| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2005 08:56:25 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
... but there is a matter of measured discretion one should exercise when in possession of a camera. The officer went beyond his legal boundaries in this case, but did he go beyond his moral duty? The photographer should have had the sense and the decency not to photograph the injured man if indeed that is what he did. Take pictures of the helicopter, the crushed up van or the paramedics, but have some respect. |
You're kidding me, right? I don't care if he was taking pictures of a naked guy that just got ran over by an 18-wheeler. The fact of the matter was, moral or immoral it doesn't matter. He had every right to be there and take pictures and the cop stepped over the boundaries, legally, and forced the law-abiding citizen to do something he had no right to use his power to do.
I think the police department should be sued for a million dollars. That will send a message those ignorant cops can understand! |
No, I'm not kidding you. I still think it is an awful lack of respect and something that gives a bad name to all photographers when some one acts in the manner that this photographer did. The police already have a bad name. What are we doing to police our own? What influence or peer pressure can we put on our fellow photographers to keep them from acting in such a way? The guy who did this is in the illustrious ranks of photographers who stalk celebrities with cheap tele-photos.
And what are any of you doing about this terrible injustice done to one of our own? Many of you talk the talk. Has anyone here bothered to contact the paper that wrote the article or called or written the Union County Sheriff’s office or is this all just lip service?
reporter Don Fasnacht at (765) 973-4483 or dfasnacht@pal-item.com.
Union County - Liberty, Sheriff Department
106 East Union Street, Liberty, IN 47353
(765) 458-5194
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 08:58:06.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:36:50 AM · #27 |
While the officer did something that many of us who work in the emergency response field would like to do, he was about 6 steps out of line. I think the officer was probably on an adrenalin rush and lost his temper. Which I can totally empathize with as it's something I've done while on calls as an EMT. There can be nothing more anger provoking than a photojournalist taking shots of a scene you are working.
He has no legal standing to order the shots deleted, and it sounds like the photographer has very good cause to press assault charges. I'd sure as heck feel intimidated and in fear if a cop was in my face demanding my camera.
The cop may also get nailed for destruction of property. (deleting the photos)
If anything, it's incidents like this that give law enforcement officers a bad name. It sounds like both sides probably lost their temper.
Clara
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 09:42:48 AM · #28 |
In New York City, I heard of many photographers being stopped and asked to erase their photos of "soft targets". What are soft targets? Anything that can be targeted by terorists (i.e. the empire state building, grand central station, statue of liberty, your own house :), etc). Same crap different angle.
The police need to be told of their limits. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:05:18 AM · #29 |
I don't see what the big deal is over having photos taken of an accident scene. We don't get in this kind of argument about pictures of dead Tsunami victims from some 3rd world country, images of the results of a suicide bomber attack in the Middle East, images of dead contractors hanging from a bridge in Iraq, images of people leaping from the WTC, images from a commuter train derailment, etc. Do you think the relatives of those victims feel any different about pictures of their loved one's pain and suffering being shared with the world?
Certainly images of injury and death have a huge emotional impact (unless you are somehow numb to it), but that does not mean those events should be somehow sacrosanct and the rights of the press suspended. As long as the press doesn't interfere, like it or not, they have a right and a duty to record such things.
Personally, if the injured victim was my loved one and I were there, my focus would be on them and the absolute LAST thing on my mind would be the activities of the press on the scene. If seeing the shattered body of my loved one will make someone else cherish theirs a bit more, while it won't lessen my pain, it will serve the greater good, and I'm OK with that.
I think such images remind us that we're human and that our lives ARE fragile, that our time in this world may come to an end suddenly and every moment should be cherished and not wasted.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:07:53 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by eugene:
In New York City, I heard of many photographers being stopped and asked to erase their photos of "soft targets". What are soft targets? Anything that can be targeted by terorists (i.e. the empire state building, grand central station, statue of liberty, your own house :), etc). Same crap different angle.
The police need to be told of their limits. |
They do the same thing in Dallas too, only it seems to be on a completely arbitrary basis.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:21:39 AM · #31 |
Correct me if I am wrong, but was there not a thread the other day about one of our members (and I have no idea who), who was in the photographer's position in a situation similar to this. His specific question (I think) was if he was not a member of the press, should he take pictures? I seem to remember that most who responded to him said he should, if he wanted to.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:28:02 AM · #32 |
Did the photographer have the bloody man sign a release? lol
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 10:28:55. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:36:17 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Did the photographer have the bloody man sign a release? lol |
While I'm sure this is just an attempt to inject some levity into the conversation...I'm sure that would have gone over oh so well at the scene.
As a reminder, you are not obligated to secure a release for a news/editorial image. I'm mentioning this because I *know* someone out there is reading this and asking, "do I really need a release for this kind of image?" No, you do not so long as it will not be used in a commercial application. A newspaper article does not count as commercial.
