One may say that someone in a wheelchair isn't responsible for being there. Does that mean I can't photograph them? Or that a cancer victim isn't responsible for their hairless head due to chemotherapy. Does that mean I shouldn't photograph them?
Look, I grant you that some of the situations that you mention, it may be in bad taste to photograph them from certain angles, or whatever. The lady giving birth in public? Well, you know, were I a news photographer, I might snap off a few. I might try to be tastefull, and not show, you know, ~everything~, but hell, it's in public, and it's newsworthy.
I'm also cognizant that some members of our society have no domestic refuge from which to escape public view. That's why I don't photoraph street people sleeping on street corners. That's their home. I respect that. I saw some guy doing exactly that a couple of weeks ago. Standing 2 feet from some poor schmuck sleeping on the street, taking photo after photo of the guy. I wanted to scream at him "stop exploiting that guy!!", and now I wish I would have.
Robert, if you throw enough examples at me, I'm sure you'll find one or more in which I'll say, "right, you can't take that". I'd say they're the exceptions that prove the rule. I stand by my general rule that what happens in public is subject to public scrutiny, and that includes my camera, if I have it.
Please, don't think that because I say I have the ~right~ to photograph pretty much everything, that I do so. I'd like to think that I have a bit of sympathy and taste.
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Robert Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The morality of taking a photograph Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:30:51 -0600
frank theriault wrote:Robert,Yes, I'll grant you that. If there is mass distribution of a photograph, then that probably puts a different moral burden on the photographer to make sure that someone doesn't get used/hurt in the process. But if it is not, there is much greater leeway on what can be taken.
I think one must distinguish between the taking of a photograph, and how it is to be used.
For all your examples, I would say that there's nothing wrong with taking those photos. Ever. Period.I disagree here.... if the photos are widely distributed or publicized, otherwise agree. Not everything that goes on in the public eye is under control by those participating. I.e. the participants may be underage and not know that what they are doing is unacceptable. Or maybe they have a medical condition out of their control, i.e. the woman depicted in the pic may have a medical condition, or is it ok to show the genitals of a woman giving birth in a public place because the baby just came without her control and you were there with a camera??? Was she responsible for her actions??? Should she have to stay out of public view for the last month because this might happen? I think if there is some type of public decency laws involved, i.e. child pornography, etc., then there are not just moral grounds, but legal grounds for not distributing a photo. Even taking it falls into murky moral grounds too. Some others have pointed out that you couldn't get sued for defamation or libel for a photo because it is "truth", but I'll bet you can get sued for invasion of privacy under certain circumstances, even if it occured in public.
How they're used may or may not be a different story, I'll admit. In fact, were we sitting, having several beers, I could discuss it for hours. Quite frankly, I think anything less would do the subject disservice, so I won't comment at this time. Simply not enough space.I agree. This is a complex issue and has no "one size fits all" answer.
regards, frank
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
