Abu Ghraib photo question

[aslan_ivo]

Who owns the copyright to the famous image of the Abu Ghraib

prisoner ("Gilligan") undergoing torture? I think it will go down in

history as one of the most influential photographs of this century,

perhaps comparable to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, but I am

not sure who actually owns the image!

[ellis_vener_photography]

A quick answer is that the person who took the photo likely owns the copyright, but I

seriously doubt that they have registered the copyright with the Library of Congress. At

this point it probably can't be protected by copyright.

[grinder]

The problem would be the photo was taken by U.S. Military personell on U.S. Goverment property in direct violation of the U.C.M.J. so I would assume it is U.S. goverment property and as of 3-4 days ago all those photos where released under a F.O.I.A. request by a federal judge. So I would tend to think it is public domain.

 

,Grinder

[35mmdelux]

Abu Ghraib will go down as an annoyance and footnote when recorded by history. It by no means will have the same impact as Iwo Jima nor the atomic bomb blasts of Japan.

 

Iwo Jima shots impacted the course of a world war. The Abu Ghraib albeit an embarassment to all concerned has changed nothing in this annoying skermish.

 

We lost more men on a weekly basis at times in VietNam than we have in IRAQ in 2 years. That is not to take away from American brave soldiers. Abu Ghraib is nothing.

[aslan_ivo]

Beg to differ. Some images have immense political message, whether you agree with the politics of the message or not is a different matter. The photo of Abu Ghraib, like the photo of the nude little girl running from the napalm bombing in Vietnam, showed a different image of America to the world and the Americans themselves. It nullified the mythic view of America that even Americans had of themselves: the notion that we are somehow better or different than the rest of the Mighty powers that existed in history and eventually disappeared. Add to that with the context, such as the government memos claiming that international law on torture was merely "quaint" etc. and the political impact of that image becomes more clear. The photo itself is a work of art; in fact it is the classic "Christ figure on a pedestal." You can't get more symbolic than that in Western art.

[doris_chan]

"Abu Ghraib is nothing"

 

Paul, you're making the all too common mistake of viewing this from an entirely American

perspective - the significance of the images lies with how they're seen in the rest of the

world. Their iconic nature (alluded to by Aslan) only adds to their power.

These images have played, and continue to play, a powerful role in making the safe map

of the world an ever shrinking place for travelling Americans. From Gaza to the Sulu

Archipelago these pictures have much greater resonance than those of Iwo

Jima.

[aslan_ivo]

Lets also not forget the "man standing before a column of Chinese tanks" image. The Chinese gov't, naturally, spins that image a evidence of the humanity of China's military -- after all, if they were monsters then the tanks would have simply run over the fellow...

[Richard Williams]

Whatever you think of this picture, it's already an iconic image worldwide. See, for example, the reproductions in graffiti art in places as far apart as London and Baghdad:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shock-awe-graffiti.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom4bush.jpg

 

and the main wikipedia discussion:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

[35mmdelux]

Doris,

Point well taken but no American in their right mind condones those fotos. There is in the world already an anti-Americanism without the Abu Ghraib fotos. Does no one in the world stand up against the indiscriminate attacks upon civilians and American beheadings?

 

Is it okay to butcher Americans? Is the only world-wide voice that of the terrorists? Where are the good people of the world now?

 

Before 9/11 Americans were focused on the stock market in one way or another. Most Americans are more concerned with their own families and are not geo-politically savvy. Does no one speak out against the horrific attack on New York?

 

When a people have the moral high ground we will listen. Until then all we see are contradiction, corruption amok, vast inhumanity, dictatorships, and countries that look the other way when they should stand up for what is right. We will fight and we will win.

[doris_chan]

Paul, I've no idea why you're trying to politicize the thread - it's perfectly possible to

discuss the power (or otherwise) of the images without this. However, as you have dragged

us into this territory:

 

"no American in their right mind condones those fotos"

 

Nobody said that they did.

 

"There is in the world already an anti-Americanism without the Abu Ghraib fotos"

 

Of course, but these images increase the level of that anti-Americanism. Any American

who travels internationally will be all to aware of this.

 

"Does no one in the world stand up against the indiscriminate attacks upon civilians and

American beheadings?"

 

Why the rhetoric? There's no shortage of international condemnation of these actions, just

as there's no shortage of condemnation of the worst excesses of the US troops in Iraq.

Additionally, it isn't just Americans who've been beheaded - or do you not care about the

Iraqis, British, or Irish who've been beheaded?

 

"Is it okay to butcher Americans?"

 

Again, why the pointless rhetoric? Of course it's not OK to butcher Americans, just as it's

not OK to butcher innocent Iraqis or anybody else.

 

"Is the only world-wide voice that of the terrorists? Where are the good people of the world

now?"

 

There are many valid voices in the world, just as there are many good people in the world.

The proportion of good people in America is no higher or lower than the proportion in Iraq

or any other country.

 

"Does no one speak out against the horrific attack on New York?"

 

One more time, there was no shortage of international condemnation of the attack on New

York. You would need to be both blind and deaf to imagine otherwise.

 

"When a people have the moral high ground we will listen."

 

No nation has a monopoly on morality.

 

"We will fight and we will win."

 

If by "we" you mean US forces in Iraq, then only time will tell who'll win (although Islamic

insurgents could right now make an equally credible case for "winning"). The only certainty

is that many thousands of innocent people will die along the way.

[h._p.]