Clara
(edited to add the commercial application bit. )
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 10:39:37.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:44:21 AM · #34 |
| This would seem to be a pretty obvious First amendment issue, at least in the US. You have rights to take pictures such as this. The government and by extension, the police, don't have the rights to stop you doing it. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:49:11 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
... if that was my brother mangled up on the ground there and some photographer came up and started snapping away, journalist or not and knowing well that I would be legally in the wrong and would probably have to pay the consequences, that old boy would be leaving in the next ambulance if he began shooting after I asked him not to. ... |
nsbca7, the attitude that you are showing in this thread, as illustrated by the quote I selected, is counterproductive to the cause of photographers being able to exercise their rights. You are making the same mistake as the cop did when he acted like a "pig". You are substituting your own personal interpretation of the situation, your own moral code if you will, for the rule of law. And you are applying your interpretation in an emotionally charged manner.
Discussion within the community of photographers on this important issue is healthy. And we certainly have the right to speak up and criticise when we feel that one of our own has crossed the line. But sooner or latter there are going to be court decisions that define our rights and we will have to live within them. The community of photographers will not be allowed to use only internal guidance as to where to draw the line. It's foolish to even suggest that course as desirable. Self regulation never works where interests are at odds.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:53:11 AM · #36 |
If you are concerned about your rights, there is quite a lot of info out there.
//www.krages.com/phoright.htm for the US side, with links to a UK equivalent too. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 10:53:21 AM · #37 |
In most states their are laws distingushing between photographers and accredited photojournalists. If you don't have a valid press pass, you must do as the police and/or firemen tell you at an accident/crime scene or you can be arrested for failure to obey a police officer, (usually a misdemeanor), and can be convicted even if you can prove the police were wrong when they told you to stop.
The reason for this is not so the accredited pj's can make money over their competition, but most pj's have training and try to stay out of the way of emergency personnel. The police also know that you have a legitmate reason to be there.
Most editors will tell you that victims should be left out of most photos unless they are vital to the scene. The difference between war/disaster shots, and local accidents is bodies are sometimes needed t for people to understand the widespread devastion invloved in a war or natural disaster. A local accident does not and there are far more effective ways to show the effects of an accident. Most reputable publications will not run victim photos of accidents unless it is very dramatic.
Last thing is if you look at my portfolio I have a photo of a funeral taking place. I was assigned this job by a paper and have received permission of the family to use it . I felt like a ghoul during the funeral and tried to stay out of the way as much as possible, but I was still cornered by one of the marines in attendance and was threatened. One of the victims relatives saw this and saved me form having my equipment smashed.
Bottom line is, use common sense, try to be respectful and obey the law or you can arrested or hurt. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:05:29 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by rlinn3:
In most states their are laws distingushing between photographers and accredited photojournalists. If you don't have a valid press pass, you must do as the police and/or firemen tell you at an accident/crime scene or you can be arrested for failure to obey a police officer, (usually a misdemeanor), and can be convicted even if you can prove the police were wrong when they told you to stop.
The reason for this is not so the accredited pj's can make money over their competition, but most pj's have training and try to stay out of the way of emergency personnel. The police also know that you have a legitmate reason to be there.
Most editors will tell you that victims should be left out of most photos unless they are vital to the scene. The difference between war/disaster shots, and local accidents is bodies are sometimes needed t for people to understand the widespread devastion invloved in a war or natural disaster. A local accident does not and there are far more effective ways to show the effects of an accident. Most reputable publications will not run victim photos of accidents unless it is very dramatic.
Last thing is if you look at my portfolio I have a photo of a funeral taking place. I was assigned this job by a paper and have received permission of the family to use it . I felt like a ghoul during the funeral and tried to stay out of the way as much as possible, but I was still cornered by one of the marines in attendance and was threatened. One of the victims relatives saw this and saved me form having my equipment smashed.
Bottom line is, use common sense, try to be respectful and obey the law or you can arrested or hurt. |
Are you trying to tell us that an accredited photojournalists has more first amendment rights then a freelance photographer? This seems a bit far fetch as do a police officer’s authority to give Commands at his own discretion. He is allowed to keep you from interfering with a police situation but there is not a court in the USA that would deem simply taking photographs as interfering. The police enforce the laws, fortunately one of those law is not that we must do what ever they ask.
Message edited by author 2005-02-03 11:18:45. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:10:32 AM · #39 |
Nothing in that article really indicated that he was photographing the injured man. The scene of a horrific car accident can be graphic in and of itself, and perhaps that is the only thing that he photographed.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:36:44 AM · #40 |
I am not suggesting an accredited pj has more first amendment rights, and would never suggest this. I am saying most states have laws regarding who has access to certain public areas when emergency personnel have ruled them off limits to the public due to an emergency.
