Is it okay to destroy your own photographs if ... ?

[craig_gillette]

<p>What if the items aren't photographs? But they have some value (historic, sentimental, etc.) to others than the owner? This "value" is somewhat (OK, completely) vague in the OP, yet the owner desires to be paid., more than is/was offered? Does the owner have the right to destroy the items? Sure. Should he or she? </p>

<p>Should Solomon cut the baby in half?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you legally own something, you own it. Period. You can do what you like with an item that you own.</p>

<p>Since in our western societies we can no longer "own" people (thank God), the Solomon/baby argument doesn't really apply.</p>

<p>Too much thinkin'...</p>

[frode]

<p>I think Julie is talking about conscience and ethics, not law and order. I don't think it will be easy to give a general answer to that. I believe there can be situations where I felt that someone else might have some rights to an image that I made. Maybe the most general answer would be that if you hurt someone by destroying the image, then there might be something to consider...</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Isn't it a little egotistical to think that <em>my</em> photos have to be saved for posterity's and society's sake? Would someone post a link to one of the photos any of us have posted that requires to be "<em>saved</em>"? Isn't this all a little silly?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Julie "...whether for historic, scientific, anthropological, ethnographic, or simply sentimental reasons..."</p>

<p>Anything I deliberately place outside in my trash cans is like jetsam and the finder generally becomes the new owner of the items if they want. If I put a cache of money into the trash however, that's like flotsam because no one intentionally throws good money away, no one in their right mind would intend to throw money into the trash, and that intentional act may earn a person a conservator.</p>

<p>So if you take a printed photograph and throw it into an outside trash bin for collection: your assumption may be that the printed photograph will be destroyed. However once you intentionally throw anything into the outside trash you may no longer be its rightful owner and may have no say in its ultimate disposition.</p>

<p>So when we throw something away, we'll often not want that it ultimately be destroyed. Someone else may be able to use it and we often make an effort to leave something intact as we put it in the trash.</p>

<p>At some point in time the only value most photos have is historic, scientific, anthropological, ethnographic, nostalgic, etc.</p>

<p>I don't think the question is "Should my Windows recycle bin be a port to the national archives."</p>

<p>Do you entirely destroy photographs before throwing them away? Because, photos thrown away just like other trash: if all you're going to do with them is throw them away, can you at least not destroy them before throwing them away? That way, thrown away intact, they can then at least have some vaguely sensed use to <em>someone</em> as historic, scientific, anthropological, ethnographic, nostalgic, etc.? Instead of just destroying them, can you donate some of them while still intact to the national archives?</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Toward the end of his life, <a href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/06/interview-interview-with-brett-weston.html">Brett Weston discussed with interviewer Steve Anchell</a> the complex issues of reprinting another photographer's work (something Weston had much experience with), and his plans to donate a dozen or so of his own negatives to a university - but the negs would first be scratched or otherwise defaced or damaged. The interview was in 1991 and Weston probably did not anticipate sophisticated editing software that could repair such damage and effectively recreate a negative.</p>

<p>Weston's view was nuanced to accommodate other possibilities:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I don’t want students printing my work. Architectural, news, photo-documentary, that’s another matter. It’s a very personal thing. Would you want strangers printing your work?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be inclined to emphasize that certain types of photographic images - notably news and documentary - are effectively in the public domain, even if the photographer or owner retains the copyright and most rights to compensation or benefits accruing to the copyright holder. He or she owns the negative (or digital equivalent) prints, rights to commercial usage and most editorial usage.</p>

<p>But the image - the almost intangible memetic unit of visual communication - has effectively become public domain. The photographer enjoyed certain benefits (admittedly of a type that is difficult to estimate in conventional terms of accounting) due to the memetic nature of the image in the public domain. Certain photographs attain a high level of recognition as iconic images that represent not merely the actual original subject and/or incident, but also concepts. The most widely recognized photo of Che Guevara is an example. It represents the man himself. It represents the concept of that dashing spirit of revolution (however inaccurately and inappropriately). It has also become a visual trope, such that a stylized photograph of anyone who has provoked a bit of a revolution even at a minor level can become <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Che+Guevara&safe=off&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS490US490&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=3JzvU9SAOean8gHt2oDACQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1023&bih=595#q=boxxy+as+Che+Guevara&safe=off&tbm=isch">Che for a day</a>; or for 15 minutes.</p>

