Photographing Police Activity Part II

I had a similar situation to that presented by Marc Todd in his April

9th posting, "Photographing Police Activity". However, my question

has less to do with the legality of taking the actual picture, and

more to do with presenting that picture. Here is my situation:

 

Earlier today, I was wandering the streets with camera in hand (as

always). I came across a crowd of people and, hoping it was an

entertaining busker or something I could get an interesting shot

from, I headed over. When I got into the crowd, I realized a man had

collapsed, and a woman was performing CPR while waiting for emergency

workers to arrive.

 

At first I started walking away, but then I realized I should take

this opportunity (I hate to use that word when it involves someone

elses misfortune, let alone their possible death) to see if I could

put together some decent shots of the scene off the top of my head,

without any time to think about how to do it right. Sortof a trial

by fire.

 

Mostly I decided I wanted shots of the woman peforming CPR. I wanted

my pictures to potray her as the nameless hero she was, coming to the

aid of this unfortunate soul.

 

Now here comes the real question. Commercial use aside, can I post

these pictures in an environment such as Photo.net? Obviously I

don't have a model release for anyone in the pictures. Would

discussing the photographs here be considered editorial? If I ask

people to critique these pictures, can they be counted

as "educational use"?

 

I understand that to get the real answers, I should be talking to a

lawyer, but I am interested in your opinions.

How would posting these particular images differ from the zillions of images of private people going about their business that we see on photo.net on a regular basis?

From what I read about legal issues for photographers, such pics as you desribed would be ok to display. However remember that although you may be in the letter of the law, there is always a possibility of a civil suit being filed if those in the picture could prove malicious intent on your part for displaying or publishing them, or if they could prove the pics caused stress or some other emotional shock. Therefore the book on photography law mentioned here before (I cannot recall the name but I've thumbed through it several times) suggests getting a model relese just to be safe. Of course this isn't always possible in street photography.

What I have noticed is that people occasionaly come up to me for a picture. Once while visiting family in Carson City I walked into a Starbucks for a cup of coffee and two of the cute girls working behind the counter asked for me to take their picture. They first wanted my assurance that I would not put them up on a website or anything like that and I promised I wouldn't. I even gave them my phone number in case they wanted me to send a print. They never called. The same happened at a gas station outside Arizona, again a couple of teens that wanted to ham it up for me and my camera.

Just the other day I made arrangements to photograph a friend of a co-worker of mine who happens to be a stripper. I thought it would be a great time to try to get some macro shots of her as she got ready to do her act. I wanted full framed pictures like just her lips and lipstick, hairbrush in her ect., nothing pornographic. However because the other girls were also getting ready backstage I had to settle for outdoor glamour shots. Plus she made very clear to me that she did not see herself as a stripper uh I mean exotic dancer but as a model so she didn't want anything in the pictures to allude to her job. I think this is the biggest fear people have when facing the front of a camera. They think somehow the picture will be used to harm them. Did you ever wonder why people will crowd around a newscaster and wave into the camera as it's rolling, but a photographer just seems to strike fear into a lot of people?

Cheers,

Marc

<i>Did you ever wonder why people will crowd around a newscaster and wave into the

camera as it's rolling, but a photographer just seems to strike fear into a lot of people?

</i>

<br><br>

Because when they're waving at the newscam. they're in control, presenting what they

want to present. But just a "guy with a camera" might catch who they really are--that's

scary.

Have you guys heard the story of Ron Olshwanger and his St. Louis Post-Dispatch Pulitzer-prize-winning shot for spot news in 1989?

 

He was a volunteer fireman, loved taking pictures of fire scenes. He told me that the only thing he took pictures of was fires. He had a police radio scanner and heard that there was a fire nearby. Zipped over and took some pictures. Had the roll developed (at a Fox Photo kiosk! if I recall correctly) and then called a photo editor at the paper. "I think I might have some stuff..." Photo ran on the front page--heart-wrenching shot of a fireman giving a little kid mouth-to-mouth. Terrible beauty.

 

Not an answer to your question, Mike. But I still think that's a cool story.

Roger, you're exactly right. A newscast is over in a matter of seconds, but a photograph is forever, or almost so. Really though isn't that the heart of street photography? To capture an honest, unguarded moment? I forgot to mention that the exotic dancer I photographed the other day also wanted my assurence that the few pictures I took would not be publicly displayed. As with most leagal matters, is a verbal contract enough? If someone gives you permission to photograph them or to photograph on their property isn't that enough? Why take the chance? I say write down what was said, the date time and place. One thing I've learned after 33 years is this: OK I mean two things:

1) People have short and/or convienent memories.

2) Because of #1, always get it in writing, even if you have to scribble it yourself in your notepad.

Joe, I like the perspective you gave. Photography is a very powerful tool. We all remember the picture of the firefighter carrying the burned baby from the wreakage of the Oaklahoma City bombing. Or how about the picture of the man (later identified I think as a waiter in one of the restaurants) who jumped to his death from the top of the Twin Towers on 9-11? I believe it was Esquire magazine that did an story on that photograph and the photographer that took it. I think that those of us into street photography should say to ourselves at the moment of pressing the shutter "This is how life presents itself". If this statement makes no sense in the second before taking the shot, then why bother? Find something more meaningful to shoot.

Regards,

Marc

Hi Mike,

 

Unlike a gun, you can shoot with a camera and ask later. If

capturing images is a profession to you, to hesitate is to miss an

opportunity (and "opportunity" is not a bad word really).

 

In fact, if a drama is unfolding right before you, and you have a

camera in your hand, shoot it by all means. You're out on the

street anyway. Analyse your conscience later when your film or

your memory card is exhausted. And if you don't feel comfortable

showing it to people, don't.

 

But the time for analysing your conscience happens when you

have the images in the bag. Not before.

 

And that is the reason why most photojournalists always have

their cameras in their hands, always cocked and ready. Why they

don't mind huge lenses. Why they prefer cameras that doesn't

have "sleep mode" where they have to wait a few second before

it "wakes up." Because a moment only happen once. And

capturing it is a "need" above all.

 

If you look at the photos in Yahoo under the news section, you'll

realise that most are pictures of common, nameless folks. I bet

you most of them without consent.

 

So next time you are in such a situation, shoot. You can always

ask later.