Award Stripped from Rodriguez

[photogorilla]

<p>Judges have decided the wolf was likely a trained model.<br>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm">Wildlife photographer stripped of award.</a><br>

Unfortunate for him, but it doesn't diminish what, in my opinion, is still a wonderful photo.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, it is still a great picture, but apparently not a "wildlife" picture exactly. That rustic gate that the wolf is jumping over looks a little fishy on reflection.</p>

<p>Thanks, by the way, for making it clear what the post is about. I wish more people would do that.</p>

<p>Posted earlier at (<a href="../nature-photography-forum/00VYV0?unified_p=1">link</a> )</p>

[photogorilla]

<p>JDM: No problem. Sorry about the additional post; I should have checked the Nature forum before posting.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>I hope the Natural History Museum suffers harshly for this debacle. What would have otherwise been a prize showpiece is being made into an embarassment. They will now have their exhibition with no centerpiece at all. I hope noone cares, and noone attends, and I most especially hope they suffer financially for their bad decision. This is in extremely poor taste, and does much to discredit the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition. Shame, shame on them.</p>

[djcphoto]

<p>How does wishing low attendance on the exhibition help the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition? I think that all the blame should lie at the feet of the photographer, not the Natural History Museum!</p>

[hal_b]

<p>Quite simply: I think they're wrong. I no longer want to help the competition. Stick it to them, I say, if they won't respect an artist and the award they have already given him. That was an amazing picture, and all they have to say is that it "possibly" might be a trained wolf. Based on that, they have taken far too drastic action by slandering the name and honor of this photographer. I certainly wouldn't want to be treated with this kind of disrespect after being selected as the winner of an internationally renowned contest. The Museum, and the Competition, have proven to be disreputable and irresponsible. Better off without these people.</p>

[Ray House]

I read the words "probably" and "likely", so to me I'm still wondering if if the photo is authentic. Until the facts are known for sure (if they ever are) I tend to believe the photographer. I'm hoping for a more factual conclusion. Great photo either way.

[anthony_mann]

<p>I work as a wildlife biologist and get many photos of large mammals just like this one with automatic 'game' cameras that trip and flash when a subject moves by. If this photo was real, the only way it could have been done with a predator such as a wolf is with such a camera system. However, it would still be unfair to enter in a photo contest unless the rules allow it because these types of photos are not really taken by a humans - just setting up a camera and framing it does't count!</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>just setting up a camera and framing it does't count!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And that's probably correct IMO though I hope the rules were unambiguous before the event about what constitutes a valid entry and what doesn't. And in that case you'd have thought that the right time to make this judgment was during the judging process before you've made the competition and those running it look stupid, not after the winner has been announced. Just think, they could have disqualified the entry beforehand without having their reasoning scrutinised at all. If they'd had doubts at that point they could have resolved them simply by not selecting the photograph for a prize or commendation, and they would not have given any reason.</p>

<p>Instead of which there's a chance that they're heaping opprobrium on a photographer unjustly, exposing the competition to ridicule and all but admitting that the contest judges were inadequate to spot the possible problem. Isn't that a lose/lose/lose? And isn't it three strikes and you're out? </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Long ago, I practiced law, and it's been over two decades, but I did it for almost two decades, and from time to time, I still give advice to attorneys on 'this or that' involving litigation matters.<br>

This announcement sounds to my well-trained litigator's ear (eye) like one designed to keep the Natural History Museum away from the possibility of being successfully sued and mulcted for damages for harming the photographer's reputation. It slightly skirts 'defaming' him, or so it seems to me (a jury -- or a judge -- might ultimately have to decide IF there is a lawsuit.)<br>

In fact, I suggest that the withdrawal of the award may have been negotiated or represent an accommodation to the photographer, since no one representing the photographer (or the photographer himself) has so far been heard to comment, and responsible journalists always seek comment. (I once was a journalist, and seeking comment was required, at my worldwide organization that serviced nearly the whole world's newspapers, radio stations and most of the television networks and stations in the USA and abroad.<br>

