Media Photographers Ethics

CabanSail

Last Friday afternoon I attended the meeting of Exit International that was being held in Dublin. I went along to hear Dr Philip Nitschke (photo below) speak about issues around Voluntary Euthanasia.



I took my Camera as it was quite a controversial meeting and wondered if there was going to be some protests, which could make interesting photo's. It turned out there wasn't any. As I had the camera anyway I thought I would take a few shots. There was an announcement to the media to say that some people who were attending would like their privacy respected & asked the photographers present to not take or use photographs of participants unless their permission was obtained. I respected this request & did not take any shots of the audience at all.

Today I have been shown a photo from that meeting in the Independent which has me and a few others at the meeting clearly identifiable. I know that my permission was not asked & I did not hear of anyone else sitting near me being asked either. I was quite open about being there, but I know a few people who saw me with the camera asked me not to take their photo and I told them I would not do so.

The Credit below the Photograph is given & I will probably send an email and ask why he totally ignored the request given. The meeting was in a private location so as far as I am aware there is not right to take photographs there.
It seems that the Photographer in question is freelance, so the paper would not have been aware of the conditions imposed at the venue.

I think that if we want our rights as Photographers respected then we also have to be responsible & respect when it is not appropriate to take photo's.

Link to the Photo in the Article

AnCatDubh

It would be interesting to hear what the indo / photographer have to say.

I'm guessing privacy would have been presumed as you weren't in a public place but then again if it was a public meeting (was it?) then perhaps they have an 'entitlement' technically to photograph / publish without consent.

sNarah

That's just bad form considering the specific request and the controversial nature of the meeting.

I'd be good to see the reactions of both the Indo and the photographer.

pixbyjohn

"After the public meeting, there was a closed-door session where people were invited to stay on in order to get concrete information as to how to carry out the acts."
According to report in Independent

CabanSail

The meeting was open to the Public but there was an announcement about Photography made. I thought it was reasonable under the circumstances of the meeting that permission be sought to use photographs of the audience.

I have also just realised that the Journalist from the Independent must have been there too, so he must have heard the announcement. This means it's not just the Photographer but also the Paper which is at fault.

CabanSail

pixbyjohn wrote: »

"After the public meeting, there was a closed-door session where people were invited to stay on in order to get concrete information as to how to carry out the acts."
According to report in Independent

Yes there was and I was at both sessions. The "Public Meeting" was open to the Public but was still held on Private Property & there were stipulations placed on Photography.

PCPhoto

Maybe its my being a press photographer - but I cant see the problem,

ok...you were at a meeting, photograph was taken of the guy in question and you happen to be in the background - you knew there were press photographers there and could have approached them and told them you didnt want your photograph taken...or not to use any photographs with you in it.

I know that in a similar situation I probably wouldn't have heard any "announcement" and if I did hear it, would probably have forgotten when it came to sending pics in.

**Penny dropping** have re-read the thread a couple of times - seeing your side now

Maybe you should contact the photographer (I don't know who it was - havent seen the actual photo credit - but can pass on a message if you wish - very high chance I'll know them), I'm not giving any excuses but the photographer probably forgot in the hurry to get images out.

its more than likely a mistake on the photographers part, not a whole lot you can do as far as I know (unless it impacts on your life.... ie. family/friends/ co-workers alienate you because of your beliefs)

I would have gone along to it if I had known it was on - I enjoy talks/discussion groups like this.

Paulw

It was only a request. So, the paper are within their rights to take/use the images.

I see nothing wrong.

Your permission isn't needed for the images to be used for editorial purposes, and the meeting would be an issue considered very media worthy.

DaireQuinlan

Yeah I'd say it's pretty bad form, unless the photographer had permission to take the one shot or something. Were there people sitting near you who had requested not to have their picture taken ? Were you sitting in a media section or something similar ? I'd withhold judgement until I heard from the parties involved. That said, the indo has really really gone downhill even over the last few years. It's rapidly approaching the bar set by its sunday sibling.

DaireQuinlan

Paulw wrote: »

It was only a request. So, the paper are within their rights to take/use the images.

I see nothing wrong.

Your permission isn't needed for the images to be used for editorial purposes, and the meeting would be an issue considered very media worthy.

I don't think there's any question about them being within their rights in a legal sense.

CabanSail

Personally I do not have a problem with being identifed as being there. The point I am making is that the announcement was VERY clear & there were reasons given why the restrictions were being put on Photography. I cannot believe that any of the Photographers there missed the announcement & you would really have the have the attention span of a Goldfish to forget it so easily.

There was no Media Section as it was really quite a small room. The TV guys seemed to respect the restrictions and I did not see them do any shooting of the crowd. None of the others in the shot asked me not to shoot them but I can also see why people would feel that they did not need to do so as the announcement was so clear that one would feel there was no need.

PCPhoto

I know Damien well...he's a well respected photographer, my guess is that this is simply an error - at a guess he simply forgot about the request not to photo the audience and in his haste to get out a pic he probably just picked 2/3 different style of images for the desk to choose from.

I would like to apologise on his behalf and will drop him a text in the morning telling him about this thread. (I dont know if he's on Boards or not)

CabanSail

I have sent him an email too.

Now I am sure what you say about haste & making a mistake is probably correct. I am also one to question when there is a ban on Photography for ridiculous reasons. It's just that in this case the reason was, in my opinion, well justified. I was quite surprised to see that image in print.

FoxT

On initial reading it looks like very inconsiderate behaviour by the photographer - Even if technically legal, but as PCphoto says there may be an explanation. Awaiting developments with interest...

smelltheglove

I didnt know he was coming to Ireland, I heard he had trouble getting through British gates and was held for questioning. I bet it was an interesting day for you Cabain.

In respect of the photographers behaviour, surely it would have been an error, hopefully anyway. I have a brain like a sieve and would easily have made that mistake, one reason why I would never be suited to press photography at all. I look forward to hearing of developments but in this case I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

CabanSail

I have had a reply from Damien. He admits he heard the announcement made but due to rushing on to another job he just submitted a selection of shots. This was a mistake on his part & has apologised. Fair play to him for replying & admitting to making a mistake.

I have been told today a similar photo also appeared in the Irish Times. It's amazing how many people saw that I was at that meeting.

humberklog

That's two smart souvenirs to be bringing back to Aus caban.

magicbastarder

Paulw wrote: »

It was only a request. So, the paper are within their rights to take/use the images.

somewhat of an aside - considering that it was taken on private ground, and the photographers had been asked not to take certain photos, are there any situations in which a subject would have legal comeback for a photograph they were featured in which violated the request?

magicbastarder

i was at a talk once given by breda o'brien after she won the press photographer of the year award, a few years ago. she claimed the IT had a policy of not using photos of funerals where mourners were readily identifiable - only wide shots if at all. i've seen at least one instance of them breaking their self-imposed rule.