More on ethics of photographing the miserable, model release etc.

[Andrea Taurisano]

Hi everyone! After my first question on the forum (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114518) I've been reading many interesting points of view on my ethical question. Many have followed that thread, thank you. As most of you understood, I wasn't looking for you to tell me whether or not to publish those photos, but for a discussion that would give me and others something to think of. And we did get it.

The dilemma was more a general one: can we serious amateur photographers tell stories of people with handicaps, devastated by alchool or drugs or somehow with miserable lives and publish them without model releases, hoping to make other people think, or would this do more harm than good to them? ("the roads of hell are paved with good intentions", as we say in Italian..)

Of course one can try to get model releases. But I mean, Salgado (just to mention one) doesn't get a model release from every one of thousands of struggling people he shows in his photos, does he?

Indeed there is a lot of dignity in images of people struggling under miserable working conditions or mutilated by mines in war zones or made homeless by an earthquake, so these subjects would be somehow nobilitated more than humiliated by having their pictures shown aoround in the world, while exposing someone else's drunkness or drug abuse may be more offensive. But I think the boundary is thin, if there is any.

It seems also to me that photographs of earthquake or war victims are generally not only better tolerated but even desirable, I mean that there is a lot of request and market for good, though strong, such photos. And few people would reject them a priori and say "I don't care, don't wanna hear their stories". Few people would find something offensive in pictures of innocent victims of whatever. Does that make model release unnecessary?

On the other hand, it seems to me that it may be more difficult to use information intentions to justify the publishing of photos of drunk people, drug addicts, child or other sex offenders and so on, either because many of us daily see people in the same situation (ex. drunk) or because what the possible subject has done is so brutally against our values that many more of us would deny him even attention and a voice to tell his story. Making it also more challenging for an unknown photographer to justify the photographing itself. Is a model release for this reason more necessary than it would be if the pictures told a story that's for most people easier to digest without prejudices or disgust? Legally and morally speaking.

Any thoughts?

 

[Bob Michaels]

................................. The dilemma was more a general one: can we serious amateur photographers tell stories of people with handicaps, devastated by alchool or drugs or somehow with miserable lives and publish them without model releases, hoping to make other people think, or would this do more harm than good to them? .........................................

It is a simple as your talent at telling a story through the use of photographs. No more, no less.

Model releases have no bearing on this discussion. Let us not absolve ourselves of our responsibility by thinking the subject gave us their informed consent to do whatever we want.

 

[Pablito]

Let us not absolve ourselves of our responsibility by thinking the subject gave us their informed consent to do whatever we want.

I've seen it again and again, to disastrous effect.

 

[willie_901]

There are no ethics that govern the situation you describe. Ethics typically describe a set of principles an organized group of people subscribe to. If you work for the media, your employer may require you to follow a code of ethics. Different employers could have very different codes of ethics. But if you are an independent photographer, no one can tell what to do. Only you can decide.

I agree with Bob that model releases are irrelevant. Model releases only cover commercial usage where the subject is essentially endorsing or representing a product or service. I don't know the law in Norway, so there could be legal restrictions based on an individual's right to privacy as opposed to the photographers right to freedom of expression.

 

[MCTuomey]

It is a simple as your talent at telling a story through the use of photographs. No more, no less.

+1 elegantly said

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

It is a simple as your talent at telling a story through the use of photographs. No more, no less.

A story that's very talentfully told through the use of photographs is not necessarily a story that its protagonist is happy to be known to everyone, is it?

 

[Roger Hicks]

It is a simple as your talent at telling a story through the use of photographs. No more, no less.

Model releases have no bearing on this discussion. Let us not absolve ourselves of our responsibility by thinking the subject gave us their informed consent to do whatever we want.

Dear Bob,

Quite.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bob Michaels]

A story that's very talentfully told through the use of photographs is not necessarily a story that its protagonist is happy to be known to everyone, is it?

Let me expand my comment so that hopefully it would make more sense:

It requires talent to make the photo story socially meaningful and beneficial. That is a very tall order when the subject is homeless or people who are down and out for whatever reason. I am sure there are some people who are talented enough to do that. But I do not think I am one of those talented people, so I avoid that as a specific topic.