Not doing so was grounds for reprimand leading to eventual dismissal (and there were almost no other viable grounds for dismissal other than being bribed, stealing a typewrite, 'raping a nun in a cathedral' (as I was told on orientation), or telling a lie in a story or misrepresenting the truth -- the cardinal sins condemned by my organization.)<br>

So, as I view it, the photographer, did not want to be conclusively called a fraud, and was aware of this action, almost certainly either had an attorney or was advised by one, and may even have threatened to sue if he were called a 'fraud' outright, so the Natural History Museum went 'soft' on the wording, 'fudging' it somewhat, even though if called to court they may have had nearly 100% airtight evidence that the guy did something terribly wrong, such as posing the photo with a trained animal. (I have no personal knowledge one way or the other and express no personal opinion on the ultimate fact; this is an opinion' based on a study of bare 'facts' claimed here).<br>

If he did that, and they can prove it in court, then they probably win for stripping him AND calling him a fraud, but what 's the point to calling him a fraud when they can weasel word it a little, call the photo's provenance 'suspect', still strip him of the award, and thus avoid the likelihood of lawsuit (or at least keep him from winning and therefore probably keep him from getting an attorney to represent him in a probably losing battle)?<br>

It may be otherwise, but if I were to place bets, I'd place my bets on my scenario.<br>

Any takers?<br>

For the record, they did weasel word it probably sufficiently that they are not making an express statement, and if it were really something they worried about a lot, they almost surely did negotiate it with the photographer, who has plenty to lose and little to gain from having everything exposed if indeed they had plenty of evidence against him.<br>

In court, really, almost nobody wins unless there's a HUGE amount of money at stake . . . .and that usually happens in civil cases only when one party has a 'litigate everything' policy (Disney, Otis Elevator in my time), if somebody really thinks another party's case stinks highly, or maybe a medical or other license is at stake for payment of even a settlement (cf California in one or more professional licenses), everybody just blunders, or nobody's offering anything for something that should settle if both parties were reasonable.<br>

Civil courts make 'sausage' of justice -- in order to force settlements rather than judgments in which one party will absolutely lose, and probably both will have to pay a trial's worth of attorney fees, associated costs, and use up precious and usually quite scarce court resources.<br>

I suggest that the parties worked it out, and then this 'announcement', even if not 'sanctioned by the photographer' represents some sort of accommodation to him, even if it is not a 'settlement' precisely.<br>

If the photographer held a news conference or issued a statement condemning the action or sued, then I'd have to reconsider a little, based on new info.<br>

Any word of such things?<br>

Other other views from the experienced?<br>

[by the way, 'three strikes you're out' is a hackneyed baseball metaphor that (except for sentencing prisoners who are in some way recidivist basically in CA,) has really no history as a legal concept. It belongs in Cooperstown and ball fields nationwide, not court houses, unless voters instruct otherwise (as they have in California where the huge prisoner load is helping bankrupt the state with legislators too afraid to vote to free any of them ('You're SOFT ON CRIME') and Federal Courts ordering the state to do just that instead, all because of a metaphor being confused for a legal concept.]<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>This image does look too perfect, symmetrically aligned, beautiful old gate uniquely situated between the rock fence, exposure perfect, timing impeccable, subject positioned perfectly in the frame for max impact - all possible of course. The holes in the gate look big enough for the wolf to easily fit through. We may never know.</p>

<p><b>EDIT: Image removed. Please do not post images that you have not taken. Please use a link.</b></p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>What were the actual rules of the competition? Does anybody know? It seems to me the greatest risk here if it's not being sued is that photographers will consider this competition and it's awards to be valueless and irrelevant. Disqualifying an image without proof because they are 'suspicious' seems ridiculous and arbitrary. I suspect this decision will make a hero out of the photographer and clowns out of the judges.</p>

[pmind]

