| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/10/2004 06:13:17 AM · #1 |
What are the accepted ethics of selling photos or video of tragic events, war or catastrophes?
Would you feel comfortable making money from the sale of such material? I just wondered what the general principles are.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 07:48:21 AM · #2 |
| I think I surely will.........And I wish I could...It shows the world what they cannot see..........as you see it!!! IMHO that is |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 08:00:27 AM · #3 |
Kevin Carter committed suicide after accepting the Pulitzer prize for this photo.
Sudan
He received a lot of criticism for not trying to help this girl and it continued to haunt him until his death, although there was probably nothing he could have done anyhow.
That being said, I think that photographs taken as an observer of a tragic event where nothing can be done are perfectly acceptable as they allow others to see what happened, provided they are not distasteful. But that starts another debate, what is distasteful?
I would just hate to be in a situation where I could have done something to help somebody but instead took an incredible photo...
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 08:06:54 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
What are the accepted ethics of selling photos or video of tragic events, war or catastrophes?
Would you feel comfortable making money from the sale of such material? I just wondered what the general principles are. |
As long as the shots are used in a non-exploitative manner, I think it's fine.
Yes, I would.
Many times, these kinds of events occur remotely, far, far away from our everyday life and while words can offer some discription of what has happened, seeing pictures of it connects the viewer to those events and makes them real in a way that words alone cannot.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 08:33:19 AM · #5 |
I think this is part of what defines a true professional from a serious amature. For the professional, the job is to get the image. No matter what. If the professional does not get the shot, she's got the possibility of not eating that day (in a manner of speaking). The professional's first thought will always be the shot.
The ethics are, this is news. This is something others need to see. I think the difference is amatures may be inclined to give the image away for free because they are uncomfortable with what they saw. Pros will sell it, then spend years haunted by what they saw.
Clara
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 08:38:44 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by blemt:
I think this is part of what defines a true professional from a serious amature. For the professional, the job is to get the image. No matter what. If the professional does not get the shot, she's got the possibility of not eating that day (in a manner of speaking). The professional's first thought will always be the shot.
The ethics are, this is news. This is something others need to see. I think the difference is amatures may be inclined to give the image away for free because they are uncomfortable with what they saw. Pros will sell it, then spend years haunted by what they saw.
Clara |
I'm a professional buyer. My job is to get the purchase in the best possible situation for my company. I won't compromise ethics to do this. I am in a position where I could make promises that I don't have to keep and my company would be in a better position because of it, although it may cost my vendor's rep his/her job. I won't do that.
And guess what? I'm still a profesional buyer at the end of the day.
I refuse to believe that 'getting the shot' is always the top priority (over and above life and ethics) in all professional photographers.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 08:58:23 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I refuse to believe that 'getting the shot' is always the top priority (over and above life and ethics) in all professional photographers. |
But for a professional photographer, getting the shot is part of their professional ethics. I'm not saying that they are told in photojournalist 101 that you can't help people. Photojournalists do it all the time. I was more thinking along the lines of a pro is going to sell the shot because it's his job, the amature may not out of concern for the subject of the shot.
Make sense?
And why do I start these discussions 3 minutes before I have to go to work? :P
Clara
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 09:09:40 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I refuse to believe that 'getting the shot' is always the top priority (over and above life and ethics) in all professional photographers. |
But for a professional photographer, getting the shot is part of their professional ethics. I'm not saying that they are told in photojournalist 101 that you can't help people. Photojournalists do it all the time. I was more thinking along the lines of a pro is going to sell the shot because it's his job, the amature may not out of concern for the subject of the shot.
Make sense?
And why do I start these discussions 3 minutes before I have to go to work? :P
Clara |
Okay, okay...I'm a dummy who shoots his mouth off before actually reading stuff!
Sorry about that...what you said makes sense to me now. We're not talking about taking the shot, so much as selling it...
Thanks for the grace in responding to my post!
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 09:53:05 AM · #9 |
Sadly, photographs of tragic events appear to be huge sellers for photojournalists. Several years ago I went to an exhibit of Pulitzer prize winning photographs at the Newseum in DC. I was shocked at the high percentage of tragic photos that filled the walls. Don't get me wrong, I don't dispute the power and emotions created by these photographs, but there are just as many situations of immense happiness that would make equally powerful photographs. I left the exhibit with a book containing all the photographs and the stories behind them. Eventually my wife asked me to give it away since so many photographs were so grim. It might just be that sympathy is a more powerful emotion than joy.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 02:55:43 PM · #10 |
Perhaps as a professional it's a different issue, but what about the amateur who captures a scene like someone falling from a building (I haven't by the way!)? Would you try to sell it? I just don't think I could live with the guilt of knowing that I'd profit from someone's misfortune like that.
The story of Kevin Carter was very sad indeed. I really don't know the full circumstances but it could only have taken a few moments to take the shot so what did he do afterwards? |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 03:20:58 PM · #11 |
In my case, probably yes. I'm shooting that image at that time because it's telling a story. It's my timing and talent that capture that particular image. I'm not being paid for that individuals suffering. I'm being paid for my abilites. Again, this isn't something that will work for everyone. There are also possibly things that I'd shoot, but elect not to sell, or share.
I've also done enough rescue work in my life to have made some piece with the tragic things that happen every day. In rescue work you either learn that you can't save everyone, or you never sleep again. I guess that's why I understand a little bit how "professionals" can make and sell those shots.
Clara
|
|
|
|
09/11/2004 03:23:20 PM · #12 |
I believe this fits the subject of the thread. The NY Times has posted a great deal of good information pertaining to 9/11 for this third annaversary. //www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20040911_anniversary.html?th
There are several accounts from photojournalists that I think a lot of DPC-ers would find enlightening.
You may have to sign up but I have, and the Times does not spam you or pass you to others.
Dick
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:14:31 AM EDT.