<p>We can all think of dozens of photos that have attained an iconic level, due primarily to the memetic force of public recognition, which creates velocity, value and interpretations beyond anything the original photographer, owner or publisher intended or anticipated: McCurry's "Afghan Girl" photo of Sharbat Gula, and the unsettling homage <a href="http://reelfoto.blogspot.com/2011/05/jodi-bieber-and-other-afghan-girl.html">portrait of Bibi Aisha (Aesha Mohammadzai) by Jodi Bieber</a>; Eddie Adams' photo of Nguyen Ngoc Loan publicly executing Nguyen Van Lem; any of the several Marilyn Monroe <a href="http://www.strangeoldepictures.com/content/item/120861.html">skirt scene photos</a> from The Seven Year Itch. Even some fine art photographs beyond the news or documentary genres, even those that don't feature any human presence, may have entered the realm of public domain imagery, in the sense that the public claims a certain common ownership of the image, without regard to the legal status of the copyright.</p>

<p>The photographer or owner may choose to destroy the negatives, prints, digital files and any tangible trace of the photograph, and may attempt to suppress any usage - but in the case of such iconic images the effort is futile. The image - the intangible visual message and its associated memetic baggage - belongs to the public who endowed it with such significance.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.behance.net/gallery/Time-travel/8208445">Flora Borsi's clever time-travel photos</a>, in which she inserts herself as snapshooter into iconic pop culture and news photos, extend the <em>Forrest Gump</em> riff on the notion of public claims on the reinvention of images.</p>

<p>And some photographers might argue that such usage and reinterpretation - authorized or unauthorized - may effectively "destroy" their work anyway. I'd be more inclined to say it's an act of destorying rather than destroying.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>An interesting topic but I'm surprised that the main reason for destroying your photographs or any artwork, for that matter, hasn't really had much of a run. A huge percentage of what we do simply fails our own "quality" standards and in a sense is an embarrassment to our concept of ourselves as an artist, so culling becomes an important tool for expression.</p>

<p>I am very rigorous in making sure that what I think of as substandard examples of my work are effectively destroyed. A friend of mine, a potter used to dump all his second class work at the public garbage tip until one day when he was visiting someone's home he noticed a substantial collection of his work, he now smashes everything in tiny pieces. I'd go as far as suggesting that artists that don't take this kind of control over their work lack integrity.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Alan, "Would someone post a link ... ?" It's kind of hard to link to deleted photos. If I <em>do</em> post a link, you will correctly shout SEE!! IT WASN'T DELETED! <br>

<br>

I can sketch hypotheticals. First, I'm thinking of the most mundane, boring stuff that is of public historical interest. Pictures that have zero artistic appeal of common events with lots of people or which show practices characteristic of a particular place or local activity. Usually worthless as current news or art; often invaluable to historians and archivists.<br>

<br>

Second, amateur pictures that show the participants in what might be taken as an unsavory or unflattering light -- usually made by somebody on the 'inside.' The pinnacle of that kind of picture would be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse">the Abu Ghraib snaps</a>. Take that down a notch or two where it's not criminal, but it's not ... nice ... either. A lot of art photographers make hay out of this kind of borderline taste (see Larry Clark, and many others) but there's not such haymakers in every community ready to record, save and make available the full character, warts and all, of a group's true 'nature.'<br>

<br>

Third, (and therefore strongly disagreeing with Clive's "culling becomes an important tool for expression"), outtakes from either artistic or professional projects with documentary (people, places, events, structures) content. For example, the out-takes from W. Eugene Smith's photo essays would easily be of interest to historians (I believe those <em>are</em> available). Or, a more recent example (just picking one off the top of my head). Larry Sultan made an excellent book, <a href="http://larrysultan.com/gallery/the-valley/"><em>The Valley</em></a>, on the adult film industry (aka porn). I would think that the out-takes from that would be very useful and informative to future historians or writers interested in the how the adult film industry worked in our time.<br>

<br>

Almost the entire picture history of African Americans before and for a time after, emancipation was made by those not interested in or actively hostile to their story. I would guess that many photos of that time were destroyed. <a href="http://usslave.blogspot.com/2011/10/black-bodies-white-science-louis.html">Zealy and Agassiz probably would have destroyed theirs</a>, if they had not already been in reach of the public.</p>

