Ethics and Fatalities??

I love auto racing and photography (not very good at it yet). Reading today's NY Post iPad edition, there are some amazing/horrifying photos of the crash in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, Dan Wheldon died from his injuries.

Personally, I don't think I could publish the shots of someone's death in a sporting event.

I understand what you are saying. I shoot auto racing and work for the PR Department of a major racing facility. Someone will always post photos of the crashes. Unfortunately, this was a worst case scenario. It is difficult to see someone you know in such a situation. Dan was one of the good guys in racing. Hopefully something good can come of his tragic death. Once in a while the photos and video reveal something that can be corrected to prevent a future occurrence. I can guarantee you that every available photo and video will be intensely scrutinized to ascertain what happened. We will miss Dan and our thoughts and prayers are for his wife Suzie, their two boys, the entire Wheldon family and the IndyCar community.

I was actually wondering if any of that would show up here. However, one would have to have been a pro on the infield with just the right focal length to even come close to getting a shot of that accident. Indycar IZOD racing probably owns most of the stills. The local Las Vegas newpaper had some shots in their motorsports section.

Ethics are sketchy where money is concerned. It made me feel a bit uneasy while watching it and hearing he had a wife and two little kids standing by at the hospital when he died. I don't know what I'd do if I'd captured the accident as a spectator. As a paid professional, I would imagine I would be expected to catch that event and hand in my files.

I agree with Schwany and would raise a bit more to consider.

Media organisations are there to record events & make it available to the public. In a black & white world it's not up to that industry to discern what is right or wrong to publish. If an event may upset people, does that mean it should be ignored/hidden?

In the real world, media is heavily influenced by factors like legal governance, ethics, privacy, target audience etc. It would then be down to the editor (I assume?) to make decisions in accordance with that organisation's goals as to what makes the cut.

Of course the internet & abundance of recording devices (mobile phones) has changed this dramatically over the last 20 years or so...

As amateur photographers (most of us?), we make our own decisions of what you shoot, share & with whom.

I read the original and walked away without responding, read the 1st response and said here is a pro, knows the family, too emotional to respond. But although this IS an emotional subject I thought I would throw in my 02 cents.

Like previous responder said, very unlikely I would be in a position of any event to capture the moment of someone death's. But if I did? Honestly, I would probably delete it right away. I know some "events" are worth money but there is more to life than money and in such a case I would just delete any such hotos. Caveat, a "pro" or event photographer ethics and responsibilities ARE different, I speak only as a standbye hobbiest.

Good thread.
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/67660656@N03/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22388579@N08/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67660656@N03/sets/72157627576100801/

I wanted to go to the IndyCar race at New Hampshire.

After my original post, I realized that had they had a similar crash on the frontstretch at New Hampshire, cars/debris would likely have gone into the stands where I was standing when I took this shot.





Same thing with Las Vegas. We are very lucky fans weren't injured/killed when the cars (there were more than one) got into the catch fence.

Schwany said:

I was actually wondering if any of that would show up here. However, one would have to have been a pro on the infield with just the right focal length to even come close to getting a shot of that accident. Indycar IZOD racing probably owns most of the stills. The local Las Vegas newpaper had some shots in their motorsports section.

Ethics are sketchy where money is concerned. It made me feel a bit uneasy while watching it and hearing he had a wife and two little kids standing by at the hospital when he died. I don't know what I'd do if I'd captured the accident as a spectator. As a paid professional, I would imagine I would be expected to catch that event and hand in my files.

Click to expand...

I probably didn't explain myself correctly. And yes it has been an emotional time. First, I am not a full-time professional photographer, but I am paid to shoot events at our track and am considered to be part of the photography staff. My main job is to assist in the management of our Media Center to support the media covering our events. What I was trying to say to the OP was the photos are going to be published. If I was covering the race, my job would be to record whatever was on my shotlist and whatever occurred in my assigned area. If this accident had occurred in front of me, it would have been my job to record it, no matter who was involved. In a previous professional life, I dealt with tragedy on a fairly regular basis, but as a professional you do your job and grieve later. I would never delete images I recorded.

