When your told not to take photos

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Fred, fortunately in the U.S. journalism is not subject to licensing, permits or government-granted authorization, so, yes, you may indeed become a journalist if you feel so compelled. If there is an issue you feel strongly enough about to investigate, document or report on, then you should do so. Some of the best journalism I've seen has been done by specialists in specific interests. In fact, that's why blogging by independent journalists is so important. Some of the best journalism ever done at any time in history is now being done online.</p>

<p>When I was studying journalism at UTA one of my acquaintances specialized in a very narrowly focused field of environmental issues and published his own newsletter. While he consulted with our journalism adviser he was not a journalism major. One of my mentors who helped get me a job with a local daily was not a college graduate. Other journalists I've known majored in far more useful fields of study than journalism, including English, history, political science and biology. As a field of study, journalism is of rather limited value, akin to a painter spending years studying paintbrushes rather than putting the brushes to good use. You can learn most of what you need to know about journalism in a single semester. Mostly you learn how to write a good lead paragraph and how to avoid libel. The rest is up to a good mentor, adviser or editor.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Our posts seem to be overlapping...</p>

<p>FWIW, I gather than Joseph's goal in posting the original question was to get advice. He didn't specify qualified, expert, experienced or even cordial advice. So his request has generated some interesting responses. If anything the debate here may have served a valid, if unexpected, purpose: this trial by fire may leave him better prepared for the next such encounter.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>I'm not after anything here Fred. I wanted to relay a story about what happen and get some feedback from others if they had similar experiences. I'm not complaining about anything and am enjoying some lively dicussions.<br /> I must admit that I don't understand your comment about us all carring guns. I guss that I'm not that a good of a journalist, I didn'y get that shot, but I fail to understand why you would want to point that out. It was the first thing that I said in the opening post.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I pointed it out only after you gave me a laundry list of your journalism training.</p>

<p>The carrying guns reference is another case where every individual is intent on asserting a supposed right in the constitution. We are all journalists and we are all members of the well-regulated militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment.</p>

<p>In fact, no rights are absolute. We have free speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We have freedom of the press but the press can't interfere with certain other rights. And we have the right to bear arms and the extent to which we've exerted that right is currently killing us . . . as the rest of the world laughs at our need for such a "freedom."</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>Lex - talk about overlapping</p>

<blockquote>

<p> If anything the debate here may have served a valid, if unexpected, purpose: this trial by fire may leave him better prepared for the next such encounter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not only me, but I would also think the same for almost anyone reading this thread</p>

<p>'</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Because I want to be able to continue taking photos in public with relatively little hassle, I wish my fellow photographers would just be a little smart. If we starting asserting journalism every time we want to take a cool shot, if we start asserting our rights to take photos of other people's children whenever it suits us, we are going to ensure that the rest of the population who are not photographers won't take us seriously and our rights will likely be further legally eroded.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>Fred - you just keep missing the points in this discussion and keep bringing up non related issues and critizing people. You out for a Troll?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Fred: "It's a guy with a camera at the site of an accident who was thinking he might get some pics in the paper."<br /> Lex: "Fred, that is, by definition, journalism."</p>

<p>Joseph, I was responding to what I consider to be Lex's too broad definition of journalism. It's part of the conversation here. You are not the only one making conversation. Others are making points which are open to be discussed.</p>

<p>I'm sorry you don't like my opinions but that doesn't make me a troll.</p>

<p>Though I tend to see validity in your position, and started out by sympathizing with your predicament, you keep misstating what Ton has said. He is not after changing any rules or taking away freedoms, but he does see times when it's worth self-regulating. Time and time again, you've interpreted his mention of self-regulation and making certain personal choices not to shoot as making new rules. It's why he's left the forum.</p>

<p>What I've tried to do from the beginning is stake a moderate position, but you haven't once acknowledged that. If you go back to my initial posts here you'll see that I agreed with many of your statements and did empathize with where you were coming from. But the other side had points as well.</p>

<p>The longer the conversation went on, the more hyperbolic and dogmatic each side got, so that each was making extreme arguments, as if this is either a life-or-death experience or a free speech incident.</p>

