Aftermath of a RTA tonight in Dublin.

AnimalRights

Deemed to be distasteful.
Removed.

red_ice

i usually like your work, but tbh i find this very distasteful.

seanybiker

jesus man thats taking rubbernecking to a new level.

bigeasyeah

Classy

charybdis

This has no merit whatsoever.

kjt

I honestly don't know what to say..... :eek:

AnimalRights

.......

miju

AnimalRights wrote: »

You need to check the sequence and commentary in my pix...



Guy lived anyway....

that man actually happens to be a VERY close family member of mine and to say it's distasteful is an understatement.

Last RTA I was at I also happened to have my camera handy it didnt once enter my head to "slyly back off and take pics" the camera was dropped and I was straight over to help as best I could.

jhegarty

AnimalRights wrote: »

I had to step back a bit and use the zoom so not to rouse the crowd!

Looks like they are all too busy trying to help the injured guy to bother about the person with the camera.

seanybiker

AnimalRights wrote: »

You need to check the sequence and commentary in my pix...



Guy lived anyway....

going by sequence its like the cops and fire brigade fecked off and left me man there. thats hardly right hmmm.

AnimalRights

seanybiker wrote: »

going by sequence its like the cops and fire brigade fecked off and left me man there. thats hardly right hmmm.

You obviously can't count to 5!
Pics were numbered...
1
2
3
4
5

Rb

miju wrote: »

that man actually happens to be a VERY close family member of mine and to say it's distasteful is an understatement.

Last RTA I was at I also happened to have my camera handy it didnt once enter my head to "slyly back off and take pics" the camera was dropped and I was straight over to help as best I could.

Well, in that case you should make him aware of his new-found internet fame

On a more serious note, there's no need for a public lynching of the OP. If you click through to his pix.ie you'll see the guy survived, although I initally thought I was looking at pictures of a fresh corpse (which made it more emotive, understandably). I think putting some sort note in the thread to say he survived might have been more appropriate.

The Sweeper

Thread edited to remove links to pics that remained in quoted posts.

challengemaster

Major over-reaction on behalf of everyone here. Just because it's not flowers or a gig, it's distasteful? Newsflash, some photographers are just RTA photographers. As difficult as it may seem to comprehend for some of the tiny closed minds on boards, different does not mean that it's bad or wrong. Also, you may not realise this, but the laws relating to photography don't only apply when people are fine and walking about. If you're in the public domain, you can have your picture taken.

I can only assume that AR doesn't have any actual first aid training. And tbh, looking at the pics, it's a bloody first aider's nightmare. The very last thing you want is 20 people hovering around someone who's just been in an accident. Especially because there seems to be only one person who's actually doing anything....Adding to the crowd around the person would only make things worse, so imo, AR did the right thing here.

And before anyone asks, yes, I do have first aid training.

AR: Regards the pics, fair play for taking them, but I find the angle a bit awkward. I assume that you couldn't really get closer, though.

ThOnda

I have to agree with CM. There is nothing wrong with capturing pictures of reality. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the pictures, apart from showing how people are not ready or not willing to help in such situations. If only one person would like to get First Aid training after seeing this pictures, it was worth taking the pictures and posting them.

Not to mention that there is the happy ending in the last one.

Pictures were not the best from the visual point of view, but who cares? Information is sometimes more important itself than the means of delivering it.

I do hope that this forum won't become dedicated to family pictures, flower macros and landscapes only because it would not cause discussion. I am literary shocked by the responses here!

Dodgykeeper

Have to say I agree with challengemaster on this one, what is the problem, AR came across a situation and recorded it, he couldnt help the situation in any way, he didnt cause the situation to happen and the guy lived to tell the tale. For a previous poster to say its a close friend and seemingly suggest that this makes it worse is totally nonsense,

AR unless you have been told to take them down by a Photography Mod or Smod or higher get them back up!

AnimalRights

I agree word for word with CM. :eek:
I was just too tired last night after work to explain it as well as he did, actually even if I was 100% awake he is more articulate than me anyway.

About the angles.....we're talking Summerhill here.....you gotta be very careful.


Some of the shots were taken from a fair bit back in my Car while in traffic at traffic lights!!! (which came out the best.)
I ventured out the car once but couldn't see much with so many people and twas raining, there were the crowd you see around him and then dozens more further back, that's a busy area even at that time of night.

The people that gave out in this thread also must have missed my "would you photograph at a funeral" thread!