Schwany said:

I was actually wondering if any of that would show up here. However, one would have to have been a pro on the infield with just the right focal length to even come close to getting a shot of that accident. Indycar IZOD racing probably owns most of the stills.

Click to expand...

I have at least two friends who were in the stands, neither of them pros by any stretch, who got unbelievably detailed sequences of the accident.

Ha I knew I'd be wrong no matter what I said. ;-)

iMac said:

Schwany said:

I was actually wondering if any of that would show up here. However, one would have to have been a pro on the infield with just the right focal length to even come close to getting a shot of that accident. Indycar IZOD racing probably owns most of the stills.

Click to expand...

I have at least two friends who were in the stands, neither of them pros by any stretch, who got unbelievably detailed sequences of the accident.

Click to expand...

Your post was clear and appropriate. Sometimes jobs means making hard choices.

Phixer323 said:

I probably didn't explain myself correctly. And yes it has been an emotional time. First, I am not a full-time professional photographer, but I am paid to shoot events at our track and am considered to be part of the photography staff. My main job is to assist in the management of our Media Center to support the media covering our events. What I was trying to say to the OP was the photos are going to be published. If I was covering the race, my job would be to record whatever was on my shotlist and whatever occurred in my assigned area. If this accident had occurred in front of me, it would have been my job to record it, no matter who was involved. In a previous professional life, I dealt with tragedy on a fairly regular basis, but as a professional you do your job and grieve later. I would never delete images I recorded.

Click to expand...

There are three separate issues to consider. The photographer recording the incident, the track/promoter/sanctioning body trying to suppress the incident and who might publish photos of the incident.

The photographer's job is to get photos, not censor regardless of the reason, and it would be unethical of the photographer to engage in censorship.

The track/promoter/sanctioning body will want to suppress the incident for a myriad of reasons, and will threaten photographers more often than not to surrender their film/memory card. It would be unethical of a photographer to aid in hiding the truth regardless of the reason.

Those who might publish a fatal accident photo can do so or not as it is their decision alone, and not the decision of the photographer.

I speak from experience, as I shot motorsports for (as a freelancer) Road & Track and a French press agency for many years. The last F1 death before Senna in 1994 was Riccardo Paletti at the 1982 Canadian GP. I was shooting the start and Pironi's Ferrari on pole stalled and Paletti, the last car on Pironi's side of the grid, plowed into the motionless Ferrari under full accelleration and he was killed instantly. I had a wide sequence of the start, and R&T ran three shots from the sequence. The first frame has the moment of contact as the Ferrari's front wheels are off the ground, and in the second and third frames Paletti was deceased. The AD chose to publish the sequence, while the assistant AD said he would not have published it. Their choice, not mine.



And a few minutes after I shot this pic of Rolf Stommelen at the 1983 Riverside IMSA race, the rear wing failed on Rolf's "Moby ****" Porsche 935 at the end of the long straight and he was killed. A friend was shooting for the L.A. Times and got the whole sequence, and track personnel threatened him agressively to give up his film. He wouldn't do it, nor should he have.



Just get the pic.

Get the pic indeed.

Thanks for the reality check.

A bit harsh , but at least the carnage was confined to the race track. The same can't be said for a lot of racing. World class 4 wheel and 2 wheel road course motorsports has come a long way toward making a very dangerous high speed sport as safe as possible.

I captured the last instant of a man's life a few years ago at a BASE jumping event. His canopy barely opened, way too late and he landed in shallow water from 900 feet. I also got several shots of him on the way down includidng the instant he hit. I did not publish the images out of respect for the family, but another photographer did publish a shot of the spalshdown and it was all over the papers and other news media.

I did send my images to the National Park Service to help them determine what went wrong. In one of the shots you could see the cord of his pilot chute snagged under his arm, not pulling out the main chute.

Last weekend at the same event, we thought we had witnessed another death. A jumper wearing a wingsuit released his pilot way too late and hit the water at near full speed. The sound was deafening. We found out later that he survived, but with spinal, lung and pelvic injuries.

I did not capture that event but there was video of it online the next day. Those who shot and published it were not aware at the time they put it online, that he had survived.