My work has included homeless people when they are an integral part of a larger story. Hopefully I have portrayed them as "people" and not "homeless people".

Maybe the key is to ask yourself if you would have any problems meeting with that person in front of your image being publicly displayed.

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Thanks Bob, that makes your thought clearer.

Maybe the key is to ask yourself if you would have any problems meeting with that person in front of your image being publicly displayed.

And this is indeed a very honest way to "meter" how sure one is to be doing any good to his subjects. This is also the reason why I never published that picture series. Because, like you, I am not sure that my photographic talent and the quality of those very pictures are such that the publication would be benefiting him (or people like him) in any significant way.

 

[oftheherd]

...

Maybe the key is to ask yourself if you would have any problems meeting with that person in front of your image being publicly displayed.

A very good point sir.

 

[sdotkling]

This seems to be an endlessly agonized-about topic. But maybe we can look at it this way: Do you have an ethical problem looking with your eyes at unfortunate people in unfortunate situations as you walk by, or as you meet them? Sometimes, like when you inadvertently interrupt lovers, or people arguing, your first reaction is to say "Sorry, excuse me," and you instinctively leave the scene, because you know you've violated the social contract by compromising their privacy. Mostly, though, we do not turn away from gazing at the people around us, whether in fortunate or unfortunate circumstances: think of rubbernecking delays for traffic accidents, or following the figure of a pretty girl as she walks by, or the beggar who asks for our attention. These things seem to be "okay."

We don't question the ethics when we look. Why does the presence of a camera change this social contract? Is it materially different when the things we are allowed to see with our eyes are recorded in the making of art? Subjects may object to being photographed, but since these are usually people who don't object to being looked at, I think the photographer has the right to determine whether the objection is warranted...especially when 90% of exposures never see the light of day, in my case.

While I accept that the exploitation of the people in our images violates an unspoken social contract, I define "exploitation" very narrowly. Using an image to promote a product or service for gain is not art, it is commerce, and not compensating the subject for their participation is theft. But art is not exploitation, even if the image is sold. We can be certain that Andy Warhol never paid the estate of Marilyn Monroe for the use of her likeness--those silkscreens sold for millions--because his interpretation of her image transformed it into an icon beyond the original photo it was based on. Isn't that really the crux of "what is art"? Was Andy Warhol being unethical? I think not.

 

[celluloidprop]

We don't question the ethics when we look. Why does the presence of a camera change this social contract? Is it materially different when the things we are allowed to see with our eyes are recorded in the making of art?

Yes - because the endgame is, ultimately, putting these subjects on display for strangers, people they will never meet, in such a way that they have no control over their image/persona. This is wildly different from happening upon seeing something.

To illustrate with a different sense, when I first moved into this house with my roommate we didn't know how sound carried. So she accidentally woke me up with... very personal sounds involving herself and a gentleman. There's an enormous gap between me overhearing that and recording it for upload to the Internet.

Which is not to deem public photography in itself unethical, nothing of the sort - just that the presence of a camera and film or a sensor and a method of display does change the social contract.

We can be certain that Andy Warhol never paid the estate of Marilyn Monroe for the use of her likeness--those silkscreens sold for millions--because his interpretation of her image transformed it into an icon beyond the original photo it was based on. Isn't that really the crux of "what is art"? Was Andy Warhol being unethical? I think not.

Warhol used images of Monroe already in circulation, images she'd agreed to make (and she was, I believe, deceased at the time he started making Marilyns) - he didn't happen upon her on her deathbed or in a pilled stupor, snap a picture and started silkscreening it.

In this vein, you could point to Joel-Peter Witkin. Who makes occasionally interesting images, but I find his method of working, the way he uses cadavers obtained under questionable or blatantly illegal means to be unethical and amoral in a way I can't stomach.

Art is not a cover for inhuman behavior.

 

[sdotkling]

There's an enormous gap between me overhearing that and recording it for upload to the Internet.

