a question of ethics

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert A. Cunningham, Oct 20, 2006.

  1. 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.

    My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.

    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.

    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'm sure that if the mother of the
    little Vietnamese girl saw the photographer take the photo of her daughter
    she would have been extremely upset, but that photo had a powerful impact in
    this country.

    I will appreciate any and all responses. Good, bad, or otherwise. Thanks.
    Robert A. Cunningham, Oct 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert A. Cunningham

    gpsman Guest

    Robert A. Cunningham wrote: <brevity snip>
    > 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.


    > 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.


    What does "wouldn't allow" mean?

    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".

    You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
    for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
    non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
    unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
    you to move.

    Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
    fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
    evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.

    The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
    permission. And far more expedient.
    -----

    - gpsman
    gpsman, Oct 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert A. Cunningham

    AustinMN Guest

    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
    AustinMN, Oct 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Robert A. Cunningham

    jeremy Guest

    "gpsman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Robert A. Cunningham wrote: <brevity snip>
    >> 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.

    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > What does "wouldn't allow" mean?
    >
    > 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".
    >
    > You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
    > for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
    > non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
    > unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
    > you to move.
    >
    > Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
    > fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
    > evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.
    >
    > The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
    > permission. And far more expedient.
    > -----
    >
    > - gpsman
    >


    I agree. If it is a public venue and you are not interfering with the
    police activity, I know of no legal prohibition about taking photos. There
    is no presumption of privacy when an event takes place in public, however
    embarrassing it might appear to the participants.

    Unfortunately, some cops suffer from "Wyatt Earp Syndrome," and they think
    that they can define peoples' civil rights, simply by virtue of their tin
    badges. But that is another topic.
    jeremy, Oct 20, 2006
    #4
  5. > We stopped and got out and I took my
    > camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle.


    I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and don't actually believe in
    what follows, but I'd be interested your or others' responses to it.

    What you don't make clear in your post is why you started taking pictures.

    The average car wreck isn't that interesting a subject, and nor are
    injured or distressed people, unless you're recording a news event for a
    local paper. Which presumably you weren't?

    Why did you want to take photos of the scene? Without an obvious and
    sensible reason, one might conclude that's you're a weirdo who considers
    his photos of destruction, injury and potentially death some part of
    your "art."
    Derek Fountain, Oct 20, 2006
    #5
  6. AustinMN wrote: A good overview of the situation.

    I would only make one comment.

    " For most non-journalistic (and non-evidentiary) purposes, there are
    serious legal ramifications to using photos of recognizable people without a
    model release. "

    While that is true, in most situations where the photographer is on
    public property and not photographing someone who would normally expect
    privacy (like using a long telephoto to photograph someone in their home) or
    today in the case of children, there are few issues.



    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Robert A. Cunningham

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    gpsman wrote:
    > Robert A. Cunningham wrote: <brevity snip>
    >> 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.

    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > What does "wouldn't allow" mean?
    >
    > 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".
    >
    > You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
    > for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
    > non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
    > unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
    > you to move.
    >
    > Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
    > fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
    > evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.
    >
    > The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
    > permission. And far more expedient.
    >


    Hi...

    I can't help asking...

    What ever happened to "the golden rule"?

    Take care.

    Ken
    Ken Weitzel, Oct 20, 2006
    #7
  8. Robert A. Cunningham

    irwell Guest

    On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:03:41 GMT, Ken Weitzel <>
    wrote:


    >
    >I can't help asking...
    >
    >What ever happened to "the golden rule"?
    >

    It has been replaced with the
    Brass Rule.
    irwell, Oct 20, 2006
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    "gpsman" <> wrote:

    >
    > What does "wouldn't allow" mean?
    >
    > 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".
    >
    > You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
    > for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
    > non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
    > unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
    > you to move.
    >
    > Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
    > fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
    > evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.
    >
    > The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
    > permission. And far more expedient.
    > -----
    >


    Your remarks are sensitive and sensible. Although I decided to do
    something else with my life, my education was in journalism, and this
    topic was discussed often. I would simply add that I usually know
    intuitively when it is okay and when it is not.
    Richard DeLuca, Oct 20, 2006
    #9
  10. 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.