<p>The pictures of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Riis">Jacob Riis</a>, integral to the history of immigrant New York, were almost lost due to neglect: "I [Alexander Alland, Sr.] went to the Museum of the City of New York, the New York Historical Society, the New York Public Library, city and social agencies and finally the Jacob A. Riis Neighborhood Settlement House. I could not find a single Riis photograph; I could find anyone who knew anything about his photography. My search widened. I inquired of the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the George Eastman Museum of Photography. I contacted photo agencies, newspaper morgues, manufacturers of lantern slides. I checked books and magazines devoted to photography during the years from 1880 to 1900. Not one mentioned Riis." Alland contacted relatives, who were not interested ... and only by bulldog persistence turned up various caches of negatives, lantern slides and prints. The rest is history. Riis didn't delete or destroy his material, but his descendants were at first not cooperative.</p>

<p><a href="http://teenie.cmoa.org/">Teenie Harris's</a> negatives were, for a time, in the hands of an unscrupulous person who rifled them for famous/celebrity content and more or less threw the rest away. There was a bit of luck and a legal battle in their recovery.</p>

<p>Lex, Brett Weston only donated a dozen of his hole-punched promised-never-to-be-printed negatives to the ICP after Dianne Nilsen begged, wept, pleaded and otherwise howled in pain while he was actually <em>in the process</em> of burning and/or hosing with water and then dumping crates of negatives into garbage (he had planned to burn them all, but they became concerned about the fumes). At the very last minute, she finally got him to agree to the saved bunch: "With only a few hours left ... we dashed back and went through several thousand remaining negatives" to choose those which survive. I'm not terribly interested in B. Weston's negs being saved (they are not of people, events or structures and only rarely of identifiable places), though I sympathize with the Ms. Nilson who wanted them for future historians of his work.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00clWw"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3885114">Julie H</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 14, 2014; 06:36 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think it's okay to destroy your own photographs...</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Julie: Your OP question had to do with <strong><em>our</em> </strong>photos, not Smith's or the Abu Gharib snaps. I'll ask again. Can you provide a link to one of my photos, or yours, or anyone who posts here whose picture must be kept for posterity sake? I promise not to claim, "See, it wasn't deleted." which I had never intended to claim anyway if any are found. </p>

<p>My point is that even if there are one or two we can find, 99.9% of photos are really only important to us or our families and friends. Frankly, that's what may make them the most valuable of all.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Julie: Your OP question had to do with our photos, ...

 

And the destruction of said photos was conditioned by: if people who know of them and who want them, if

such people either can't or won't pay what you are asking for the photographs.

[AlanKlein]

<p>What's your point?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> What's your point?

 

My point is trying to understand the very specific circumstances Julie had in mind at the top of the thread that would cause a photographer to destroy their photographs; i.e., when another party is interested in their photographs but will not pay, or will not pay the price the photographer is asking.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>I""s 'your' photograph in some cases (or all cases?) not entirely 'yours'?"<br /> <br /> Nice that Julie keeps this forum alive.<br /> <br /> But your photos what else is there to talk about? Is a bogey man going to steal during the night....best hide them under your bed...just in case that bogey man gets them...or, even worse Julie.<br /> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Let us be honest 99.999% of photos will die a death of obscurity. Nobody is interested in your little banal worthless efforts.....that simple to understand.</p>

<p>But you, are a master of photography, a shining light of photograph mastery.</p>

<p>In other words you are enjoying yourself; what else matters? Live the dream.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>When a parrot has been shut up with a crow,<br>

He thinks it a stroke of luck to get out of the cage.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Julie,<br>

There are ways to carry out your notion that everything you photograph might have significance to someone else to silly extremes. Should I keep my mistakes? How about all the duplicates my camera can take all by itself through its programming? What about still lives and studio pieces that shed no light on contemporary living at all? Nudes? Bodies haven't changed all that much over the years. Which photos are which?</p>

<p>It seems to me that you are making yourself very busy by trying to put your mind into someone else's head! Naturally, <strong>ALL</strong> my photographs document a modern narrative historians and social scientists will DIE to get their hands on! ... I'm not so sure about yours... <strong>:-)</strong></p>

<p>On a more serious note, you can put yourself in the place of someone who makes an effort to cull value out of everyday things if you have ever had to liquidate the estate of someone close to you after they have passed away. You have to make decisions about things that are still useful, but that you simply don't need for yourself.</p>

<p>IMO, It's probably best to mind your own business so as to let the historians decide for themselves what is significant and what is not. (They won't pay attention to you for all your concern anyway.)</p>

<p>On the other hand, you have to talk about <em>something</em> over a beer!</p>

 

