«

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:13:53 +0100, Ludwig <> wrote:

>gpsman wrote:
>
>>
>> I've shot a few crashes with cops on the scene. Staying out of "the
>> way" no official has ever said squat to me. A couple of the drivers
>> told me not to take pictures of their crash and my reply was, off the
>> top of my head the first time, "Sorry. If you don't want pictures
>> taken you should crash in the privacy of your own home".
>
>Sensitive.
>
>I can't help but wonder how you'd feel if you'd just lost several
>members of your family and the use of your legs in an accident, and some
>rubberneck stood around taking photos of your misfortune. Personally,
>I'd wish him dead.

Personally, I'd have much more to worry about than photographers.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Robert A. Cunningham" <> wrote:
>> So, what motivated you to stop and shoot?
>
>Three emergency vehicles had passed us. That aroused my curiousity. When
>we arrived on the scene, I pulled over and grabbed my camera with out even
>giving it any thought at all. It never even occurred to me that I was doing
>anything wrong. I did not see any injured people, although I am sure there
>were some, just from the appearance of the vehicle, but I didn't see them,
>and they are not in the photographs that I did take.

Nothing you have described is "doing anything wrong".

There are, as has been noted, limitation on what you can do with
the images. But there is no limit on ability to get them in the
first place.

Incidentally, if criminal charges or civil actions result from
the accident (both of course are fairly likely), then your
images would possibly be of some use to the court. The police
do take pictures, but in many cases that is delayed until later.
Hence you might well, for example, have the only good pictures
of the vehicles involved *before* the rescue squad goes to work
extracting victims, and in the process severely damaging the
"evidence". Later pictures, for example, might show the top
of the car after it has been literally cut off...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Ludwig <> wrote:
>gpsman wrote:
>
>> I've shot a few crashes with cops on the scene. Staying out
>> of "the
>> way" no official has ever said squat to me. A couple of the drivers
>> told me not to take pictures of their crash and my reply was, off the
>> top of my head the first time, "Sorry. If you don't want pictures
>> taken you should crash in the privacy of your own home".
>
>Sensitive.
>
>I can't help but wonder how you'd feel if you'd just lost
>several members of your family and the use of your legs in an
>accident, and some rubberneck stood around taking photos of your
>misfortune. Personally, I'd wish him dead.

And if you had *caused* that accident, you'd *really* wish him
dead when your trial for murder came up, eh?

Of course if you are the innocent party, you might see that in
a very different light at that trial...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Yes, they can say it. Somewhere in this discussion was written, that it
is important what purpose is the picture taken for - how it is used.
You migt shoot such pictures either with large angle or tele lenses.
Which of these two options is more ethical (if we do not consider using
the teleobjective for special effects in imaging)? You might shoot the
reality as is or to arrange it in order to dramatizing of the reality
(photojournalists know what I am speaking of). What is more ethical?

As for the AIDS sufferers album: the author discussed with them much.
He used to get back to them to hospital. Thanx for those and other
pictures, he organized purchase of devices for the hospital.


Paul Rubin wrote:
> The question was whether it's ethical to take such pictures. In this
> example the pictures are of AIDS sufferers. So there you are with a
> camera and the AIDS sufferer says "Please take my picture and publish
> it so that the world can see the suffering that this illness is
> causing within humanity". I'd say this is an easy call: take the
> picture. Suppose instead that the sufferer says "please respect my
> privacy and don't take any pictures". What do you do now?

In article <>,
says...
> It means the guy just flat out told me I could not take any pictures. And
> since he was considerably larger than me, he was going to make you I didn't.
> There was no doubt about that.
>
>
I would have taken a picture of him and sued his ass off as soon as he
touched me. I am sick to death of big guys thinking they can just make
the rules for everybody just because they threaten to hurt you. If that's
the system they want they they can all just move to the jungle somewhere
ad duke it out with the gorillas. The rest of us have laws and ethics and
that is what we go by.

A good example of the psychopatic Hollywood hero...
Not reality.


Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Philip Homburg wrote:
> > So photos of destruction, injury, etc. cannot be art?
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=vC2pBMJLUCo
>
>
> --
> Wear short sleeves! Support your right to bare arms!
>
>
> /\ /\ /\ /
> / \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
> >>>>>><<<<<<
> anl

Do you think the police is authorized to order me to submit pictures
taken by me for the purposes of investigation? They have their own paid
experienced photographers, don't they? The pictures are my property.


Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Incidentally, if criminal charges or civil actions result from
> the accident (both of course are fairly likely), then your
> images would possibly be of some use to the court. The police
> do take pictures, but in many cases that is delayed until later.
> Hence you might well, for example, have the only good pictures
> of the vehicles involved *before* the rescue squad goes to work
> extracting victims, and in the process severely damaging the
> "evidence". Later pictures, for example, might show the top
> of the car after it has been literally cut off...
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Grant Robertson" <> wrote in message
news:.. .
> In article <>,
> says...
>> It means the guy just flat out told me I could not take any pictures.
>> And
>> since he was considerably larger than me, he was going to make you I
>> didn't.
>> There was no doubt about that.
>>
>>
> I would have taken a picture of him and sued his ass off as soon as he
> touched me. I am sick to death of big guys thinking they can just make
> the rules for everybody just because they threaten to hurt you. If that's
> the system they want they they can all just move to the jungle somewhere
> ad duke it out with the gorillas. The rest of us have laws and ethics and
> that is what we go by.

Well, yes, I agree with those statements, but I was over 200 miles from
home, and any diversion would have really inconvenient for me at that time,
but you are totally correct.

"Grant Robertson" <> wrote in message
news:.. .
> In article <>,
> says...
>> That person did not want me to take any pictures at all. He was quite
>> adamant about it. At first I thought he was with law enforcement, but
>> then
>> I discovered he was just a civilian, like me. I did not interfere with
>> rescue personnel in any way. In fact, I was quite a ways away from them.
>
> Ws that person one of the victims? Related to one of the victims? Or was
> that person just a bystander with control issues?

I don't know for sure, but it is my hunch that he might have offered aid to
some of the accident victims before the professionals arrived.

"Pea C" <> wrote:
>Do you think the police is authorized to order me to submit pictures
>taken by me for the purposes of investigation? They have their own paid
>experienced photographers, don't they? The pictures are my property.

The police are not so authorized, but the court is. So yes, it
they know who you are they could indeed get a court order and
force you to produce them.

>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Incidentally, if criminal charges or civil actions result from
>> the accident (both of course are fairly likely), then your
>> images would possibly be of some use to the court. The police
>> do take pictures, but in many cases that is delayed until later.
>> Hence you might well, for example, have the only good pictures
>> of the vehicles involved *before* the rescue squad goes to work
>> extracting victims, and in the process severely damaging the
>> "evidence". Later pictures, for example, might show the top
>> of the car after it has been literally cut off...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)