There's really nothing to this.</p>

"What about if they will pay, but you don't want them to have them because, for example, you think the pictures suggest

things that you don't agree with? Is it okay to destroy the photographs?"

 

I disagree VERY STRONGLY with the KKK, but I have more than a few photographs of them, and I'd neither sell them to

the KKK or destroy them.

 

Bottom line: they are your photos to whatever you want with them.

 

I suspect you know this Julie, but I am curious as to why you ask.

<p>Julie, I think you are putting too much importance on the viewer or possible viewer and not on your own belief in the worth of a photographer's creation (yours, or another), that is on your own idea of the value of your work. Personally I see no value in allowing others to decide the fate of my work. And if for some reason I decide to destroy a negative, print or file, it is simply my decision.</p>

<p>Ellis, I'm thinking about history and community re photography.</p>

<p>Is history 'someone else's' responsibility? Not your problem? It's your history too.</p>

<p>And are community interests irrelevant to you?</p>

<p>I'll have more to say in the morning. So far I'm kind of surprised at the unanimity (Ellis aside) of the responses (not disappointed, just surprised). Maybe Carol Gilligan was right ...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So far I'm kind of surprised at the unanimity (Ellis aside) of the responses </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Ellis seems to agree with everyone else:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Bottom line: they are your photos to whatever you want with them.</p>

</blockquote>

 

When did my photographs become someone else's concern? This seems like the most full of straw strawman I've seen lately.

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe Carol Gilligan was right ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could fill a thimble (maybe...) with what I know about Carol Gilligan. And all that I do know involves justice based morality and care based morality (the former predominantly male, the latter predominantly female). So I see this thread (started by a female), and I read the responses (male), but excepting the male/female part of the equation, I don't get the Gilligan connection. Not that it matters, because I'm not sure I even know how to respond to the original question. It's as if it's missing some significant context because I just know there's a subtle aspect being missed between what you're asking, and what respondents seem to <em>think</em> you are asking.</p>

<p>I wouldn't destroy a photo I made because I disagree with what someone else thinks it means or says. Actually, I look forward to the different meanings people give it and the different feelings people derive from it. That being said, if someone were to try to use one of my photos as propaganda for a cause I found objectionable, and the only way I had to combat that was by destroying it, sure, I might destroy it.<br>

<br /> Since I don't do much selling of my photos, and even though I do take responsibility for them on many levels, I'm not terribly possessive of them in terms of needing to see them as "mine." Portraits I make I will often refer to as <em>ours</em>, along with the subjects of the photos. And once I put a photo out there on view, I understand I give up a lot of control over how it will be seen and interpreted. That's part of the ball game to me. I think of photos as shared, especially when it comes to ways that don't involve commerce. Since they express and communicate, in important (non-legal) ways they are not the sole property of the maker.<br /> <br /> As usual, it's hard to answer the question generally and I would assess the "OK-ness" of destroying one's own photos based on the particular situation. So, for example, if a photographer took a picture of an important social injustice taking place and then destroyed it because no one offered to pay enough for it, I'd think he was well within his legal rights to do so but I wouldn't think it particularly "OK" to do that. I'd think it mercenary and self serving and would prefer the public good to be considered and the photo not to be destroyed. But there's no general rule that would serve all situations, IMO.</p>

<p>While a lot of great photos express the individual photographer's vision, I also place important photos in a historical context (and sometimes an art historical context). Doing that, for me, works toward fulfilling the potential to make each photo bigger than itself and bigger than the particular individual who created it. A photo can become part of a wider cultural, temporal, or situational story and at some point continuing to describe it as "mine" just doesn't cut it, IMO.</p>