I've been read the comments on here and it's been informative, at least when it comes to the professionals. I'm not a pro, but I thought I'd add a comment. I was at up in the reserved grandstands of the Reno Air Races in September when the Galloping Ghost went into the box seat on the ramp. I didn't get any pictures of the the lead up or the crash, due mainly to the speed of the events and me trying to figure out how to get out of there since it looked like he was coming to the grandstands. I did get pictures of the aftermath, at the time I didn't really zoom in too closely as I didn't really want to see something that I wasn't sure if I'd be able to handle. I looked at them once when I downloaded them and didn't look at them again until a couple of weeks later to show people at I work with at an airport (had no desire to show it to my family) mainly because some of them have seen this happen. When we zoomed in the photos you could definitely see the carnage involved. I don't regret taking the photos, though I'm still mixed as to whether I'd ever post them anywhere. I think my question is what kind of ethics would be considered on the amateur end of things. I mainly ask because within 45 minutes of the crash someone had posted a video on You Tube and I thought "you just survived an event like that and your first thought is to post it online that quick?". Is my reaction to that justified or is there an aspect I'm not seeing. I understand why a pro would need to do this as it's their job to get the story and the details. Sorry for the long post, but I also needed to vent a little. Thanks in advance for any input.

I shoot horse sports and it's taken me a while to get into the habit of continuing to take photos when I see a fall about to happen/happening.

For my first few events I'd just stop shooting and look over the camera, feeling awful watching it all unfold.

But then afterwards people would always ask, "Did you get the shot? Did you get them falling?" and you feel like an idiot for saying, "No."

I guess it's human nature to want to see the gory, macabre and horrible things that can happen. Like being drawn to look at a car or train wreck.

Personally, I have to agree that it's the photographer's job to get the photos. We're there to document the event. Someone, somewhere, will want those photos. So just take the pictures. The viewfinder has to become an extension of your eye. Your finger has to automatically go to the shutter when you see something that you know, deep inside, ought to be photographed.

So now I take the photos. Some of them I post online, some of them end up on my website for sale. So far I haven't been unfortunate enough to take a photo of anyone dying, but I suspect if I did and someone asked to see or publish the photos then I'd hand them over. I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person or not but I suspect it makes me a better 'photographer'.

I was watching the Malaysian Moto GP race with the fatal accident to Simoncelli. A website, gpupdate.net, had a story a few days later with video that shows the course workers/medical staff dropping Simoncelli's stretcher with him on it. On the audio you can hear the crowd gasp when he's dropped. Not a good thing to do when someone has massive head injuries. Now the original video link has been removed from youtube for unknown reasons, but I found another. Here's the link to the story and the video . . .

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/motogp-news/270380/marshalls-dropped-simoncelli-on-stretcher/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jRy8nPgPKlA

I haven't seen another source carry this report, so why is this incident being suppressed? This is why it's important to have photos published even in a fatal accident.

Now others have picked up the story . . .

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/shocking-footage-of-marco-simoncelli-aftermath-at-malaysian-motogp/story-e6frf9if-1226177788763

I don't think its being suppressed. Its just a non-story. The emergency workers tripped and slowly collapsed to the ground. While I agree its not a good thing to happen, if you read the story and comments by his father, he was already gone. His father was one of the persons taking him over the fence and into the ambulance. Since it made no difference to the unfortunate outcome, what's to be gained by attempting to make something of this. Let the family grieve and move on with their lives.

I seem to recall an ethics question from long ago...
It is half in jest, but also half meant to further discussion:

You are assigned to photograph a street protest.

Suddenly, in front of you, a protester douses himself with gasoline, but is having difficulty lighting the match.

The question is: What f/stop do you select?

dad_of_four said:

I seem to recall an ethics question from long ago...
It is half in jest, but also half meant to further discussion:

You are assigned to photograph a street protest.

Suddenly, in front of you, a protester douses himself with gasoline, but is having difficulty lighting the match.

The question is: What f/stop do you select?

Click to expand...

Too often in the world today I'm afraid the reality would be "make sure video is rolling and hand him a lighter". The moral dilemmas that often occurred in photo and print journalism have largely been replaced by instantaneous news at all costs.