A Moral Question?

imax

Hey,

I have been thinking about this for the better part of the day and was wondering what everyones thoughts on it are. I had the opportuntiy to be at the Hard Rock Hotel yesterday where Anna Nicole Smith had passed away,

While speaking with a police officer (I struck up a conversation while waiting for my wife and kids who were shopping) she received a call on the radio regarding an emergency. She excused herself and took off running. I had the opportunity to follow choosing not to. Had I been smart enough or should I say more inquisitve I may have been able to get some images of the event as it unfolded.

From what I have learned and have read the only images caught of the event and the Fire Rescue team were caught by someone with a video camera from about 50 feet away. She was under a sheet while they were workig on her and if no one told you it was her you would not know it. This video fetched over $400,000.00 from what I have read.

So I guess what I'm wondering is this. Would it have been right to follow the officer and capture what would have been the death of a celebrity and then profit from the photographs? It's funny because as I think of it, had they said on the radio that Anna Nicole Smith had collapsed and EMS was in route and I heard it, I believe that not only I but most people would have been more then likely to have ran to try and capture it. But since it was just an emergency I sat back and let it fly by.

And by the way, I wasn't the only photographer there



I counted at least 5 from the local papers. I bet I'm not the only one thinking this today.


I don't know, and I guess I never will. So what do you think? And what do you think of the guy who captured it on video and then sold it?

Discuss?


Joe

ivar

imax wrote:

So I guess what I'm wondering is this. Would it have been right to follow the officer and capture what would have been the death of a celebrity and then profit from the photographs? It's funny because as I think of it, had they said on the radio that Anna Nicole Smith had collapsed and EMS was in route and I heard it, I believe that not only I but most people would have been more then likely to have ran to try and capture it. But since it was just an emergency I sat back and let it fly by.

I'm sure that there are people who will profit from photographs of her death somehow.

I personally have a problem with people profiting from other people's deaths, whether they are famous or not.

movol

that's a tough call...had you followed along, you did not know what the emergency was...you get there and realize what and who it was all about...Then what? camera in hand, do you walk away or join the other photog's? If you take the pictures what do you do with them if you don't sell them?


alot of snap decisions to be made - all based on whether you follow the cop or not.

You have no emotional connection to the situation, r u a pro photog, do you make your living from taking pictures..one could look at it as an career/financial opportunity that doesn't come around to often.


But, i think you answered your own question..."if you had heard what the emergency was" you would have followed.

Photog

Interesting situation.

I've been on crime scene perimeters (etc) and made my same hourly rate...while the "paparazzi" were raking in the dough shooting next to me. I'm held to a certain set of rules, laws, ethical guidelines, and so on, that would potentially keep me at a perimeter (defined by LEO's, reasonable expectation of privacy, etc) due to the risk of losing future access, which would screw me professionally. This doesn't mean I haven't looked for other ways to get the shot, but I've had to think "long term" in terms of preserving access and when to push.

The freedom you have to pursue the shot works for you in terms of reaping the rewards of being heads-up...assuming you're not bound by some rules or ethical consideration based on your employer (and your character...and I don't mean that in a snotty way). If you're on your own I think it's purely an ethical thing you have to decide. Shoot first, edit later, though. You can't hold back what you don't have.

Consider yourself a freelancer or stringer, if that helps in terms of defining what you'd do and not do and how that will affect how you will interact with the public and a potential employer later. What would they expect of you? If you can get the shot w/o selling your soul in terms of ethics, or breaking laws, do it. If this is a one-shot deal to make money, then how far you push is up to the guy in the mirror.

DifferentSeed

Splash News Online was the company that captured the video and sold it to Entertainment Tonight (for an estimated $500K) after a bidding war between ET and TMZ. Splash News is/employs paparazzi. It's the entire nature of their business, so it's really not surprising they were onhand.

Is it morally reprehensible and wrong? Yea, but that doesn't stop them (Splash News Online; X17Online; FlyNet; etc) from doing it and from making that kind of money because people are still willing to buy/watch the publications. The paps in Europe seem to be a lot more kind when it comes to privacy, perhaps a result of Diana's death, but they do leave people alone to some degree (Royal family; the Beckhams when Romeo is with them; etc).