<p>Though not in any legal or commercial sense, of course, the photo of Iwo Jima, the photo of John John saluting JFK's casket, Adams's photos of Yosemite, Weston's pepper are <em>ours</em>. IMO, it would be perfectly legal, but not "OK" for the creator or owner of any of those original photos to destroy them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Though not in any legal or commercial sense, of course, the photo of Iwo Jima, the photo of John John saluting JFK's casket, Adams's photos of Yosemite, Weston's pepper are <em>ours</em>. IMO, it would be perfectly legal, but not "OK" for the creator or owner of any of those original photos to destroy them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The "public" being able to tell an individual that it is "not OK" to do something with that individual's own property is what is called tyranny and has no place in a fair society.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Is 'your' photograph in some cases (or all cases?) not entirely 'yours'?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I took a picture of a crime in progress, a verifiable alien sighting, or anything that might have moral, ethical or humanitarian implications, it might cause me to feel the picture does not entirely belong to me.</p>

<p>When we talk about iconic, culturally significant photographs (significant to huge proportions of that particular culture) such as Iwo Jima, John John saluting, Martin Luther King -- any of the types of photographs Fred mentioned -- there is no tyranny in a public which says it is "not okay" to destroy that photograph. They have no legal power to prevent its destruction, nor should they. But they do have the right to bring <em>moral opinion </em>(or <em>cultural opinion</em> or whatever you want to call it) to bear. And, in Michael's example of a bona fide photograph of the existence of an alien culture there is the humanitarian (in the sense of importance to humanity) aspect to consider. There too, no one can, or should, legally prevent the photographer from destroying the photo. But public opinion can be used as an appeal to what might be considered a greater good. </p>

<p>But, again, I suspect that this is not what Julie was talking about. Or was it?</p>

 

<p>Wherever you are, look around. Or better yet, walk out the door and look around. Do you see any 'history' lying around? Where is it? <em>What</em> is it?</p>

<p>How about looking at yourself. What's your identity? Does it (whatever it is) exist absent some kind of history?</p>

<p>How does that history get made? Who does it? What are their motivations? Why is it one way and not the other? What constitutes the community that sustains, supports, and to a large extent, defines who and what you are?</p>

<p>Do you want a top down history (think pharaohs)? Or do you want a bottom up history (think Pompeii)?</p>

<p>Should you have to pay for your history or is history a common good? How much is 'enough' history? Do you want a thick history, generated locally, full of detail (bottom up); or do you want a thin history, great leaders, wars, dates (top down)?</p>

<p>If a developer who is building a new supermarket or skyscraper turns up historical, archaeological or older remains, in most places, he is required to allow historians of some kind to salvage the site before he continues building. Yet if a historical researcher knows that somebody has a cache of historically significant photographs, he has no right to claim them. Yes, the photographer 'made' the pictures, where dinosaur bones and cave paintings are not relevant today; but the historical content that photographs contain, with which they overflow, was not 'made' by the photographer.</p>

<p>Historians nowadays can survey the undifferentiated landscape of billions of photographs, just as you may survey the undifferentiated physical landscape of the world. Out of that everything (which is therefore nothing meaningful), they will hope to pick the threads of meaning that tell our story. Do you feel any responsibility to help them if you happen to have been the one that recorded some part of one of those threads?</p>

<p>It is a paradox of democracy that equality allows people to withdraw into themselves at the same time that the success of a democracy depends on vibrant local political and social participation -- that will limit the centralization of power. Local people (that's you) know your own story best; you know what is important, true, relevant to your own identity and history. Photography has an important role to play in the<em> common good</em>.</p>

<p>[steve, my thimble of Gilligan knowledge may be even smaller than yours. The gist of it is that men tend to think in terms of <em>rules</em> where women tend to think in terms of <em>care</em>.]</p>

Mostly History is like dust, slowly accumulating., Political, social, and military histories are swept into piles that are

pleasing to the sensibilities of the person wielding the broom.

