Rico Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 I found this interesting article regarding the photograph of a First Nation woman mourning at a memorial for residential school survivors. Disclosure: I have four images on this subject on Alamy, no one is identifiable. Personally, I find this is disgusting. Here is the link. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mourning-photo-getty-images-1.6120168 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobD Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) I don't find it disgusting, maybe a little insensitive. I would be careful not to put limitations on what and what can't be taken in a public space, that would be the thin end of the wedge to ban photography of people in a public all together. There are far worse images than this taken practically on a daily basis of people in much more distress and grieving situations. Edited July 28, 2021 by BobD 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) She's identifiable, sure, but not identified- hand over face, in a public space, at a public event. That isn't really a "private moment". And if we couldn't move news images into stock things would be even leaner around here. Edited July 28, 2021 by spacecadet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 I think it's a strong picture and if it is used widely editorially then that can only be helpful in highlighting the appalling plight of the inmates of that school. Her face is partially hidden and the picture captures her genuine emotions rather than misrepresenting her. Her complaint seems not so much the picture but that that the photographer and the agency have profited from it but that is of course how professional news and documentary photography works. 2 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 24 minutes ago, BobD said: I don't find it disgusting, maybe a little insensitive. I would be careful not to put limitations on what and what can't be taken in a public space, that would be the thin end of the wedge to ban photography of people in a public all together. There are far worse images than this taken practically on a daily basis of people in much more distress and grieving situations. +1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 28, 2021 Author Share Posted July 28, 2021 So then, I take it that you be OK with someone photographing you crying at a public memorial, just as long as there was a buck to be made? Yes, there are far more distressing news photos being taken every day, but those are hard news. (Think riots, wars, catastrophes etc). This is a photo of a woman in a private moment. I find it disgusting for anyone to be insensitive, even a little. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobD Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 How can you have a private moment in a public space. surrounded by people. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 28, 2021 Author Share Posted July 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, BobD said: How can you have a private moment in a public space. surrounded by people. Oh, I don't know. Maybe by covering your face and crying? 🤔 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 It's an article that is sensationalist in tone, the quote from Getty seems to cover it really: Getty Images says they "endeavour to maintain the balance of an individual's right to privacy with our obligation to cover the story in the public interest of exposing difficult issues." They note the image is available for editorial use only, meaning it can only be used by news outlets covering stories that are of general public interest. The screengrab gives the impression that it's being licensed for $575, we all know that will be very far from the truth. The photographer, Mert Alper Davis, covers all sorts of news events and I'm sure his motivation is to get the best pictures for his agency. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobD Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 The tone of the article is far from unbiased. It starts with a warning that it contains distressing details, maybe I am insensitive but I failed to find anything distressing in the article, and of course they didn't seem to have a problem publishing the image themselves. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 42 minutes ago, Rico said: So then, I take it that you be OK with someone photographing you crying at a public memorial, just as long as there was a buck to be made? Yes, there are far more distressing news photos being taken every day, but those are hard news. (Think riots, wars, catastrophes etc). This is a photo of a woman in a private moment. I find it disgusting for anyone to be insensitive, even a little. Rick, "a buck to be made" has nothing to do with this. In a perfect world or at least a manageable situation, I would always try to talk with the person that I photograph, before or sometimes after, but in the real world sometimes it is not possible. All should remember that it costs money to cover events and that publications, news outlets pay for images. Nobody is getting rich from 99% of these day in day out events. Keep in mind that I am no fan of G, but they do a very good job of covering world events. Also this image does help the indigenous people. Chuck 2 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) I couldn't have taken this photo. However, it's a powerful image documenting the pain that so many indigenous people in Canada are feeling. This story hits close to home as I have several pictures on Alamy of this sensitive subject. I tried to make sure that there were no identifiable people in the images. One of them (2G4C4CW) actually licensed for a small amount a few days after I uploaded it, and several others have been zoomed. It must be tough being a real news photographer these days given that privacy has become such a huge issue (understandably). Edited July 28, 2021 by John Mitchell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 19 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said: Rick, "a buck to be made" has nothing to do with this. In a perfect world or at least a manageable situation, I would always try to talk with the person that I photograph, before or sometimes after, but in the real world sometimes it is not possible. All should remember that it costs money to cover events and that publications, news outlets pay for images. Nobody is getting rich from 99% of these day in day out events. Keep in mind that I am no fan of G, but they do a very good job of covering world events. Also this image does help the indigenous people. Chuck I don't know anything about G. However, I gather that photographers often end up making pennies, certainly nothing like the amounts quoted in G's price calculator. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 28, 2021 Author Share Posted July 28, 2021 31 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said: Rick, "a buck to be made" has nothing to do with this. In a perfect world or at least a manageable situation, I would always try to talk with the person that I photograph, before or sometimes after, but in the real world sometimes it is not possible. All should remember that it costs money to cover events and that publications, news outlets pay for images. Nobody is getting rich from 99% of these day in day out events. Keep in mind that I am no fan of G, but they do a very good job of covering world events. Also this image does help the indigenous people. Chuck Chuck, I think you may have contradicted yourself here. You said "a buck to be made has nothing to with this" but then go on about how little money is being made on these images. Respectfully, it is all about money. To BobD, any news article, by it's very nature is biased. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 I think it's a bit of an assumption to say that it was all about money. That could of course have been the case, but we can't see inside the photographer's head -- i.e. we don't really know how he felt or what his true motivations were. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 28, 2021 Author Share Posted July 28, 2021 1 minute ago, John Mitchell said: I think it's a bit of an assumption to say that it was all about money. That could of course have been the case, but we can't see inside the photographer's head -- i.e. we don't really know how he felt or what his true motivations were. I think we can presume that like all stock photographers, it was to get it published and make a buck or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 28, 2021 Author Share Posted July 28, 2021 1 hour ago, BobD said: The tone of the article is far from unbiased. It starts with a warning that it contains distressing details, maybe I am insensitive but I failed to find anything distressing in the article, and of course they didn't seem to have a problem publishing the image themselves. The article states that Loretta John, the woman in question, gave CBC permission to use the photo in context Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 25 minutes ago, Rico said: make a buck or two. I don't know why you take photographs, but that's what professional photographers do! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meanderingemu Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 4 minutes ago, Rico said: The article states that Loretta John, the woman in question, gave CBC permission to use the photo in context Did CBC licence the image for $575? i am not sure what the shelf licencing price of the image has to do with it? Would it have been better had it been $10,000? $0.25? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 28, 2021 Author Share Posted July 28, 2021 1 minute ago, spacecadet said: I don't know why you take photographs, but that's what professional photographers do! I take photographs because it's what I do. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meanderingemu Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Rico said: So then, I take it that you be OK with someone photographing you crying at a public memorial, just as long as there was a buck to be made? Yes, there are far more distressing news photos being taken every day, but those are hard news. (Think riots, wars, catastrophes etc). This is a photo of a woman in a private moment. I find it disgusting for anyone to be insensitive, even a little. I am not dismissing your issues, actually I do have my issues with some captures myself- I did try to only take images of people who made their public presence present. And the subject is a hard one. However could you explain your thinking that this is exploitative "to make a buck", but a child begging in a developing country isn't? This is the issue with ethics we all have a different line, there is no black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb photos Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 5 hours ago, Rico said: I found this interesting article regarding the photograph of a First Nation woman mourning at a memorial for residential school survivors. Disclosure: I have four images on this subject on Alamy, no one is identifiable. Personally, I find this is disgusting. Here is the link. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mourning-photo-getty-images-1.6120168 35 minutes ago, Rico said: The article states that Loretta John, the woman in question, gave CBC permission to use the photo in context I wonder how Lorretta John legally gave CBC permission to use the photo of herself, and CBC would obviously be aware of this. I suspect there may be more to this than CBC published. I don't find this disgusting, the photojournalist was doing their job, the same as any agencies involved, and ultimately the any decision to publish was with the unknown media organisation. Why no mention of who it was and how the photo was used, makes one wonder if it was published as only the big G image was shown with a high price that in practise is never paid. A CBC sensational article? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rico said: I think we can presume that like all stock photographers, it was to get it published and make a buck or two. No doubt there is some truth to that. However, I don't begrudge the photographer the few bucks that he probably made. It's a powerful image. Hesitate to say this, but I think that the whole issue of Canadian residential schools -- which were obviously dreadful places -- has become overly sensitive. It's now impossible to say or do anything that might be interpreted as infringing on prevailing sentiments. This is true of a lot of other "touchy" subjects as well, a dangerous trend IMO. Edited July 28, 2021 by John Mitchell 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rico said: Chuck, I think you may have contradicted yourself here. You said "a buck to be made has nothing to with this" but then go on about how little money is being made on these images. Respectfully, it is all about money. To BobD, any news article, by it's very nature is biased. Rick and All, I was a "Hard Core" News Magazine photographer for decades and covered quite a bit of human suffering and destruction, some of those images are on Alamy and they are licensed often. First: I never did News Photos for "The Money." I did News Photos because I have always loved powerful News Images and I believe that a powerful news image can make a positive change. I hope you do not believe that Eddie Adams did the work he did in Vietnam just for money, I also hope that you do not believe that he gave his images away, Actually he was working for Associate Press and they did not give his images away. Adams images helped put an end to a senseless war. Second: The image that this thread is about has little to do with "Stock Photography" The discussion should be about Photojournalism and yes I do have a University degree in Journalism (that and a $1.75 would buy me a coffee.) I have not "contradicted" myself in anyway. BTW: I did make very good money doing news magazine photography, over the decades I had a small number of very good photo agents. While covering the 1989 San Francisco earthquake I was making over $4,000 per day during the first week, Alamy has licensed some of those images and both Alamy and myself have made money. I latter found out that a friend of mine had died in the freeway collapse in Oakland. I do not feel guilty for making money covering a disaster, but I do know that laws governing highway construction were strengthened after the coverage. Chuck Edited July 28, 2021 by Chuck Nacke grammer 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 28, 2021 Share Posted July 28, 2021 (edited) A bit of an aside. When I was photographing at the memorial in Vancouver (same one in the CBC article), a young indigenous woman came along and started beating a drum and chanting. I was really moved by the amount of pain on her face and in her voice. She would have made a strong photographic subject. However, I realized that I couldn't take the picture and just listened to her instead. There's a reason why I'm not a real news photographer... Edited July 28, 2021 by John Mitchell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts