Ethical issues in photography

[jezsik]

Suppose you've been hired to create an image for a client. The requirement is for you to photograph a specific subject and the client gets the right to use one image for their purpose, say a billboard.

Is it ethical to take some pictures that are not to the client's specifications (e.g. a vertical rather than horizontal image)?

If you create such images, is it ethical to use them for some other creative purpose that does not compete with the client's requirements?

Is it ethical to manipulate a subject in order to alter its appearance - make it look like something markedly different?

Another discussion, about to achieve maximum thread count, suggests that a photographer was unethical in her treatment of a particular subject. In posing my question here, I am attempted to cut away the emotional side and consider the basic issues involved.

 

[foto_mike]

It is unethical for a photographer to intentionally embarrass or otherwise cause harm to either the client or the subject.

Very simple. No emotion needed.

 

[jezsik]

It is unethical for a photographer to intentionally embarrass or
otherwise cause harm to either the client or the subject.

What about political cartoonists? It's OK for them to embarrass a subject, right? Why is it then unethical for a photographer to do the same thing?

Do you consider this image to be unethical?

 

[foto_mike]

What about political cartoonists?

The subject of your post was photography and the contents made it clear you were referring to professional photography.

I stand by my personal belief that it is unethical for a photographer to intentionally harm, damage, or embarrass a client or subject. The key word is intentional.

Do you consider this image to be unethical?
[ image of UN soldier ]

I don't know if the soldier is "in on" the joke. It's one thing for an average citizen to make fun of someone or an institution. It's crosses an ethical line in my book when a professional uses his or her professional access, tools, or contacts to harm a client or a subject.

 

[Soenda]

What about political cartoonists?

The subject of your post was photography and the contents made it
clear you were referring to professional photography.

I stand by my personal belief that it is unethical for a photographer
to intentionally harm, damage, or embarrass a client or subject. The
key word is intentional.

Do you consider this image to be unethical?
[ image of UN soldier ]

I don't know if the soldier is "in on" the joke. It's one thing for
an average citizen to make fun of someone or an institution. It's
crosses an ethical line in my book when a professional uses his or
her professional access, tools, or contacts to harm a client or a
subject.

In journalism, the feelings of the subject may be offset by the public's need to know.

What comes to mind is the photo of the disgraced public official or clergyman caught with a hand in the wrong honeypot. It's healthy for a society to know when its members have been deceived. But the subjects themselves generally are not happy to be unmasked.

--
http://www.pbase.com/soenda

 

[Chato]

Suppose you've been hired to create an image for a client. The
requirement is for you to photograph a specific subject and the
client gets the right to use one image for their purpose, say a
billboard.

Is it ethical to take some pictures that are not to the client's
specifications (e.g. a vertical rather than horizontal image)?

No matter who I was shooting, I would take pictures for my own amusement, if nothing more.

If I am an employee, then the entire day belongs to the employer - But if I am contracted for a specific result, my obligation ends by producing that result.

If you create such images, is it ethical to use them for some other
creative purpose that does not compete with the client's requirements?

Why not? Unless of course I'm an employee, in which case whatever I do on the job belongs to them.

Is it ethical to manipulate a subject in order to alter its
appearance - make it look like something markedly different?

Only if that was the requirement of the job, otherwise, no.

Another discussion, about to achieve maximum thread count, suggests
that a photographer was unethical in her treatment of a particular
subject. In posing my question here, I am attempted to cut away the
emotional side and consider the basic issues involved.

Well, much of that thread was really political. Some who support one party over another making ethical "political" arguments, and not ethical "photography" arguments.

In essence she was given a difficult assignment. To make an "Heroic" portrait of a 72 year old man. The cover for the Atlantic Monthly. She did a magnifiscent job as these images below show.

jezsik, the problem with that thread you mention, was a completely different question. Which is, "Do distorted caricatures have a place in political debate."

An interesting question, but it has nothing to do with photography.

 

[jfriedl]

It crosses an ethical line in my book when a professional uses his or
her professional access, tools, or contacts to harm a client or a
subject.

I wonder if perhaps you're stating too strongly what you actually feel. In a football game today, for example, a player about to score a touchdown celebrated a bit early, and ended up making one of most stupid moves in the history of sports. Should the ESPN photographer (whose client is ESPN) not transmit a photo of the subject (the player doing something really stupid)?