Dublin_Gunner

Wow, so now pics posted here are going to be filtered in case they are 'distasteful'.

Is it not part and parcel of photography that not everyone is going to like your pics?

Surely, a photographer has the right to pic up and snap what he see's, as a snapshot of that moment in time, and share that moment - whether everyone likes the pics or not? Is that not the essence of photography?

It can't all be blooms and boobs.

This seems a little unfair on the censorship side of things imo

John

I don't think the photos should have been taken down, or at the very least the links should have been left up with a warning to the sensitive (luckily they're in AR's sig so I got to see what the fuss was about). I don't think they're great shots (not up to your usual standard AR but realise the constraints of the situation) but they're life as it happens and art/photography should capture and reflect that.

trishw78

After viewing AR's shots on pixie I see nothing wrong with them as already pointed out they are from a fair distance back. There is nothing overtly graphic about them. Maybe AR should have used the NSFW tags or put a warning in the thread title but I think that would have drawn more attention to the thread.

This topic seems to come up again & again... and there is no right or wrong it comes down to your conscience what would you do.

Keep up the social documentary work.

Howitzer

Thanks for showing the shots - they remind me to be more careful on the bike and in the car. Cheers.
Hope the man is on the mend.

Ricky91t

There's been worse posted on here,Or people over in countries where there are wars laying on the ground bleeding,Though they was a warning about that we knew they were dead you see in these photos that he survived,

Also AR the pics aren't the best they document what happens but i think if you had a lower aperture(assume it was the 70-200 f/4 there's just too much happening in these.

Thats just my opinion

miju

challengemaster wrote: »

If you're in the public domain, you can have your picture taken.

from digitalrights.ie

In short, your subject can object to the publication of photos of them if: The photographs are untrue - they’ve been altered in some way, to show something that isn’t the case; The photographs are interfering with the subject’s commercial endorsement business; The photographs are tortiously violating the subject’s privacy.

Oh and just to clarify I've no prolems with the pic nor does the subject and didnt ask for them to be removed.

smelltheglove

I dont find anything distasteful about the pictures. I believer AR has done a lot better and will continue to do so but I would not have ventured any closer myself if I was there. Having said that I most likely would be offering help, a long time ago I did receive first aid training as a trolley dolley and would remember some.

I would find the crowd gathering around an injured man being more distasteful to be honest, show the man some respect. It is photography and does not need to be removed just because some people see it distatseful. Jeez I foind all these bug pics idstasteful and nobody removes them. The man cannot be clearly identified so there seems to be no harm done in my opinion.

Ricky91t

trishw78 wrote: »

After viewing AR's shots on pixie I see nothing wrong with them as already pointed out they are from a fair distance back. There is nothing overtly graphic about them. Maybe AR should have used the NSFW tags or put a warning in the thread title but I think that would have drawn more attention to the thread.

This topic seems to come up again & again... and there is no right or wrong it comes down to your conscience what would you do.

Keep up the social documentary work.

Have to disagree with that as they are not NSFW they are photos you could easily see on a new site,It shows paramedics stabilising a casualty,Which has survived as we see he has,You could see worse on a news site.

I'm not trying to go against you cause you're the new kid on the block but i see nothing wrong with the photos and i don't see why "Minesajackdaniels" has decided these are inappropriate cause they're totally fine.

eas

miju wrote: »

from digitalrights.ie

The photographs are tortiously violating the subject’s privacy.

if this applied here, we'd have no photographs in our newspapers.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's talking about gross invasion of privacy. ie. behind closed doors, within a private dwelling

trishw78

Ricky91t read the post again I said that those tags would have drawn more attention (not in a good way) also I said that they weren't overtly graphic... I see nothing wrong with them either

Paulw

trishw78 wrote: »

Maybe AR should have used the NSFW tags or put a warning in the thread title but I think that would have drawn more attention to the thread.

Why NSFW? As you said yourself, there's nothing at all graphic in the images.

I think the subject, images and thread should have been left alone.

Paulw

miju wrote: »

from digitalrights.ie

In short, your subject can object to the publication of photos of them if: The photographs are untrue - they’ve been altered in some way, to show something that isn’t the case; The photographs are interfering with the subject’s commercial endorsement business; The photographs are tortiously violating the subject’s privacy.

The images can't be "tortiously violating the subject's privacy" because the subject is in the middle of a public road.

So, your posting of the above is totally out of context, and has nothing to do with the situation.