    If you were out of the way of all official personnel, and there was no
    aid you could possibly render, and you were not standing on private
    property, you were within your legal rights.

    But ethics? Morals? Too much of a judgement call. No right answer
    that'll apply to everyone.

    So, what motivated you to stop and shoot?

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Oct 20, 2006
    #10
  11. Robert A. Cunningham

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Robert A. Cunningham" <> writes:
    > 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'm sure that if the mother of the
    > little Vietnamese girl saw the photographer take the photo of her daughter
    > she would have been extremely upset, but that photo had a powerful impact in
    > this country.
    >
    > I will appreciate any and all responses. Good, bad, or otherwise. Thanks.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
    Paul Rubin, Oct 20, 2006
    #11
  12. Robert A. Cunningham

    gpsman Guest

    Derek Fountain wrote: <brevity snip>
    > > We stopped and got out and I took my
    > > camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle.

    >
    > I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and don't actually believe in
    > what follows, but I'd be interested your or others' responses to it.


    I'll play... angel's advocate.

    > What you don't make clear in your post is why you started taking pictures.


    What reason would he need beyond "I want to"?

    > The average car wreck isn't that interesting a subject, and nor are
    > injured or distressed people, unless you're recording a news event for a
    > local paper.


    Subjective opinion. Any shooter may submit photos of any public event
    to any news agency. It may not be the crash itself that is
    interesting... if Anna Nicole or Jenna Bush were involved it might be
    an opportunity for early and comfortable retirement... missed.

    > Without an obvious and
    > sensible reason, one might conclude that's you're a weirdo who considers
    > his photos of destruction, injury and potentially death some part of
    > your "art."


    So?! What *is* "art"? I'll continue to shoot first and refuse to
    justify it later. <smiley face>
    -----

    - gpsman
    gpsman, Oct 20, 2006
    #12
  13. Robert A. Cunningham

    AustinMN Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > AustinMN wrote: A good overview of the situation.
    >
    > I would only make one comment.
    >
    > " For most non-journalistic (and non-evidentiary) purposes, there are
    > serious legal ramifications to using photos of recognizable people without a
    > model release. "
    >
    > While that is true, in most situations where the photographer is on
    > public property and not photographing someone who would normally expect
    > privacy (like using a long telephoto to photograph someone in their home) or
    > today in the case of children, there are few issues.


    Yes, I was thinking specifically about comercial uses. Taking the
    photo is not usually the problem, it's how it's used.

    Austin
    AustinMN, Oct 20, 2006
    #13
  14. Robert A. Cunningham

    Rudy Benner Guest

    "Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
    news:hz5_g.161788$1T2.112468@pd7urf2no...
    > gpsman wrote:
    >> Robert A. Cunningham wrote: <brevity snip>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> What does "wouldn't allow" mean?
    >>
    >> 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".
    >>
    >> You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
    >> for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
    >> non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
    >> unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
    >> you to move.
    >>
    >> Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
    >> fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
    >> evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.
    >>
    >> The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
    >> permission. And far more expedient.
    >>

    >
    > Hi...
    >
    > I can't help asking...
    >
    > What ever happened to "the golden rule"?
    >
    > Take care.
    >
    > Ken


    It has been updated to "He who has the gold, makes the rule."
    Rudy Benner, Oct 20, 2006
    #14
  15. In article <4538d973$0$97219$>,
    Derek Fountain <> wrote:
    >Why did you want to take photos of the scene? Without an obvious and
    >sensible reason, one might conclude that's you're a weirdo who considers
    >his photos of destruction, injury and potentially death some part of
    >your "art."


    So photos of destruction, injury, etc. cannot be art?

    Personally, I would avoid taking pictures of the victims, and I would not
    publish them (as in, for example, putting them on a web-site) until quite
    some time has passed (probably years if somebody got killed).

    But other than that, many people look in the direction of an accident,
    many even stop. We talk about it. Often pictures appear in the media.
    So it is just part of life, and can be photographed.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Oct 20, 2006
    #15
  16. "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.


    I don't know where you live, so I can't speak for the laws
    there.

    In places that I have been (and I have been involved in
    Emergency Medical Services from top to bottom), there simply is
    *nobody* who has any right to "not allow" you to take pictures
    on a public road. That would include the police.

