Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
> Last weekend I was traveling in my car with a friend when three emergency
> vehicles passed us. A couple of minutes later we encountered the same
> vehicles at the site of an accident. An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
> off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
> camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle. There were plenty of
> first responders on hand, and I did not see any of the injured, though, from
> the looks of things there were probably some very serious injuries
> sustained. After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
> the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he initially
> thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded correctly,
> that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.
Disclaimer: U.S. perspective...rules may vary in other places:
Unless you were on private property, he did not have the authority to
tell you that you could not take the pictures.
> My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.
Most people consider this kind of photography invasive, even when it
isn't.
> Some of the most moving photographs ever taken have been of subjects that
> show death and destruction. Two examples that come to mind are from the
> Vietnam war: 1. the photograph of the young Vietnamese girl running nude
> down the highway after having being burned by napalm. and 2. the Viet Cong
> official who was shot in the head from point blank range during the Tet
> Offensive in 1968.
Both of those were photographed and published in a journalistic manner
and for journalistic purposes. It changes the rules. Even so, the
newspapers I read don't publish photos of horrific crash scenes any
more, or at least bury them beyond page 2.
For most non-journalistic (and non-evidentiary) purposes, there are
serious legal ramifications to using photos of recognizable people
without a model release. These issues generally do not extend to
property, but in some limited situations may. I don't think an
overturned, smashed-up car would count.
Was the person objecting to you taking pictures at all, or taking
pictures while rescue personel were still actively working the scene?
> I am in no way comparing my pictures to the one mentioned above, but my
> question is how does one determine when it is ok to shoot pictures of events
> that cause immense grief to others?
I am sure there are those from one end of the spectrum to the other.
For some people, it is *never* OK. For others, it is OK to photograph
anything (such as the cold blooded murder of a spy you mentioned
above).
When my grandmother died (about 30 years ago), an adult cousin of mine
took a Polaroid snapshot of granny in the casket. People were
outraged. But today, they pass around a very old photo of her
grandfather. I have virtually proven that it was a "death portrait,"
where the deceased was sat up, effectively strapped in place, and
photographed. Those who objected to granny's Polaroid have no problem
with great-great grandpa's death portrait.
The differences are many, but one of the big ones was the purpose. My
cousin wanted a picture of his grandmother, but wasn't willing to
persue getting a copy of one of the very many that were taken in her
lifetime. Death portraits were popular at a time when photography
almost always involved a professional, and was relatively expensive.
Families would sometimes have them done when no other photo of Papa
existed.
If you were shooting the scene for a series on drunkeness (whether for
journalistic or artistic purposes), I would not object - assuming drunk
driving turned out to be a factor in the collision. If you were
shooting it in order to add to a collection of gory scenes for your
Halloween haunted house, I might.
Austin
|
Similar Threads