[dan_south]

<p>Some of my photographs are destroyed the moment that I capture them. Or at least, they should be.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Marx once consigned his earlier manuscripts to the "gnawing criticism of the mice".</p>

<p>Nowadays, we can consign our older work to the "rotting criticism of the data levels on magnetic or optical disks".</p>

<p>Entropy is inevitable, enjoy it.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>So Julie are you asking if ones photographs become or should become part of the public domain because they may have anthropological, cultural and historical significance in a way that a current photographer may not realize and perhaps may have importance after the life of the photographer? If that is what your asking, I wish you would have just asked it because your original question is confusing. So of course there is no "right" answer, however legally, the answer is you can do anything you want with your photos. And if you want to destroy your "history" how can that be anyone's but your choice, unless there are some special circumstances. Are you required to keep every word you've ever written? Some photographers have been concerned with their legacy, but it can only be a self-choice. More importantly, what do you think?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Not only is it OK to destroy them, but I think it may be even arguable that we have a duty to do so. If society puts a very low value on imagery and allows it to be stolen, allows the creator of the image to be exploited, refuses to allow a reasonable value to be put on it, drops the economic rights to exploit the imagery into the hands of corporations, allows it to be used and abused without our permission, then our duty is to make sure that it doesn't fall into that society's hands.<br>

<br />Arguably.</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>Simon: Copyright laws in America protect the photographer and their heirs against theft. However, its monetary value is determined by agreement between the seller and buyer.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>The value of the imagery is determined by the market, in America like everywhere else.</p>

<p>The market is greatly affected by the rights attached to those images. So a weak law that has a policy of allowing corporations to build businesses off the back of those images, for example by allowing excessive 'fair use' provisions in the law, that provides safe harbour provisions that allow images to be spread around the likes of Pinterest and Facebook with no realistic prospect of preventing the use, government policy of opening up further abuse through the likes of orphan works provisions, and a legal system that makes it difficult and costly to bring action to prevent the abuse and enforce the weak rights that do exist, mean that imagery has little value. It only starts to get real value when agglomerated into huge numbers and exploited by corporations, acting legally or illegally (see for example Google image search which stretches 'fair use' to its very limits and probably beyond).</p>

<p>The actual image owner/creator doesn't have many options in the face of this, but one logical approach is simply to stop producing images and/or destroy what has already been produced.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>There's always theft regardless of the industry. Look what's going on in the shoe, watch, and apparel industries with "knock-offs". But what percent of the total use of photography for commercial purposes is due to theft? I'm sure it's very small. </p>

<p>If you're overly concerned that your photos will be stolen, then don't post them or post just small versions. </p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>"But what percent of the total use of photography for commercial purposes is due to theft? I'm sure it's very small."</p>

<p>The overwhelming majority of use of images by people other than the owner is theft - such as the posting of found images on Facebook. Facebook is of course highly commercial - Facebook's or Pinterests business (in Facebook's case, valued at $192 billion, in Pinterest's case, valued at $5 billion) essentially relies to a large extent on facilitating theft and hiding behind safe harbour provisions. But it's hard to say that that kind of use is non-commercial, when it is one of the US economy's biggest businesses. It's just that a share in the business of exploiting the images doesn't make its way back to the person who owns the images.</p>

<p>Of course, with a picture, like with a movie, the end use is always a human being looking at it, (corporations don't have eyes). That can give rise the illusion that that final act of looking is non-commercial ("I'm just a private individual, not a corporation"), which is why people can think that, say, sharing pictures on Facebook is non-commercial use. But it isn't of course non-commercial, any more than sharing a pirated movie is non-commercial. Movies in the end are also like pictures in that they get their value from the end act of the public watching them. Theft is theft, but unfortunately the legal system is only geared up to protect the value of imagery for corporations that are exploiting the value in other people's IP.</p>

<p>I say this not as some left-wing anti-capitalism type, but as someone who believes in a free market and the right and freedom to do business. I just don't like the way that the law - and society - provides barely effective protection for imagery, disincentives for individuals to produce and share their work, and is weighted firmly in favour of secondary exploitation by large corporations and firmly against the creative individual.<br />protection for property and </p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>If you're overly concerned that your photos will be stolen, then don't post them</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />As you say Alan, the only remedy for the individual is not to post work. Or not to take it in the first place. Or to destroy it and make sure it doesn't make it out their into the 'public domain'.</p>