In know this becuase I have been convicted for faliure to obey a police officer when all I was doing was taking photos. the law I was convicted of was "failing to obey a police officer". The jury was instructed to not take into account whether the police officer was right or wrong because I was being charged for failing to take his order only. Please don't think it can't happen to you, because this is what I thought at one time. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:40:17 AM · #41 |
| Scott, nice work in your portfolio by the way. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:51:37 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by rlinn3:
I am not suggesting an accredited pj has more first amendment rights, and would never suggest this. I am saying most states have laws regarding who has access to certain public areas when emergency personnel have ruled them off limits to the public due to an emergency.
In know this becuase I have been convicted for faliure to obey a police officer when all I was doing was taking photos. the law I was convicted of was "failing to obey a police officer". The jury was instructed to not take into account whether the police officer was right or wrong because I was being charged for failing to take his order only. Please don't think it can't happen to you, because this is what I thought at one time. |
So, to missuse a phrase from my childhood,
If a police officer told you to jump off a cliff, you would ? and if you didn't you'd be breaking the law ? |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:53:51 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by Pano:
I agree with bear_music, the pig was out of order, just another case of police brutality |
Putting it this way is like putting gas on a fire, not exactly what we need right now. |
PIG........isn't that's an acronym for Perseverance, Integrity and Guts? While the police officer may have been over zealous and abused his powers, I do not believe that "police brutality" is even an issue of consideration in this instance. Just a thought.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 11:59:24 AM · #44 |
lol Gordon.
I don't agree with my conviction in the first place. Obviously I didn't do what the officer asked me or I wouldn't have been arrested or convicted. Just letting you know our rights are eroding away. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 12:06:06 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Correct me if I am wrong, but was there not a thread the other day about one of our members (and I have no idea who), who was in the photographer's position in a situation similar to this. His specific question (I think) was if he was not a member of the press, should he take pictures? I seem to remember that most who responded to him said he should, if he wanted to. |
Yes, that thread is here. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 12:07:02 PM · #46 |
Forceful?
That would have been taking the camera, laying it on the ground and then emptying the cartidge into it.
I think the officer was in full right to ask the photographer to erase the pictures.
Because this is not a question about the right to shoot a picture in public property...
This is about the right to invade someones privacy, which is exactly what the photographer was doing, the police officer was not doing anything else than protect the privacy of the injured person. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 12:10:49 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
PIG........isn't that's an acronym for Perseverance, Integrity and Guts? While the police officer may have been over zealous and abused his powers, I do not believe that "police brutality" is even an issue of consideration in this instance. Just a thought.
Ray |
When first used in a derogatory fashion, police turned it around and said it meant Pride, Integrity and Guts.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 12:19:49 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by kemilg:
Forceful?
That would have been taking the camera, laying it on the ground and then emptying the cartidge into it.
I think the officer was in full right to ask the photographer to erase the pictures.
Because this is not a question about the right to shoot a picture in public property...
This is about the right to invade someones privacy, which is exactly what the photographer was doing, the police officer was not doing anything else than protect the privacy of the injured person. |
You have no right not to be photographed when in public. You do have rights as to what use the photographs can be used but for that most part they can be used in news stories. The police do not have the authority to stop you from photographing if you are not interfering with their work. They certainly don’t have the right to erase photos off of a camera.
We don’t make the laws up as we go along, at least not yet.
If you feel that the police should have the authority to do these things then I can suggest any number of countries that you might want to live in.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2005 12:21:59 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by kemilg:
Forceful?
That would have been taking the camera, laying it on the ground and then emptying the cartidge into it.
I think the officer was in full right to ask the photographer to erase the pictures.
Because this is not a question about the right to shoot a picture in public property...
This is about the right to invade someones privacy, which is exactly what the photographer was doing, the police officer was not doing anything else than protect the privacy of the injured person. |
what expectation of privacy do you have lying in the middle of the road exactly ?
Now you could argue that perhaps the photographer shouldn't have taken the pictures. Just because you have the right to do so, doesn't mean you should always do it. But I think it is silly to claim you have a right privacy just because you are in a public place in a situation you might not like to have recorded.
In either case, the police officer would have no rights to ask you to destroy your property. |
|
|
|
02/03/2005 12:26:35 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by rlinn3:
I am not suggesting an accredited pj has more first amendment rights, and would never suggest this. I am saying most states have laws regarding who has access to certain public areas when emergency personnel have ruled them off limits to the public due to an emergency.
In know this becuase I have been convicted for faliure to obey a police officer when all I was doing was taking photos. the law I was convicted of was "failing to obey a police officer". The jury was instructed to not take into account whether the police officer was right or wrong because I was being charged for failing to take his order only. Please don't think it can't happen to you, because this is what I thought at one time. |
Sorry I miss understood your original post. The police certainly can restrict who has access to an accident/crime scene. Two questions, when you were taking photos were there others like you but who were not taking photos that he did not tell to move back? Did he tell you to move or tell you to stop taking photos? What I am getting at is was it the act of taking photos that he objected to your where you were standing? |
|