I think AR should go back and repost his images. They are as deserving to be here as any other images posted. They are newsworthy.

AnimalRights

Ricky I wanted to capture that chaotic scene after an accident to show what was happening etc

Tallon

I dont think the photos are distasteful, and I dont think that everybody should run to someone and help, if theres a few people helping the last thing they need is loads of other people standing around!

When these things happen its horrible, and I can see how familys wouldn't appreciate their photos being circulated. The pictures are on pix.ie, thus I think removing them from here was probably the best thing to do.

I hope the person is ok, and my thoughts go out to his family.

Paulw

Tallon wrote: »

When these things happen its horrible, and I can see how familys wouldn't appreciate their photos being circulated. The pictures are on pix.ie, thus I think removing them from here was probably the best thing to do.

You see these kinds of images frequently in the newspapers, etc. Why can't they be posted here too???

Tallon wrote: »

I hope the person is ok, and my thoughts go out to his family.

If you looked at all the picts o pix.ie, and the descriptions, AR said that the guy got up and was able to walk away.

miju

Paulw wrote: »

So, your posting of the above is totally out of context, and has nothing to do with the situation.

It's actually not the EHCR interpretation of the law is that even in a public place your are potentially entitled to a right to privacy.

The Minister for Justice has also said as much and has indicated this will be re-inforced in the Privacy Bill.

AnCatDubh

From what i've seen of the pictures, they in no way identify the individual to a casual observer. I see them as reportage and from a distance. Local or national media will publish material which has infinitely more significant infringements of the person. In this case I personally fail to see the individuals privacy being infringed on. Its an event. Animalrights was a passer by.

This has opened yet another interesting debate on the photography forum. Please keep the debate fair and balanced.

Thank you.

Dodgykeeper

miju wrote: »

from digitalrights.ie

In short, your subject can object to the publication of photos of them if: The photographs are untrue - they’ve been altered in some way, to show something that isn’t the case; The photographs are interfering with the subject’s commercial endorsement business; The photographs are tortiously violating the subject’s privacy.

Oh and just to clarify I've no prolems with the pic nor does the subject and didnt ask for them to be removed.

Whats with the bolded bit, do you have a point?

DaireQuinlan

Ricky91t wrote: »

I'm not trying to go against you cause you're the new kid on the block but i see nothing wrong with the photos and i don't see why "Minesajackdaniels" has decided these are inappropriate cause they're totally fine.

In fairness, trish never suggested that the pictures be removed, merely that a NSFW tag -might- be appropriate.

Actually I was going to point out that AR was the one who actually removed the pictures off his own bat, but I see we've had a re-mod of the thread to remove links. My opinion for what its worth is that there's nothing unacceptable about the images, they're not particularly great photographs but I appreciate the ... trying conditions ... under which they were taken.

I don't think AR should have removed them in the first place but now we've had mod intervention I'm guessing it'll be non-trivial to add them back in ...

Incidentally, I'd like to know the reason for Minesajackdaniels editing of the thread

-edit- (removed the following: "given that a photography mod had already commented on it. Is it because another mod (miju) was involved ?", was reading the thread back to front while writing this post. Apologies) -edit-

Paulw

miju wrote: »

It's actually not the EHCR interpretation of the law is that even in a public place your are potentially entitled to a right to privacy.

The Minister for Justice has also said as much and has indicated this will be re-inforced in the Privacy Bill.

Currently there is no Privacy Bill, therefore what may come in does not apply.

An EHCR interpretation does not form Irish law, and again, therefore doesn't apply.

Each state has their own privacy laws. France probably has the strictest in Europe. However, while we still live in Ireland, Irish law is the one we have to abide by, so, until Irish law changes, AR is well within his rights to post the images.

CabanSail

I wish I could see them myself, but they are blocked at work.

My opinion is that we should be allowed to show images which fall into the catagory of Photojounalism. From the descriptions I am reading these are in that vein.

Paulw

Miju - from digitalrights.ie

Up to now, the right to privacy has been largely determined by a mixture of Constitutional rights, and ECHR caselaw - the Minister for Justice has previously said that the private interactions of a person - even in a public place - may be covered by the right to privacy - for example, while doing the shopping, or meeting a friend for coffee. But, once the interactions become public - at an awards ceremony, or waving from the podium at the Olympic Games you lose that right to privacy. It may be hoped that the forthcoming Privacy Bill will clear up these issues, but for now, it is generally safe to presume that you can publish your photographs, unless your subject was in a situation where a reasonable person would believe that they’d brought their ‘portable sphere of privacy’ out with them.