    It makes no difference if you are or are not a professional
    photographer. It makes no difference what you aim the camera at
    either. It certainly *might* make a difference what you do with
    the images though! So for example you might not want to try
    publishing pictures of participants (police and EMS) in a book
    about the people who respond to accidents. But if you got a
    good shot and offered it to the local newspaper, that is clearly
    allowed.

    If you post them on a non-commercial web page, it is almost
    certainly allowed (i.e., if you are not selling copies of the
    image).

    >My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.
    >
    >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.
    >
    >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'm sure that if the mother of the
    >little Vietnamese girl saw the photographer take the photo of her daughter
    >she would have been extremely upset, but that photo had a powerful impact in
    >this country.


    That young girl is alive and well today, and lives in the US.
    She is not upset about having been photographed. Indeed, she is
    aware that her suffering contributed in a useful way to ending
    that war *only* because of that photograph.

    >I will appreciate any and all responses. Good, bad, or otherwise. Thanks.


    I've seen presentations to High School students that began with
    questions about who knew certain recent victims in local
    accidents. Images of those accidents were then removed from
    that specific presentation. Trust that the pictures were
    *dramatic*, and so was the effect on the students. That was
    exactly the point. Little things that nobody who is 16 years
    old would think twice about, which can turn *you* into a bloody
    mess that would make somebody else puke. The message of course
    is that they *should* think twice, or even more often.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 20, 2006
    #16
  17. Derek Fountain <> wrote:
    >What you don't make clear in your post is why you started taking pictures.


    Same reason I take pictures of anything else. It's there.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 20, 2006
    #17
  18. Robert A. Cunningham

    Bob Williams Guest

    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.
    >
    > My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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'm sure that if the mother of the
    > little Vietnamese girl saw the photographer take the photo of her daughter
    > she would have been extremely upset, but that photo had a powerful impact in
    > this country.
    >
    > I will appreciate any and all responses. Good, bad, or otherwise. Thanks.



    Remember Abraham Zapruder and his historic pictures of the JFK
    assassination taken with his Bell&Howell home movie camera.
    Zapruder was not a photojournalist or commercial photographer. He was
    just a plain Joe, like you, taking pictures for his own pleasure.
    Lucky that he did because it was the definitive photographic evidence
    showing the actual movements of JFK's head thrusting "backward" as he
    was shot. (See frames Zapruder-312 et.seq.)
    This was a "Tent Pole" issue for many persons who suspected a conspiracy
    because it indicated that at least one fatal shot came from the R. Front
    of the limousine. Others suggested alternate explanations and the
    question remains controversial to this day.
    See: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20031123/ai_n12747326
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Oct 20, 2006
    #18
  19. Robert A. Cunningham

    Ronald Hands Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >
    > That young girl is alive and well today, and lives in the US.
    > She is not upset about having been photographed. Indeed, she is
    > aware that her suffering contributed in a useful way to ending
    > that war *only* because of that photograph.
    >


    Small correction: she lives in Ajax, Ontario, a suburb of Toronto.
    See the Wikipedia entry under Phan Thi Kim Phuc.

    -- Ron
    Ronald Hands, Oct 20, 2006
    #19
  20. Robert A. Cunningham

    Pea C Guest

    Hi. Here is a link of my favorite professional Czech photographer Jan
    Sibik. Although the sites are in Czech and Hungarian languages, it's
    worth to click every picture. And there's also one complete gallery of
    pictures of AIDS suffering people in Ukraine. Some people may consider
    those pictures terrible. And they are terrible, they are from life.

    http://www.sibik.cz
    Pea C, Oct 20, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. roYal
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    524
    roYal
    Sep 8, 2003
  2. Doom

    Ethics

    Doom, Jul 29, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    934
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    Jul 29, 2004
  3. Steven M. Scharf

    Ethics (Photography versus life or death, film or digital)

    Steven M. Scharf, Feb 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    439
  4. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Ethics and Technology", Herman T. Tavani

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,733
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Apr 12, 2004
  5. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "IT Ethics Handbook", Stephen Northcutt

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Dec 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    599
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Dec 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page