Jump to content

When your told not to take photos


Recommended Posts

<p>So last week there was a local street fair run by a church in my neighborhood. As part of the fair there were portable asmusement rides set up for kids. There was a pretty bad accident involving one where a portable rollercosater jumped the track and injured 11 people.<br>

See <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/07/26/2009-07-26_11_hurt_in_bx_ride_snafu.html">http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/07/26/2009-07-26_11_hurt_in_bx_ride_snafu.html</a><br>

I was on the spot with my camera almost as it happened. When I tried to take pictures that I was hoping to sell to newspapers, volunteer workers at the event did everything in their power to stop me from taking pictures. Mind you the police on the scene never tried to stop me, only the volunteer workers. they surronded me and asked me not to take pictures and did everything to block me and my view, Of course I refused but could not win. Within 20 minutes there were a few photographers on the scene that managed to get some photos while they were still fighting with me. Of course they started with everyone with a camera, but I missed getting any shots. Some of the other guys sold photos taken later on to newspapers and TV stations. I had the chance to get photos almost as it was happening compared to the photos that were sold that were taken later.<br /> What do you do?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Personally, I would have walked away.</p>

<p>The last thing the accident victims and their friends and family need to see are more pictures of the accident.</p>

<p>I don't think that photos of this are going to win the photographers a Pulitzer, nor are they likely to make the world a better place. So if it's just the point of wrestling to get a better vantage point to put a few bucks in your pocket, I wouldn't do it.</p>

<p>But that's just me.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>they surronded me and asked me not to take pictures and did everything to block me and my view, Of course I refused but could not win... ...What do you do?</em><br /><em></em><br />What would you think we would do? Knock them over? Point off in to the distance and say, "Look! over there!" and then run around them? Be more agile than you are?</p>

<p>What's the point of your question? What to do next time?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>The photos may make the world a better place. Something in the photograph could be used to help identify what caused the problem (accident reconstruction). It could also help identify victims who may have been injured but not treated on the scene because of priority injuries. Maybe a newspaper wouldn't want them, but there could be other takers that would use them for some good.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have zero interest in taking pictures of disasters, but if I did... I would have pretended to pack up to leave, and taken pictures of onlookers' faces instead. If not possible, I'd have taken pictures of those blocking me. That must have looked pretty tense/strange.</p>

<p>Amazingly, the photog for the daily news managed to get a tragedy pic showing a little leg. There's a PJ genius! :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>What would you do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question. Only one instance have I encountered 'in your face' behavior... given the choice to knock someone down or back away, I backed away. But my instincts would have had me helping in the rescue anyway, and then getting snaps later (point and shoot in the pocket is a great tool).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>We've all got freedoms.<br /> You (and those that blocked your view) have the right not to help the injured. <br /> You have the right to take photos (in a public place).<br /> They have the right to stand in the way of your photography.<br /> They have the right to be wrong by asking you not to take pictures.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"...They have the right to stand in the way of your photography...".....actually, in the United States I doubt if that is true. public property is everybodies property. The use of that public property is everybodies. Stopping a person from free access along and thru that property is not permitted. I know that if a photographer sets up a tripod in NYC, that they can only take up half the width of the sidewalk.....to allow free access along the sidewalk to the rest of the public. I do not see how blocking a person from moving along the sidewalk or street would be allowed with a tripod rule like that in effect. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Although if they allowed you free access but stayed constanly in front of you......that is probably a very gray area.</p>

<p>If they did it to me......I'd walk sideways very quickly to get beyond their reach. A group of people cannot move as fast as one person. And I'd just be shooting the whole time hoping for a clear shot to happen. That is, I'd do that if I were a freelance journalist, or interested in getting into the field. This is what journalists have to deal with. People will always not want their picture taken....or people close to them eiither. But First Amendment allows free press. And they are definitly in the wrong if they initialize force or threaten to initialize force against you. Up to that point, they can block your view. You have to be more cunning then their efforts are. Learn how to shoot effectively over your head would be one way..........side stepping them would be another. Do it fast tho....before they can react.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just to clear up one point - if there was any way to help anyone in need, photography would have become a non issue. there were plenty of police and ems on the scene for the street fair and imediatelt took charge letting no outside person help or touch anyone or thing. <br /> trying to help was not an option.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Taking this a bit broader perhaps but:</p>

<ul>

<li>if someone when I'm out on the street asks me to not shoot their photo I don,t. Respect works both ways</li>

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

</ul>

<p>In this case I wouldn't have shot anything because I'm not a photojournalist and even more important I'm a nurse and with 11 people injured the cops would have wanted help pronto in getting those people seen to.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd have found a way to take the photos regardless of the objections. As long as I wasn't breaking any laws there's no reason to discontinue documenting such an incident. If I'd stopped working on a story every time someone objected to something when I was a reporter I'd never have gotten anything done. You just have to find a way to get the story or photos.</p>