<p>Now that I take a closer look, there is a diagonal line that appears to be matted fur near the neck of the Wolf; the kind of mark you might expect to see had it been on a leash just prior to the photo. Maybe, maybe not; no guaranty, just speculation.</p>

[photogorilla]

<p><a href="http://www.photoradar.com/news/story/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2010-%E2%80%9Cno-captive-animals-allowed">An interview with one of the judges</a> , linked from <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00VYV0">the Nature Forum thread discussing the same subject</a> , seems to answer many questions posed here.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I've read the article linked by Photo Gorilla and its interesting, but I still consider that the incident reflects badly on the judges and the organisers, and on the credibility of the cpmpetition. It doesn't matter whether x000 entries are valid or not; just whether the winners and commendations are. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>There doesn't seem to be anything in that other thread that says what the contest rules were. How do we even know that the contest rules prohibited captive animals, even presuming the animal was captive? And the judges gave us no reason to presume that. I'm reminded of a story Galen Rowell told about how no-one believed his rainbow coming down over the monastery -- they were sure he had photoshopped it up, when actually he just ran like heck to get the monastery in the right place.</p>

<p>I'll say it again, if the judges disallow the prize just because of what they "suspect" then it seems to me they undermine the trust of the public that the contest means anything at all.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The rules are pretty clear. These are the 2010 rules which have been in place for a while (I believe before this story broke). I don't currently have a copy of the 2009 rules, but if I find them I'll post them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Subjects and Ethics</strong> Only pictures of wild animals and plants and landscapes are eligible subjects. Images of domestic animals (cats, dogs, farm animals, etc) and cultivated plants (species or hybrids grown in a cultivated setting) do not count as wildlife. <strong>Pictures of captive animals (animals that do not live a free and wild existence) or involving baiting using live bait are not eligible, and any other baiting must be declared. Pictures of animal models or any other animals being exploited for profit may not be entered. </strong>Images of animals being restrained in any way are only accepted in the One Earth and Wildlife Photojournalism categories when illustrating an issue. The competition asks photographers to put the welfare of animals first and to safeguard their environment and that they do not do anything to injure or distress animals or destroy the environment in their attempt to get the shot. If the Owners or the Judges suspect that a picture was taken using cruel or unethical practices, the entry will be disqualified.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The Natural History Museum (UK) has a statement on its website which reads, in part:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>winning entry of the photographer José Luis Rodríguez. The judging panel was reconvened and concluded that it was likely that the wolf featured in the image was an animal model that can be hired for photographic purposes and, as a result, that the image had been entered<strong> in breach of Rule 10 of the 2009 Competition</strong>. The judging panel looked at a range of evidence and took specialist advice from panel judges who have extensive experience of photographing wildlife including wolves. They also considered the responses to specific questions put to the photographer José Luis Rodriguez.<br>

<strong>The competition rules clearly state that photographs of animal models may not be entered into the competition and that images will be disqualified if they are entered in breach of Rule 10.</strong> Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition rules are available to all entrants including versions translated into several languages.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So there is no doubt about whether the photographer knew that "animal models" were not allowed, and since he still insists that the images are of a wild animal, the point is moot anyway. He's not claiming he didn't know, he's claiming the subject is wild, not an "animal model".</p>

[starvy]

<p>the natural history museum is a long established and wonderful organisation as attested by anyone who visit the place regularly. in this case, the cheek of the photographer is just astounding. in the end, i think he has had a bit of a let off.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>The interview that Photo Gorilla linked specifically says that photographing captives animals was allowed, and only now will it be prohibited in 2010 for the first time. This means that Jose was banned for a different reason, other than photographing a captive animal. As far as I can tell, the idea is that the animal was "baited" to come to that fence and jump. It sounds like, in Jose's point of view, the animal is still very much wild.</p>

