So what he photographed was not correct? Why would you censor someone for bring to attention some deplorable acts?
People need to be shocked before they take note.
Exactly!
And both should be considered equally no matter where you are in the world. That last part is important. Amongst the ethical problems Magnum has recently faced there is the case of Iranian photographer Newsha Tavakolian, who photographed teenage victims of rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, photos in which these victims were all identifiable. Both Magnum and MSF were pushed to review their practice after many complaints.
Magnum photographer defends images of teenage gang rape victim after humanitarian organisation removes them from website
After controversy on social media surrounding Newsha Tavakolian’s photographs of East Congo, Médecins Sans Frontières announces internal reviewwww.theartnewspaper.com
So what he photographed was not correct? Why would you censor someone for bring to attention some deplorable acts?
People need to be shocked before they take note.
I'm sure it is imprudent.
And against my principles as well, if I did it without at least engaging with the subject and confirming their agreement.
I'm not sure that it is always unethical, but ethical issues should be addressed.
But I can't think of any reason it would be illegal, although in places like Germany or Quebec where there are special, more restrictive statutes that deal with privacy rights, claims for damages might arise.
As for the model release, they tend to be required by publishers, because they protect publishers from potential litigation, but their main advantage is that they confirm consent.
Taking a picture in a public place is not illegal, selling the image of a person without permission is illegal. If the event or person is news worthy, then it can be sold without permission.
Taking a picture in a public place is not illegal, selling the image of a person without permission is illegal.
Can you point me to any statutory provision that states this?
I ask, because to the best of my knowledge there are none in any of the jurisdictions I am aware of.
Not a lawyer but I have bought hundreds of images for commercial purposes in the U.S. where a release is necessary for any recognizable person in an image for advertising. Even Buzz Aldrin’s footprint can’t be used without his permission because the famous photo is of his footprint and he and everyone else is aware of that. On the other hand (once again, in the U.S.) no permission is required for artistic use.
Taking a picture in a public place is not illegal, selling the image of a person without permission is illegal. If the event or person is news worthy, then it can be sold without permission.
It was she, not he.
The article (did you read it?) makes it clear that the problem isn't documenting a tragedy. That's what photojournalists do. Where there is a problem is in the fact that the girl was a teenager and was fully identifiable in the photos. In other words, not only must she live with the trauma of what happened to her, but also with the fact that the image of it will forever be available to anyone on the Web (side note, similar photos by serious photojournalists documenting rape of teenage girls in Asia have found their way on to porn websites). The fact that she is a teenager, and in a country marred by poverty and lack of basic education, makes the question of consent very ambiguous—i.e., the question of whether or not she really understood all the implications of her "consent" very murky. All this is well developed in the article.
I do think the photographer here was in good faith and not trying to "photographically exploit" a tragedy. That said, what the story brings out is that to solely focus on the question of consent in such cases is a mistake. More often than not, consent is a legal matter, not an ethical one.
So it's not a question of censorship: every story needs to be told. It's about the implications of how you are telling the story for the people about whom you are telling it. They should be the point, not the needs, desire, esthetics, etc., of the photographer.
Agreed. I find their assertive presence on social media quite uncomfortable. If they are just an agency fairly selling photographers' works, why do they need to raise a following? What does a 'like' mean?Magnum is more than an agency - they openly promote and publish. It's in that capacity that they should be held accountable.
I stand corrected, it is publishing or other wise using a person image for commercial gain without permission, by illegal I mean a civil offense not a criminal offense.
But would it be illegal for those to have been sold to you, without the release?
In other words, would it be a crime or a breach of a statutory provision where the breach can attract punishment?
There may be a claim for compensation, but that involves private rights, not illegality.
In Germany it is a criminal offence...
Already without commercial gain.
And that would be because there are specific statutory provisions where you are making that action a crime.Yes.
But would it be illegal for those to have been sold to you, without the release?
In other words, would it be a crime or a breach of a statutory provision where the breach can attract punishment?
There may be a claim for compensation, but that involves private rights, not illegality.
As I understand the law, the sale would be legal, but the publication would not be.
As I understand the law, the sale would be legal, but the publication would not be. The responsibility to possess the necessary release(s) lies with the publisher, not with the person selling the photos.
Publication would not be illegal, just grounds to make a private claim.
The term “illegal” is applicable in both civil law and criminal law.
In Germany it is a criminal offence...
Already without commercial gain.
That's why photography is legal in [US] public places like the street.
It is more complex as this, as "taking" is different from "publishing". And a "street view" is different from a "portrait".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?