There are a lot of unflattering situations in the world, many of which are captured by a photographer. Do you really mean to suggest that such scenes should be universally deleted by anyone who calls themself "professional"? Sometimes, "unflattering" is the very essence that makes the picture (to the chagrin of the subject).

When the subject is not the client, but has a say in the matter, well, the subject would do well to exercise caution. Long before this week, I wondered why any sane adult would agree to pose for Ms. Greenburg. She has a lot more photographic skill than I do, but wow, much less basic humanity.

Jeffrey

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Friedl -- Kyoto, Japan -- http://regex.info/blog/

 

[foto_mike]

In journalism, the feelings of the subject may be offset by the
public's need to know.

Photojournalism has its own ethics. Primarily, ethics require journalistic photos to be a fair and accurate representation of a subject. Good newspapers vigorously enforce this among their photographers.

The implicit subject here is portrait or commercial photography for hire.

 

[foto_mike]

In another reply, I made a distinction between photojournalism ethics and portrait/commercial photography ethics.

In the case of the football player dropping the ball and being professionally photographed in an embarrassing moment, I would suggest the player embarrassed himself and the photographer recorded it. If the photo was a fair and accurate representation of what happened, then the photojournalist's ethics are fine. In particular, the photographer had no hand in intentionally creating the embarrassing situation of the subject.

 

[jfriedl]

In the case of the football player dropping the ball and being
professionally photographed in an embarrassing moment....

Fair enough. I figured that you intended the distinction, but I hadn't noticed it being made.

Jeffrey

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Friedl -- Kyoto, Japan -- http://regex.info/blog/

 

[Mikeobe]

Eggs Actly! The End!

 

[Mikeobe]

"An interesting question, but it has nothing to do with photography. "

U R correct, Just ETHICS!

DUH again!

 

[Searching_Ut]

Too many variables. Are you doing this during a time when you’re “under contract” to another? If so, wouldn’t it basically be stealing time? I’d say that was unethical. Did you misrepresent the nature of your work in any way? If so, how are you any different than say some of the salesmen that were supposedly passing off subprime loans in a misrepresented way? To me, it’s unethical to be deliberately misleading or doing something to deliberately cause harm to another, even though it may be legal. Are there exceptions? There are always variables that change the equation, and defining ethics is a tough thing in and of itself. Myself, I kind of try and stick to the “do unto others” philosophy, but like most, am probably fairly inconsistent.

 

[Chato]

"An interesting question, but it has nothing to do with photography. "

U R correct, Just ETHICS!

DUH again!

Apparently you cannot even comprehend the title of this one. Duh, it's title is

"Ethical issues in Photography."

Hope this helps

Dave

 

[Mikeobe]

thanks Spanky and if ya take a Close Look, it's Eggs Actly what the other Thread is about!

I know I shouldn't, but I just can't Hep myself!

D U H!!

Glad ta see U R FINALLY startin ta git it!!

 

[Chato]

thanks Spanky and if ya take a Close Look, it's Eggs Actly what the
other Thread is about!

I know I shouldn't, but I just can't Hep myself!

D U H!!

Glad ta see U R FINALLY startin ta git it!!

You have no argument, other than to repeat, "Duh," over and over. I'm glad you've found your intellectual level.

I will say it's superior to Boris, who keeps on saying that the portrait on the Atlantic looks terrible. How he manages that in the face of how McCain actually looks is beyond me.

Dave

 

[Mikeobe]

OOOOOOOOOOOH TAY, Spanky!!

"Neva, Neva Land!"

"Hope, Change, Yes We Can, God Damn America!"

Ya know, Sparky, "Most people, when they find themselves in a Hole, They Quit Digging!"

 

[jezsik]

What about political cartoonists?

The subject of your post was photography and the contents made it
clear you were referring to professional photography.

I was, but I'm also interested in knowing if what holds true for a photographer holds true for a different type of artist.

I stand by my personal belief that it is unethical for a photographer
to intentionally harm, damage, or embarrass a client or subject. The
key word is intentional.

