Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sb photos said:

 

 

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?

 

 

the only way that it makes sense is she allowed them to use the image, and they they proceeded to licence it.  Would love to see the licence terms, as the image does not seem to be us in context of it's caption, or the event it portrayed whatsoever, but instead to illustrate privacy rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

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...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whereas at the Ottawa memorial I went to a planned ceremony, advertised in advanced, with media, so i felt comfortable to capture some of the ceremonial.  but at another more intimate event I only captured the offerings 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

we are getting to be a touchy bunch....  not sure if you are getting the echos of the Habs pick out west, but some of the comments around here are pretty bad.  

 

 

on residential schools, the matter is horrifying on all level 

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

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

Chuck,

This thread has taken on a life of it own hasn't it. There are too many responses here for me to reply to but I will respond to this one.

First: I never did News Photos for "The Money." Then you go on about making 4000.00 a day. How is that not a contradiction?

Second:  The image that this thread is about has little to do with "Stock Photography" The image in question is on a stock agency website, therefore it has a lot to do with stock photography.

Edited by Rico
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

we are getting to be a touchy bunch....  not sure if you are getting the echos of the Habs pick out west, but some of the comments around here are pretty bad.  

 

 

on residential schools, the matter is horrifying on all level 

 

We're becoming too touchy a bunch in some cases IMO, but I won't elaborate. Yes, the residential schools were awful on many different levels. However, there are plenty of other grotesque things going on in society, many of them out of sight, out of mind, and sanctioned by the powers that be. I heard about the Habs pick but haven't followed the story.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rico said:

Chuck,

This thread has taken on a life of it own hasn't it. There are too many responses here for me to reply to but I will respond to this one.

First: I never did News Photos for "The Money." Then you go on about making 4000.00 a day. How is that not a contradiction?

Second:  The image that this thread is about has little to do with "Stock Photography" The image in question is on a stock agency website, therefore it has a lot to do with stock photography.

Rick,

 

I made myself very clear and was writing about my own experience.  I would suggest that you read what I wrote again, if you do not understand what it is that I am saying.

It would appear that you did not read everything that I wrote?

 

Chuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Rick,

 

I made myself very clear and was writing about my own experience.  I would suggest that you read what I wrote again, if you do not understand what it is that I am saying.

It would appear that you did not read everything that I wrote?

 

Chuck

Naw, reading it one time is enough for me thanks. Whether or not I understood any of your post is irrelevant.

When I posted the original link to the CBC article, it was to start a dialogue concerning sensitivity issues when photographing people during private moments in public. Apparently, that went over most people's heads as it quickly turned into a thread about the right to photograph as long a dollar is being made and that is more important in the long run.  Loretta John being hurt and confused is of no concern to anyone here. It's all about us after all. If that's what's where photographer's priorities are, so be it. I'm not here to change anybody's minds, not that I could anyway.

This whole thread was very enlightening for me and now that I have said all that I can regarding this issue, I bid this thread goodbye. The rest of you can carry on.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"A photograph of Loretta John mourning residential school victims at a memorial in Vancouver is being licensed by Getty Images for up to $575. John, who gave CBC permission to use the image"

 

And then they use a picture with a Getty watermark. That could be expensive.

 

$575 is pure fiction.

 

The article is just emotion and subjectivity. What does the law say?

 

Though personally I do not often take pictures like this because it makes me feel intrusive. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BobD said:

How can you have a private moment in a public space. surrounded by people.

 

And that is the core of the issue. Whether we like it or not, if we're in a public space we're visible to the public. If what we are doing makes a powerful image, all the photographer is doing is capturing what the public, and the world, is already entitled to see. Any attempt to restrict that puts us on a slippery slope. You don't have to be insensitive to recognise that.

 

Alan

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is journalism at its worse.

First it warns people to be distressed, perhaps some readers will fell guilty if not.

Then it blatantly misleads the reader to believe that image is being licenced at $575 a time, when being a publication itself will know full well this is very unlikely to be the case.

Then horror of horrors it actually pays to publish the image and let anyone gain from doing so, it takes a screen grab ( presumably) of it and does exactly what the article is ranting about and itself invades the subjects privacy.

I suppose it will claim editorial licence to publish it without paying (presumably).

Edited by BobD
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BobD said:

The article is journalism at its worse.

First it warns people to be distressed, perhaps some readers will fell guilty if not.

Then it blatantly misleads the reader to believe that image is being licenced at $575 a time, when being a publication itself will know full well this is very unlikely to be the case.

Then horror of horrors it actually pays to publish the image and let anyone gain from doing so, it takes a screen grab ( presumably) of it and does exactly what the article is ranting about and itself invades the subjects privacy.

I suppose it will claim editorial licence to publish it without paying (presumably).

 

i didn't notice they literally stole the image.  So i guess CBC would be fine with me taking pictures of their content and just uploading it for profit elsewhere.  Not a good look from our public owned national broadcaster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rico said:

Naw, reading it one time is enough for me thanks. Whether or not I understood any of your post is irrelevant.

When I posted the original link to the CBC article, it was to start a dialogue concerning sensitivity issues when photographing people during private moments in public. Apparently, that went over most people's heads as it quickly turned into a thread about the right to photograph as long a dollar is being made and that is more important in the long run.  Loretta John being hurt and confused is of no concern to anyone here. It's all about us after all. If that's what's where photographer's priorities are, so be it. I'm not here to change anybody's minds, not that I could anyway.

 

 

you said you wanted to start a dialogue, yet have not engaged in it when some one us joined the discussion.  So again, why do you feel that image was inappropriate but one of a child begging is?  Is the issue the person had access to internet to see the image?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

you said you wanted to start a dialogue, yet have not engaged in it when some one us joined the discussion.  So again, why do you feel that image was inappropriate but one of a child begging is?  Is the issue the person had access to internet to see the image?  

I don't remember saying I was perfect anywhere in this forum. As for the child begging photo, it was taken in Myanmar where the mother was standing next to her giving implied consent.

That's how some people make a living in third world countries. Inappropriate maybe, that's what this discussion is about. You're probably right, some of my images are inappropriate.

Edit: How long did you scour through my portfolio before you found that one?

Edited by Rico
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BobD said:

The article is journalism at its worse.

First it warns people to be distressed, perhaps some readers will fell guilty if not.

Then it blatantly misleads the reader to believe that image is being licenced at $575 a time, when being a publication itself will know full well this is very unlikely to be the case.

Then horror of horrors it actually pays to publish the image and let anyone gain from doing so, it takes a screen grab ( presumably) of it and does exactly what the article is ranting about and itself invades the subjects privacy.

I suppose it will claim editorial licence to publish it without paying (presumably).

Right on the point Bob,

 

I agree 100% with what you wrote.

 

Chuck

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rico said:

I don't remember saying I was perfect anywhere in this forum. As for the child begging photo, it was taken in Myanmar where the mother was standing next to her giving implied consent.

That's how some people make a living in third world countries. Inappropriate maybe, that's what this discussion is about. You're probably right, some of my images are inappropriate.

Edit: How long did you scour through my portfolio before you found that one?

i didn't scour just that this one felt within my ethics limit,  could have used the ordination ceremony, which to me is highly personal moment, on page one ,  and it is an honest question, as I have struggled with the perception any image in public is fair game also.  See my ethics would not have allowed me that image.  Not sure how you got the mother to consent that her child's image would be used commercially, i don;t think i could.  I have plenty of these images for my own personal usages but never considered them for "making a buck"

 

as for the Mother's "approval", so you believe she would be fine if you saw you were "making a buck" off the image of her kid begging, and can be licensed for a marketing package for £ 149.99

Edited by meanderingemu
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i didn't scour just that this one felt within my ethics limit,  could have used the ordination ceremony, which to me is highly personal moment, on page one ,  and it is an honest question, as I have struggled with the perception any image in public is fair game also.  See my ethics would not have allowed me that image.  Not sure how you got the mother to consent that her child's image would be used commercially, i don;t think i could.  I have plenty of these images for my own personal usages but never considered them for "making a buck"

 

as for the Mother's "approval", so you believe she would be fine if you saw you were "making a buck" off the image of her kid begging, and can be licensed for a marketing package for £ 149.99

Peace Out Reaction GIF

What I believe is that it's time for a beer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to say this because I think that Canada has treated its indigenous people atrociously, but the media here now thrives on casting people as victims. Also, shaming has become a growth industry. All this doesn't exactly create a healthy environment for objective reporting.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Hate to say this because I think that Canada has treated its indigenous people atrociously, but the media here now thrives on casting people as victims. Also, shaming has become a growth industry. All this doesn't exactly create a healthy environment for objective reporting.

 

It's not just Canada.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

That has treated indigenous people atrociously?

 

Depends on how far you want to go back.

But I did refer to the rest of the post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

Depends on how far you want to go back.

But I did refer to the rest of the post.

 

Please explain...in relation to stock photography of course.

 

What do you mean 'It's not just Canada' in relation to 'but the media here now thrives on casting people as victims.'

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

Please explain...in relation to stock photography of course.

 

You cannot help yourself looking for an argument can you.

I am not going to explain myself and to do so would be going off topic.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BobD said:

 

You cannot help yourself looking for an argument can you.

I am not going to explain myself and to do so would be going off topic.

 

Bob, You made the statement. I am asking you what you mean about the media 'casting people as victims'. What I see much more of is the media casting people as wrongdoers

ie) publishing pictures of Covidiots using distorted telephoto shots, deliberately choosing to publish the most extreme pictures of youngsters out on the town, representations of travelling community, asylum seekers ( why are they all wearing Nikes?) etc

 

I find the tabloid media in UK extremely judgemental as opposed to your suggestion that they overly side with 'victims'

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Alamy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.