<p>It is neither. I tried to point that out.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>It looks like this thread has run its course. This was a interesting discussion.<br>

thanks to everyone who took part.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>Foot note - Its very ironic that there is a thred in the No Words Forum called accident showing photos of accidents<br>

I had nothing to do with that one</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I just read this thread and have this to add:<br>

A year ago I was at a swimming pool for one of my children's swimming classes. As it was the last class, I brought my camera to get some shots for the family. During the class 2 of the 3 lifeguards and a group of instructors came in front of me (opposite end of the pool from the class) and proceeded to simulate a drowning accident (something required for the guards to maintain their certification) The guards did their thing and then the "Victim" proceeded to critique their performance.</p>

<p>The first thing she said - "There was a parent in the stands - 10 feet away - with a camera. No one reacted to him or moved to block him." NOTE: I did not take any photos during this exercise. She indicated to the guards that while their first instinct may be to both jump in and save the victim - one should have stayed on shore for "Crowd / Audience" control. And that had this been a real situation and had I taken photos - there could have been numerous legal issues for the city and them.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>Joseph...you had a right to photograph the scene. What you do with the photos is your business. Since you could do nothing to help...and the help that arrived on the scene didn't want or need your help...you have no moral dilema.</p>

<p>They probably didn't want photos because there will be lawsuits. I'm sure the representing lawyers would love to have some shots.</p>

<p>Photojournalists must react to good or bad events with the same effort and dedication. They didn't create or cause the event(s)...they are merely documenting it.</p>

<p>As human beings, most of us would look for an immediate way to offer aid...that goes without saying. Most of us are not trained to offer the proper kind of help...and may actually do more harm. Every situation is different. You have to make an assessment and go from there.</p>

[john_lynch5]

Joseph had every right to take photographs of the accident. On the other hand, the volunteers had every right to ask Joseph not to take photographs. When Joseph asserted his rights, they in turn asserted their right to free assembly in such a way as to block Joseph's ability to take those photographs. As I understand from the posts, there was never any physical restraint of Joseph, therefore what they did was perfectly legal and within their rights. Just because Joseph had the right to take photographs does not mean that people have to get out of his way and allow him free access to take said photographs.

[thomas_paine]

<p>John, that's an interesting argument you have about the volunteers having the right to block Joseph's ability to go somewhere open to the public. Suppose Joseph wanted to go to a public park to take some photos, but the volunteers didn't want him to go there because there was a church play going on. Would the volunteers have the right to block him from going to that public place? <br>

Does one group of people have the right to block another person or persons from going somewhere open to the public, just because the first group doesn't like what they may do there? Can we stop people from going to the public fountain if we don't like what their T-shirt says or the fact that they plan on juggling there? Where is the line drawn, and by whom?</p>

[phule]

<p>[[John, that's an interesting argument]]</p>

<p>If by interesting you mean "absurd and completely wrong" then I agree.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"My guess is, had you been a better "journalist," you would have figured out a way to get the pictures and not be complaining about it in this forum."<br>

<br>

Now there's a thought.</p>

<p>Often than not the goodies are not handed out on a platter, you just have to cobble up your own platter.</p>

 

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>I would have just stood there wringing my hand since Kodachrome was discontinued I'd never get the reds right.</p>

<p>Sounds like a Pentecostal Church to me. Catholics are to boring for anything hotter then bingo.</p>

<p>Since there were no dogs injured, I'm no longer qualified to give first aid.</p>

[edgreene]

<p>Remember unless you can prove your photos will be used editorially, you must obtain model releases from every identifiable person in your shots.<br>

You do know photographing children is a touchy subject-right? Even if one parent said yes, the rest may object?<br>

Were you prepared to ask every parent?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That's incorrect, Ed. There is no requirement to "prove" intent for editorial use. In the U.S. there is no requirement to obtain model releases for such editorial use. So the issue about getting permission from parents is moot.</p>

[edgreene]

<p>Even if yu were correct, misuse of an image likely would subject you to lawsuits by any individual who is identifiable in your shot.<br>

I suggest that my 40 plus years (<em>31 of them as a PJ</em>) as a photographer does not allow you to shoot willy-nilly at crime/accidnent scenes.<br>

What is usually allowed in casual scenes <em>which likley will not appear in or on formal media outlets</em> (<em>people in the background at a beach for example</em>) cannot be exploited for profit or public exploitation at crime or accident scenes. There are cocerns by official media and Police in such circumstances. Names and possible victim IDs are withheld by official sources for good reasons, privacy being one. <br>

One should also be cafeul that their use of any images of people, especially children, at an accident scene (<em><strong>or not</strong></em>) is simply fraught with danger: child porn charges can be leveled if the parent or guadian is suspicious of your motives or even an invasion of privacy. </p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ed, I'm surprised to read such assertions coming from someone who claims to have experience as a photojournalist. Were you working in the U.S.?</p>

<p>Did you read this entire thread before posting? You seem to be responding to issues that have already been addressed.</p>

<p>Also, I'm not sure what you meant by this comment:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...child porn charges can be leveled if the parent or guadian is suspicious of your motives or even an invasion of privacy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> How is that even remotely relevant to this discussion?</p>

[thomas_paine]

<p>Ed, you seem to be confused. If you are in public, and shooting a subject (including children) who has no reasonable expectation of not being seen, then you can photograph. Model releases only come in to play at the time you decide to publish the photographs, and only then if you are wanting to use the photographs commercially. If you are publishing the photos as fine art or editorial, you do not need a model release.</p>

<p>With regard to accident or crime scenes, as long as you are not interfering with the police or medical personnel doing their jobs, the same rules apply. Can you cross police barriers or use flash photography to get a better shot? No, of course not. Can you stand back behind the lines with other onlookers and take pictures of a newsworthy event? If you can see it you can shoot it. Just because officials or others on the scene don't like that you are taking pictures doesn't mean it is against the law.</p>

<p>With regard to publishing accident or crime scene photos, it is an argument of common decency, not legality. If there are identifiable persons in the photo of an accident scene, obviously the decent thing to do would be to at least wait until the family had been notified. And, based on the content of the photo, one would need to weigh the journalistic merit of publishing against the potential affect on the victim and / or victim's family. I am not defending exploitation of tragedy to make a buck.</p>

<p>Similarly, depending on the nature of the crime scene photo, one should ask whether or not publishing the photo could be harmful to an investigation. Publishing photos of a traffic stop, or street arrest, or even police brutality aren't hard to figure out, but publishing photos of a murder scene could jeopardize a case.</p>

<p>Regarding pictures of children, you should stop taking pictures of a child if the parent asks, to not be an ass, but concerns about suspicious parents should not be a reason not to take pictures in the first place (or delete pictures you have already taken). If parents don't want to risk their kids being photographed in a public place, they shouldn't take them to public places. There is no invasion of privacy in a public place.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Did anybody catch David Haas's post in this thread? That was enlightening to say the least.</p>

<p>Can those lifeguards do that? Guess violating someone's rights to free speech is part of their training. Are there any lawyers here who can settle this?</p>

<p>I have to say this thread is probably one of the most interesting I've come across in that not only is the topic discussed thoroughly but a "teach by doing" demonstration on how to debate has been offered up here as well with some very good arguments on both sides.</p>

<p>I get the impression most who have posted here must've taken debate classes in school. Sure wish I did, but didn't think I could keep my Irish dander in check.</p>

<p> </p>

[hughes]

<p>Thomas and Lex<br>

thank you. Sanity is sometimes such a breath of fresh air !<br>

Steve</p>

[thomas_paine]

<p>Tim, assuming the city charges admission to control entry to the pool, the lifeguards in David Haas' post would have the authority to enforce any "No Photography" rule the pool may have as part of the conditions of admission. This would include not allowing the parent to enter with a camera, or asking the parent to leave the premises if a camera was noticed after admission. However, the lifeguards could not take the parent's camera away or force the parent to delete photos.</p>

<p>Regarding the performance critique by the "victim" in the drowning simulation, I think she needs to talk with the city's risk management department. If this were a real incident and a parent took pictures, the real problem would be with the lifeguard who wasn't helping out but instead was trying to enforce a non-existant "No photography of drownings" rule. Keeping the crowd back while the lifeguards tend to a drowning victim? Yes. Spending time on someone who happens to have a camera? Not so much.</p>