<p>Most people who object to journalists covering these types of events remind me of people who eat hamburgers and bacon but don't want to know how the cows and pigs are slaughtered. Journalism is not always pretty. But a free society wouldn't exist without citizens reporting on what their elected representatives, appointed managers and hired officials are doing.</p>

<p>In the U.S. journalists are not a separate class of citizen with more rights or duties than any other. They're not an elite class, altho' they often represent themselves as such. The internet has blurred the lines between journalists and citizens, and that's a good thing. Ordinary people should take more responsibility for documenting events that affect the public interest.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>When I tried to take pictures that I was hoping to sell to newspapers,</em></p>

<p>So there was an accident and your first thought was to take photos to sell? I understand there were EMTs there, but on the other hand you don't have a God-given right to profit from someone else's misery.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not knowing how tall you are, next time, put your camera up above your head and tilt it down -- you should have some images that auto-focus can handle. (This works at a football game sometimes if you can see into or through a crowd.)</p>

<p>Or simply retreat and use a telephoto lens. You may have to change position a few times, but if you are quick on your feet, your images should be OK.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>> What do you do?

 

Chalk it up to not always getting what you want. There's no perfection in life, sometimes things suck. Are you a pj or a hobbyist?

 

Only you can answer your question as no one here was there...

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've been on the other side of the issue- I was involved in a disaster as a child, where most of my family went to the hospital. There was a photographer there snapping away without offering any help. I have no idea if he was a PJ or just simply a ghoul, but I distinctly remember even at age ten wanting to shove his camera where the sun doesn't shine. Joseph, the issue isn't that there were plenty of EMTs and police available- It's that you're not a PJ.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> It's strange that people focus on the fact that the photographer should have put down his camera and offered help, what about the thugs that tries to stop him exercising his constitutional rights. I find it very strange that they were more worried about someone taking pictures than helping the injured .<br>

Joseph if you have any ambitions towards becoming a press photographer you need to toughen up, you can't go back to the editor and say they didn't want you to take pictures so you didn't take any that just doesn't fly, in my experience the best hard news guys are normally the most ruthless, but if you have no ambitions in that direction frankly I would have walked away. <br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It's strange that people focus on the fact that the photographer should have put down his camera and offered help, what about the thugs that tries to stop him exercising his constitutional rights. I find it very strange that they were more worried about someone taking pictures than helping the injured</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Either they were well trained or told to set up a perimeter by the police so ambulances and paramedics would be able to get in fast. And you call them thugs. If you'd ever been at the site of a big accident you'd know that there are always people around, otherwise ordinary and normal citizens mind you, who will go ape to see close-up what's happening. Normal people that go berserk so they can see a severed limb or a splotch of blood. In such a situation the least of their worries is some photographers rights and rightly so. I wish I could take you on such a ambulance ride so you could experience firsthand how on occasion normal people are quite willing to beat you up because you get in their way while the only thing trying to do is provide professional help.<br>

I'm a professionally trained photographer and I'm a registered nurse but I tell you, in such a situation I'd be quite happy to tell any photographer where he could put his constitutional rights. Never, and I do mean never blame people for getting their priorities right in such a situation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"What do you do"</p>

<p>Well very little now, I guess. These things happen sometimes, even though you are right.</p>

<p>Just a couple of thoughts though. Do you think Photojournalists get sent to cover an event and report back to their editors that they couldn't get any photographs because the people there wouldn't let them? Do you think that PJs have to resort to physical violence to get their pictures- I imagine not? Which leaves the area including persuasion and a bit of deception, which I'm sure comes to some people more easily than others and which gets easier the more you do it; it will also get easier if you have PJ credentials - I'm sure that even a small mob might behave differently to someone who can demonstrate they are doing their job rather, than an amateur acting speculatively or ghoulishly. That said I'm sure there are some amateurs whose manner and bearing would result in them getting pictures. Maybe you're not one of them, and I suspect its a difficult skill to learn if its not in you. I'd guess its not what you do but how you go about it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>not having been there, it isn't easy making a call on this. in general, however, if it's a newsworthy event and a person had a camera with which to document it, i think that's entirely defensible. the knock about not profiting from the suffering of others seems misplaced. those who provided the entertainment that ended so tragically seem to deserve all the credit on that score. as for those who tried to inhibit the taking of photographs: well, rather than being motivated by selfless concern for others, what if they were involved in a massive CYA exercise, where their concerns lay more with liability issues than the suffering of the victims? if a photographer comported himself respectfully, and did not interfere with the emergency crews, and it was in a public place, he had every right to document the scene. perhaps his goal was to sell to the newspaper, so what? it can't be dismissed as simple voyeurism; if there was some legitimate public interest in knowing the facts of what happened in that instance -- and i assume there was -- then taking photos is a responsible and necessary act.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...