<p>Ellis...</p>

<p>brilliant... is that yours?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There are city kids who don't know that milk comes out of a cow's tit. One that was covered with s*** till the farmer gave it a two-second swab with disinfectant.</p>

<p>Most communities, large cities and small towns, usually have some group that saves historical photos of their community. Think of all the photos that Google map does as they drive around to photograph their "street" views. </p>

<p>However, I don't think we need another government agency, let' call it the Historical Photo Administration, that will go through millions of photos and decide which photos people have to keep, turn over to the Agency, or dispose of because someone at the agency might decide they don't show the community in a good light. Remember, there's that negative side of disposing what certain groups might not like as soon as you give power to the government to decide what's valuable to keep and what should be disposed of. They use to burn books too. </p>

<p>Paradox of democracy, Julie? No, this is a strength of democracy. I may choose to withdraw to whatever extent suits me. </p>

<p>I do agree with you statement about photography playing an important role in helping society achieve the common good. Hopefully photography's merit will n;to be evaluated entirely on utilitarian grounds.</p>

<p>Alan: "However, I don't think we need another government agency, let' call it the Historical Photo Administration..."</p>

<p>Too late! Already has a name, the national archives:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.archives.gov/citizen-archivist/upload-and-share/">http://www.archives.gov/citizen-archivist/upload-and-share/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<h3>Getting Started</h3>

<p>With digital images and some basic information, it’s easy to get started:</p>

<ol>

<li>Create an account on <a href="http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/exit.html?link=http://www.flickr.com/" rel="gb_page_center[640, 510]">Flickr</a></li>

<li>Upload your images and add basic information</li>

<li>Request to “join” the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/exit.html?link=http://www.flickr.com/groups/citizenarchivist/" rel="gb_page_center[640, 510]">group</a></li>

<li>Request to “add photos” to the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/exit.html?link=http://www.flickr.com/groups/citizenarchivist/" rel="gb_page_center[640, 510]">group</a></li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>Julie, I think your questions are part of a bigger question about what we possess, and what we can do with our possessions. Answers vary by culture and time. Should a person be able to possess, and have free reign over: a piece of land; water that is on or under that land; livestock; pets; a fetus; another person? At a minimum, a person should be able to possess their own body and have control over what they do with it or to it, and they should possess the fruits of their labor. Yet, complete possession and rule over by one person of any of the things I mentioned isn't the current reality.<br>

<br />So when an artist burns his or her paintings, or when Steichen or Weston destroys his negatives, I have no quarrel with that. I understand your question about historically significant photos - what if Zapruder had decided to destroy his film for some reason? There is a down side to recognizing that it was his to do with as he wanted.</p>

<p>People like to collect things. Just check my garage and attic. There's an innate fear that if we throw out something, a part of us goes too. It's a way for our ego to keep our identity whole. Of course as I am getting older, I'm finding the baggage is getting very heavy to drag around any longer. Having recently moved, I still have loads of slides, negatives and pictures that I've been keeping, some for 60 years. It's time to let go. Or at least a lot of it. I haven't looked at most in years. Guess what? I'll be OK without all this stuff. There's a feeling of being clean when you let go of parts of the past. It frees you up to move on. A burden removed. Arguing that keeping my photos for some community posterity is just my ego showing it's fear. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>We often forget that photographers are morally responsible creatures just as non-photographers can be. Whether one uses the descriptors of "care" or "rules" in describing the use of that moral sense, does it really matter? I or another photographer of an image control the what, why and how the image will be made and used. Nobody orders me to make a photo. I do it from my own curiosity or aesthetic or moral or other reasoning and it is a product of how I view what is around me.</p>

<p>It exists only as long as I wish it to or when I am alive to do so. Whether it is a delete button in camera or post exposure or chopping up or burning negatives, of what right is it to impose another's sensitivity or view on me or my products. While there are certainly cases where it may behove the society to attempt to control the destiny of my photographs in view of their possible relation to things of importance to that society, that is a rare happening, and should be so I think. As the creator of the image, I may ponder its possible significance to society and I will debate in my own mind whether the image can serve the society by being promulgated or destroyed. But it is my responsibility and not that of a third party.</p>