One would hope that the people whose country was illegally invaded would eventually win but I suppose that's too much to hope for. As for the importance of the pictures I don't think they have anything like the graphic power of the flag raising or that, even more famous, blow up of Che Guevara.

[aslan_ivo]

Certain images remain with us not just because they have a powerful impact but also because the powers-that-be continue to promote them. Nice, pretty, patriotic flag raisings over Iwo Jima are repeated oh-so many times in Time-Life coffee-table books -- but probably not Abu Ghraib... Our society has a short and selective memory.

[pics]

Aslan I think your description of the Iwo Jima memorial is a little demeaning to say the least. For many of us (including survivors of the conflict itself), the photo and monument has come to symbolize the many thousands of Americans who died while helping to save two continents from the grips of tyranny. Unless you are under the assumption that our actions during WWII were wrong, its more than a pretty little piece of patriotic propaganda I'm afraid. The Abu Garib photo is representative of a small fraction of U.S. soldiers in Iraq who acted irresponsibly and and inappropriately. Thats not to make light of the situation but rather to put it in perspective. Regardless of how one feels about the policies of U.S. leadership I don't think its fair or correct for one deviant group to represent the other 99% of our troops over there who act with good intentions. If the Abu Garib photo doesn't become a lasting symbol of our governments involvement in Iraq it will be because our society realizes it for what it is, not because we have been force-fed rosy colored symbols of the conflict.

[aslan_ivo]

The reference to the Iwo Jima picture as nice & pretty was to its political implications -- it confirms what the powers-that-be would want confirmed: military superiority, heroism, self-sacrifice, patriotism etc. The soldiers certainly were all that -- but the use of the image for political purposes is a different matter. It shouldn't be terribly controversial to state that 1- photographic images are potentially politically powerful, and 2- that the politically powerful seek to create and promote photographic images that suits them.

 

But I am afraid the old "bad apples" characterization of Abu Ghraib photos simply does not wash, but I won't get into the political debate here.

[bill_thorlin]

So much depends on where you are looking from and what your agenda is.

 

The Iwo Jima photos may be of lasting impact in the USA but not so ( or not so much ) in the rest of the world.

 

The Abu Ghraib ones may not have a lasting impact in the USA but will have in a large part of the rest of the world.

 

I think the reasons are obvious !?

 

As regards the behaviour of the armed forces, yes the bad ones are a tiny minority and yes they have to carry the burden of political decisions for better or for worse and mostly do it well ( we have had our problems as well in the UK in this respect ) but and it is a big but, these are supposed to be the best trained and most well disciplined forces around. Such behaviour is bound to have major ramifications especially amongst those that are already antagonistic to the military actions that have been taken.

 

I am sorry but I do have to add that the US is not the only country in the world, it is necessary for some ( repeat "some" ) to remember this and not be so insular in their view of the world and world events.

[h._p.]

" do have to add that the US is not the only country in the world"

 

An interesting piece on BBC Radio 4 this morning explained how the 4 big networks in the US had 'dummed down' the news so much that the attacks on the World Trade Centre came as a complete surprise to most Americans who simply didn't understand how much they're loathed and detested in some parts of the world.

[pics]

I think Bill makes a good point. The Abu Garib photo most likely has more of an impact for those who harbor negative and antagonistic views towards the U.S. and its military. With that in mind it could be said that certain people are trumping this photo up and giving it out of proportional attention for political purposes just like one might trump up heroic images of our military. I think the bottom line is that if you hate the U.S. and its actions then the Garib photos are important to you and if not then perhaps photos of soldiers handing out food and water, U.S. contractors rebuilding the power grid, and Iraqi's turning out to vote, hold more of a deeper meaning. Either way, all of these images are out there for the public to see and to suggest that the "powers that be" are making up our minds for us regarding what constitutes an important image isn't really grounded in reality. Especially considering the polls that show most Americans unhappy with Bush's handling of the war.

 

H. P. , oct 16, 2005; 06:17 a.m.

" do have to add that the US is not the only country in the world"

An interesting piece on BBC Radio 4 this morning explained how the 4 big networks in the US had 'dummed down' the news so much that the attacks on the World Trade Centre came as a complete surprise to most Americans who simply didn't understand how much they're loathed and detested in some parts of the world.

 

The U.S. is loathed and despised by a select group of Islamic fundamentalist who desire a system of government run by their fanatical form of religion. Even knowing this I would have to say that yes it did come as a suprise when someone flies loaded passenger planes into buildings. The rest of the world seems content to receive the billions of dollars we give them in the form of trade and economic aid.

[h._p.]

"The U.S. is loathed and despised by a select group of Islamic fundamentalist who desire a system of government run by their fanatical form of religion."

 

That's not actually true. Many people in many countries dislike America quite considerably. The Trade Centre attacks were just one extreme case. It's the case that America has been generous in the past but that's one of the charges levelled against it: being generous to dictators and right wing organisations seeking to depose legitimately elected governments (as in Nicaragua) is not considered good behaviour by many of the world's citizens.

[craig_gillette]

The Abu Ghraib pictures aren't of the stature that the Iwo Jima pictures, etc., are. The unwashed were chanting "Death to America" before many of you children were born.

 

They rise slightly above the noise level because they are unexpected by some, over-hyped by others. Had the western media given as much attention to the many beheadings, we'd be asking the same thing of them. In other areas, the beheadings reflect a local reality so they aren't of lasting note or interest.