<p>There seems to have been some confusion over just how wild an animal has to be to qualify. Apparently, they want really, really wild animals. So next year, don't let the animals see you AT ALL. If the animal sees you and doesn't run away, it will be considered a tame animal, and your photograph will come into question. Especially don't take a picture where the animal makes eye contact with the camera. Be cautious with lights, as it is very suspicious to set up lights outdoors. If your photo is properly metered and exposed, it will certainly be a fake. Don't include any man-made objects in the photo, or the only explanation will be that the animal was baited into position. You've all been warned. Good luck in 2010.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>You can split hairs all you want, but everyone knows the difference between a shot taken in the wild and a shot taken using an "animal model".</p>

<p>Here's the rule for the 2009 competition:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Subjects</strong> Domestic animals (cats, dogs, farm animals, etc) and cultivated plants (species or hybrids grown in a cultivated setting) do not count as wildlife and are not eligible subjects. <strong>You must declare at the time of submitting if a picture has been taken in captivity or conditions that are unnatural (eg if live bait has been used).</strong> Please mark slide mounts with a large C. Details of the subject and location must be provided in the file info. In some cases, the photographer may be asked to sign a statement detailing how and where a picture was taken. If cruel or unethical practices are suspected by the Owners or any of the judges, the entry will be disqualified.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if the image was of an animal model, that should have been declared. However that's not the issue. The photographer claims it wasn't an animal model, in fact it was a totally wild wolf totally uninfluenced by any human (including the photographer who claims he was off in bed sleeping when his automatic camera setup shot the image). So the issue is that he claims it's wild, and the judges don't think it is. Unnatural clearly must include the use of trained animals, as well live baiting. I'm sure all those who entered the competition were well aware of that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If the animal sees you and doesn't run away, it will be considered a tame animal, and your photograph will come into question."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's crap and you know it. "Tame" (and by that I assume you mean habituated) is very, very different from captivity where an individual animal is under the direct control of a human for food and shelter and is in fact "owned" by the human.</p>

<p>And if you still have any doubts about whether it was a setup shot or not, read this <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/01/21/comunicacion/1264065808.html&sl=es&tl=en">article from El Mundo</a>

[oskar_franklin]

<p>It should have been very easy for the photographer to prove his point by showing some photos of the location where the picture was taken. It looks like he couldn't do that...</p>

[photogorilla]

<p>It seems, after sifting through numerous articles, that Rodriguez offers no proof, other than his word, that the wolf is wild. There does seem to be much evidence to the contrary however.</p>

[hal_b]

<blockquote>

<p>That's crap and you know it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, Bob, or course. That whole paragraph was crap. I was being facetious to illustrate the consequences of taking things too far. The contest, in 2009, allowed the photography of captive animals, and all you had to do was admit that you had photographed a captive animal. There would have been NO REASON to lie about this, because an entry would not have been disqualified for it. Now, in 2010, this will be reason for disqualification. No captive animal entries will be allowed at all. They WILL be suspicious of many entries that look staged or too good to be true. I'm serious about the part about using props, though. If there's a gate in the picture, it will likely be disqualified.</p>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Hi All<br>

If you have a look at this link, I think you all might come to agreement.<br>

http://www.suomenluonto.fi/bbcs-nature-photo-competition-judge-admits-winner-photo-investigated-due-to-fraud-allegations#portlet-navigation-tree</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Interesting article, but not definitive. They admit that one has a damaged ear. Their explanation of a fight seems implausible for a "tame" wolf in a tame setting. Who would he fight with? He is after all a valuable resource right? The next step would be to actually call the people who own the wolf they're comparing the photo to and ask them or actually go there and ask if he was rented. At least that would be definitive. But instead they just libel the photographer on the basis of their suspicions (well I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like libel to me). Also, how likely is it that two wolves would have similar coloration. It's not fingerprints right? I see cats all the time that look like mine did -- so close I cannot tell them apart. So how likely is it that two wolves would be very close in coloration? The judges have no idea because they probably just assumed that the chances are nil.</p>

<p>The area with the gate and the spot they had a picture of just looked similar to me as well rather than identical (even without the gate). I still think their evidence is shaky.</p>