On a side note, Hopefully Anna Nicole finds more peace in some afterlife than she had recently on earth. R.I.P. Vickie Lynn.

NicoleB

Hard to say now.
Usually I would say, No I don't do that, but...., really be in that situation, I probably would go and have a look.
I hate what Paparazzis are doing, but being in a given situation with a ready camera in my hand, not hindering anyone trying to help,..., why not?
I can still give that money to charity

Shay Stephens

Death is a part of life. Some of the most powerful photos ever taken is of dying or dead people. Over time, they can and do become an important piece of history. The Kennedy assassination, WW2, etc. So the simple act of taking photos of death is not a bad thing.

As compassionate humans, we of course don't want to intrude, or spoil privacy. However, if the images can be captured without hindering anyone, I do think it important to capture. Once the shock is over, those images can be enormously important.

The problem of course comes from the fact that those images can be very valuable. That potential drives many to be unscrupulous in how they obtain the photos. The feeding frenzy of a paparazzi mob can be utterly awful. That is the true problem. Not the taking of the photos, not the fact that they may bring the photographer a big paycheck, but the unscrupulous mobbing, the feeding frenzy driven by greed is what makes most people sick.

Get the photos, be respectful, make some money, create a historic record, and you will go down in the record books as someone who contributed to society. Do it like the paparazzi, and be vilified and the dregs of humanity.

Sam

Well said Shay.

Sam

henryp

Shay Stephens wrote:

As compassionate humans, we of course don't want to intrude, or spoil privacy. However, if the images can be captured without hindering anyone, I do think it important to capture. Once the shock is over, those images can be enormously important.

Here's a question without any particular right answer. Which is the more powerful image: Robert Kennedy being cradled by busboy Juan Romero at the Ambassador Hotel or the MLKing assassination scene at the Lorraine Motel with people pointing from the balcony towards the spot the shots came from?

Shay Stephens

henryp wrote:

Here's a question without any particular right answer. Which is the more powerful image: Robert Kennedy being cradled by busboy Juan Romero at the Ambassador Hotel or the MLKing assassination scene at the Lorraine Motel with people pointing from the balcony towards the spot the shots came from?

Hi Henry!
Those are great examples. The photo that I remember the best is the one where they are pointing. The crowd reactions are very powerful. And it reminded me of what happened a couple of years ago.

I was walking along 57th street in NYC on my way to photograph a small little wedding. I was under one of those sidewalk construction covers, just about to leave it for open air when a horrible crashing sound started above and to the rear of me. I dashed to the other side of the street thinking part of the building was collapsing.

Not 10 feet from where I had been there was damage in the overhead cover and a body lay on the street/sidewalk. A man had jumped. I pulled my camera out and took some pictures. Some were as artistic as I could manage in the shock, and the rest were documentary of the scene.

We had to leave, and about a block away all was back to normal. No more shocked pedestrians. But my wife and I were effected quite strongly by what we had seen. We walked pretty much in reflective silence until we got to the wedding venue. It took all my concentration and effort to shoot that short wedding.

On going back a few hours later, we passed the scene again. There was a reporter there and I talked to him to let him know I had pictures in case any were needed. I emailed them to him. He said the police didn't need them and the paper decided against publishing anything as they don't cover suicides as a practice.

I am sure that I have the only photos showing the scene, mood, and shock of the people who were there, so I believe it was important to take those photos.

mlboyd

Shay Stephens wrote:

However, if the images can be captured without hindering anyone, I do think it important to capture.

Just wanted to underscore this. We all need to remember the practical issues as well -- and being sure not to hinder another professional in doing a critical job is of the utmost importance. I'm very close to emergency services workers in both law enforcement and medicine, and it is all too common for "rubberneckers" - either with or without their cameras - to make the work of emergency services more difficult. Unfortunately, I'm familiar with cases where the curious onlookers (who did not respect the space needed by emergency workers, including exit paths) likely contributed to poor/worse outcomes for the victim.

I hope no one is offended. I don't mean to be preachy -- it's just a really important point that I hope doesn't get overlooked as part of a decision about when/how to satisfy your curiosity (whether photographing or not).