I highlighted the last bit, to show that until Irish law changes, it is safe to post the images, since the subject would have no belief that they had a sphere of privacy on the public street.

Trojan911

AnimalRights wrote: »

Ricky I wanted to capture that chaotic scene after an accident to show what was happening etc

I see nothing wrong with these captures. You documented a real life situation. I have done the same with similar traffic incidents. Don't see any issues to be honest.

trishw78

@Paulw The resaon I had suggested the NSFW tags was because some people had found the images distasteful. I know it's a crazy world we live where you can watch the 6.01 news and see dismembered bodies and you can't post images of an accident victim where you can't see much going on. And yes the NSFW tags would have been complete overkill

The Sweeper

Ricky91t wrote: »

I'm not trying to go against you cause you're the new kid on the block but i see nothing wrong with the photos and i don't see why "Minesajackdaniels" has decided these are inappropriate cause they're totally fine.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that, when I came upon this thread in the small hours of the morning your time, it was in repsonse to reported posts. The mods weren't online, the OP had already removed the pictures and links from their original post, but of course people who quoted the OP still had the links in the quotes. The OP can't delete those.

Subsequently, I snipped the links from the quoting posts.

What can I say, you click the report post button, and if your mods aren't online, we come running. It's what we're supposed to do.

I have no personal objection to you lot fighting this out among yourselves and re-posting the pics or the links if that's what you feel is appropriate - it's your forum.

CabanSail

I have now been able to look at the images (cannot work out how WebSense operates) and cannot see why they cannot be posted. They fall directly into Documentary Photography & could be criticised (as in C&C) on those grounds. They also do not appear to be invading anyone's privacy or aim to portray them in an adverse way.

CabanSail

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that, when I came upon this thread in the small hours of the morning your time, it was in repsonse to reported posts. The mods weren't online, the OP had already removed the pictures and links from their original post, but of course people who quoted the OP still had the links in the quotes. The OP can't delete those.

Subsequently, I snipped the links from the quoting posts.

What can I say, you click the report post button, and if your mods aren't online, we come running. It's what we're supposed to do.

I have no personal objection to you lot fighting this out among yourselves and re-posting the pics or the links if that's what you feel is appropriate - it's your forum.

Arrr.... You are from a land downunder! In Victoria it's normally the Police shooting someone that gives a scene like this. :pac:

That sorts a lot of things out.

If AR wants to re-edit his post then the images can return.

Ricky91t

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that, when I came upon this thread in the small hours of the morning your time, it was in repsonse to reported posts. The mods weren't online, the OP had already removed the pictures and links from their original post, but of course people who quoted the OP still had the links in the quotes. The OP can't delete those.

Subsequently, I snipped the links from the quoting posts.

What can I say, you click the report post button, and if your mods aren't online, we come running. It's what we're supposed to do.

I have no personal objection to you lot fighting this out among yourselves and re-posting the pics or the links if that's what you feel is appropriate - it's your forum.

Suppose that's the advantage of having a mod 12 hours ahead :pac:

I assumed you removed them because you also disliked them and found them distasteful

But thanks for clearing it up as to why you did

mehfesto2

From what I can figure the guy had a concussion (he was up and walking around in minutes") and people are complaining it's in poor taste???

I wouldn't recommend that certain people go looking at James Nactwey's work if they find a bloke lying on the ground surrounded by people offensive.

madness.

silverside

the photos (looked at them on pix.ie) "tell a story" and there is nothing gruesome about them at all; Judging by the reaction in some of the posts I was anticipating something much more graphic.

I'm another who feels photography should "tell it like it is", no reason to take these down. Although a note of sympathy / concern in the original post would be nice.

Not great shots technically, but that's not the point.

GhostInTheRuins

This type of photography should definitely be aloud here. Possibly with a warning or something in the thread title so that 'sensitive' people won't get upset.

Paulw

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

This type of photography should definitely be aloud here.

Yep, and the images should also be allowed in here too.

GhostInTheRuins

Paulw wrote: »

Yep, and the images should also be allowed in here too.

Yeah cheers, I thought it looked a bit off

PaulieC

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

This type of photography should definitely be aloud here. Possibly with a warning or something in the thread title so that 'sensitive' people won't get upset.

If people are really that sensitive then they should stay at home and not look at the TV, read, browse internet etc...