So, what happens when you decide to create a photographic caricature? Sketch artists ingeniously exaggerate certain characteristics of their subjects. Why is it wrong for a photographer (or photo editor) to do the same? Why do you think it's unethical to photograph someone and put them in a position much the same way a political cartoonist might?

Do you consider this image to be unethical?
[ image of UN soldier ]

I don't know if the soldier is "in on" the joke.

Let's say he's not in on it and the photographer has been hired by a news agency to cover the UN's efforts. Has he behaved unethically?

If the UN hired the photographer to show the world how wonderful the UN is, you might have a good argument. However, suppose the UN-hired photographer was witness to really horrible things being committed by the UN (I'm being TOTALLY hypothetical here)? Is it ethical to frame every image to make the client look good and ignore the atrocities?

 

[foto_mike]

I was, but I'm also interested in knowing if what holds true for a
photographer holds true for a different type of artist.

So, what happens when you decide to create a photographic caricature?

Let's say he's not in on it and the photographer has been hired by a
news agency to cover the UN's efforts. Has he behaved unethically?

You are mixing several issues. This discussion would stay more clearly on track if we focused on the original questions regarding the ethics of portrait/commercial photography for hire.

Jay Leno can ethically poke fun at public figures because he's a comedian and has a certain latitude in that area. He can't ethically use his network show to publicly slander someone, though. Jay Leno's INTENTIONS are important in determining the difference.

Someone who sits for a caricature artist has a reasonable expectation of what the result will be. Someone who sits for a portrait artist and gets a caricature result will be rightly disappointed, upset, or offended. This is very simple. It has to do with the artist's INTENTION to mislead.

Photojournalism ethics require fair and accurate representations. If the UN soldier photographer saw the scene and took the picture, I don't have any specific ethical problems. If the photographer or editor used that soldier's photo to make a political statement that the soldier may very well not agree with, I see an ethical problem. Again, it has to do with INTENT.

It's very hard to find ethical examples of INTENTIONALLY harming others, but keep trying. I feel like I'm getting to know quite a bit about you without us ever meeting.

 

[Chato]

I was, but I'm also interested in knowing if what holds true for a
photographer holds true for a different type of artist.

So, what happens when you decide to create a photographic caricature?

Let's say he's not in on it and the photographer has been hired by a
news agency to cover the UN's efforts. Has he behaved unethically?

You are mixing several issues. This discussion would stay more
clearly on track if we focused on the original questions regarding
the ethics of portrait/commercial photography for hire.

Jay Leno can ethically poke fun at public figures because he's a
comedian and has a certain latitude in that area. He can't ethically
use his network show to publicly slander someone, though. Jay Leno's
INTENTIONS are important in determining the difference.

Someone who sits for a caricature artist has a reasonable expectation
of what the result will be. Someone who sits for a portrait artist
and gets a caricature result will be rightly disappointed, upset, or
offended. This is very simple. It has to do with the artist's
INTENTION to mislead.

Photojournalism ethics require fair and accurate representations. If
the UN soldier photographer saw the scene and took the picture, I
don't have any specific ethical problems. If the photographer or
editor used that soldier's photo to make a political statement that
the soldier may very well not agree with, I see an ethical problem.
Again, it has to do with INTENT.

It's very hard to find ethical examples of INTENTIONALLY harming
others, but keep trying. I feel like I'm getting to know quite a bit
about you without us ever meeting.

Ms Greenberg did the exact same kind of caricatures of Mr. Bush. She didn't need any shots from her studio to accomplish this.

Did agreeing to do a portrait of Mr. McCain also come with the consideration that she would no longer do caricatures of him? I suspect that she would be recieving the exact same criticism from Some of the people on this thread, no matter what images she used (mind you, I'm not saying this about your posts).

So she used the out takes from her job, in lieu of the Net, to make her caricatures. So what? Her property. Her ideas. She did not give up her rights to free speech by taking these photographs. If she had screwed up the job, created a lousy protrait of Mr. McCain, then of course the ciriticism would be just. But juxtoposing her cover shot, and every other portrait of Mr.McCain that I've ever seen - She made a magnifiscent portrait.

Google in: "McCain" +"Portraits." Doing so will present you with 70,000 pages of portraits - compare them to the work she did.

Dave