I see your point, but doesn't the intent of the recorder count, in the case you cite? The violation of privacy for salacious purposes would not be considered proper in any social contract. We don't know if Dorothea Lange got permission to photograph the Dust Bowl mother, or even if she asked...but her intent was to make a point about the human condition. Judging by your sign-off line, you'd object to that image, too? They were homeless. The world benefited from Lange's violation of their privacy, no?

 

[celluloidprop]

Intent does matter - my signature line is a reference to the cliche of student photographers and wannabe HCBs seeking out 'interesting' homeless to photograph, generally affording them something less than basic human dignity. The page I was linking to is gone, but I believe the tag-line to the commandment was "thou shalt buy them a sandwich."

As I said, I'm not arguing that public photography is unethical or that you cannot photograph the unfortunate, the dying, etc. - only that putting those people on display does alter the social contract significantly from merely seeing something.

 

[sdotkling]

That's sorta my point exactly: they're on display already. They are visible, and couldn't be photographed if they weren't. Putting the image on paper just isn't that different than seeing them, or tugging on your friend's sleeve and saying, "Look at what I see." The photographer, though, has to try to elevate the subject in the image to something that is beyond a mere capture. It has to be a good photo to be shown. That's the responsibility the photographer has to accept.

I suggest you change your tagline to "Thou shalt not photograph homeless people badly. "

 

[f6andBthere]

Define miserable .... there's plenty of miserable people in the world who drive new cars, own houses and have well paid jobs.

No one wants to photograph them though!

 

[celluloidprop]

They aren't on display. They aren't zoo animals, caged and paraded before tourists. They're people, going about their lives. You may see them on the street, but they are still the actor in the events of their life. They can respond to you looking.

If you snap a picture, and post it on Flickr, RFF or up in a gallery, you have essentially turned a person into an object. He is no longer an actor, merely a thing. Being displayed to strangers, with no input into how he is portrayed.

It comes down to having some responsibility toward the people you photograph - because you are doing something by photograph, you are now the actor. That can't be said about merely seeing something.

Now, a better corollary might be eavesdropping or casual voyeurism (of the people-watching sort). Both of which do have ethical considerations.

 

[Chris101]

Define miserable .... there's plenty of miserable people in the world who drive new cars, own houses and have well paid jobs.

No one wants to photograph them though!

Yeah they do. You just described the gossip show/tabloid business. Their subjects don't much like it either, AND they can afford bodyguards and lawyers.

 

[Brian Legge]

I think Bobs answer is excellent and succinctly stated. My personal feelings are a bit more convoluted.

- If I take a photo, share it with people whose opinions I care about and am unable to answer the simple question 'why did you take this photo' - or I wouldn't like their response, thats a warning for me. Yes, sometimes powerful images are ones that make people uncomfortable or want to look away but that somehow different.

- I don't go into strangers homes, places of work, etc to take photos without asking. I do believe people should have places outside the public eye. If someone seems to lack that - and if they are engaged in an activity or are in a place that is the closest thing they have to a personal space, I am reluctant to take a photo unless they are either unrecognizable or the image has a very special social intent.

An example shot involving a homeless person I wish I'd taken (but was in a car and was able to shoot); I was driving past a series of abandon store fronts when I saw someone sleeping in the recessed doorway. Nothing exceptional or powerful about that image alone, but the person had closed the gates in front of them, resulting in a bunch of vertical bars and barbwire between the sidewalk and the sleeping person.

It felt like it tied together a bunch of topics - economic problems, those impacted by it, a sense of containment or 'prison'... and I could have shot it from far enough away that the occupant wouldn't have been recognizable. To me, that would have been a photo worth taking had I been prepared and I would have been comfortable sharing it here, on flickr, etc. I probably would have posted it in a series with other images focused on the recession - even though it may have misrepresented why the person was on the street in the first place. That to me would be the most questionable part and what I would have struggled with. The sense of potentially misportraying someone.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Let us make sure we are not evaluating the situation of other people by our own standards. It is far too easy to assume what is so important to us is also important to them. You and I do not define "normal" for everyone else in the world.