My first 'photojournalist' experience... a bad one at that...

[photogdave]

This reminds me of a thread some time ago when a member shot a bus crash. Anyway, here's another opinion from a former PJ.
This doesn't sound like a very newsworthy accident so it was probably pointless to photograph it with the intention of selling the photos. Not trying to insult you or make you feel bad, just talking plain here.
Photographing the victim on the stretcher would likely only cause upset and stress. I doubt any newspaper would run such a shot. Other photos of the accident scene may have value as potential evidence, as others stated, and that's probably why the officer wanted to question you.
From my point of view nothing is more irritating and sometimes irresponsible as a "wannabe" photojournalist. Again I don't mean to be insulting, but I went to school and worked my ass off for no pay shadowing other photographers just to get a foothold in the newspaper business. I learned how to conduct myself professionally in such situations before I started shooting them myself. I learned how to communicate with emergency services personnel on the scene and the proper etiquette for what to shoot and how to shoot it. Amateurs just get in the way and cause problems and their photos are generally useless besides.
I'm sure most working news photographers went through similar training to mine and despite popular belief, most photo editors don't run random accident photos shot by "citizen journalists" just because they happened to be at the scene. At least they didn't in my day.
It's great if you want to become a photojournalist but please go through the proper channels.

 

[photogdave]

you know dave i second that... i have seen countless "i came upon this accident, the officer told me to get lost" threads that end in "my rights"!!!
rarely, rarely, rarely does anyone print that stuff. there's more story in the ems workers and police officers out there.

That's right. There's a perception (that's even being perpetuated in this very thread!) that just because you know how to use a camera, you should be able to cover a news event just as well as a professional news photographer.
Well, just because you know how to drive a car doesn't mean you're qualified to start in the Monaco Grand Prix!

 

[Gumby]

Let me suggest something more benign than previous comments: The photos may be relevant and valuable in ascertaining fault and liability. It may be that the officer wanted your name to give to both parties involved in the accident so that they would have access to this evidence. Dave

You're being far too logical... taking all of the fun out of the thread 😉

Perhaps two calls could be expected: one from the police as they complete the documentation of their investigation, and one from the insurance company trying to resolve liability and/or insurance claim. Each is about a 5 or 10 minute conversation, especially since it sounds like the OP might not have seen the accident actually happen. Most likely nothing more.

 

[tripod]

Photographers arguing for not taking pictures. Weird. The pro vs amature distinction is arbitrary. Just as an armed society is a polite society, a society which allows citisens to take pictures and video is a freer and safer society from the abuse of authority. Don't get me wrong I'm all about being respectful to law officers. I've had some BIG ticket speeding fines reduced simply for being polite. If I had been rude, I would be a lot poorer.

 

[photogdave]

Photographers arguing for not taking pictures. Weird. The pro vs amature distinction is arbitrary. Just as an armed society is a polite society, a society which allows citisens to take pictures and video is a freer and safer society from the abuse of authority. Don't get me wrong I'm all about being respectful to law officers. I've had some BIG ticket speeding fines reduced simply for being polite. If I had been rude, I would be a lot poorer.

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about the distinction here. Professionals have bona fides to prove their capabilities to handle these kinds of situations, amateurs do not.
This has nothing to do with "society" or "the abuse of authority". No need to go overboard here.

 

[Letien]

Hope this will stop you from worrying to much. Accident scene and law officer are actually permissive subject according to this site.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

[d_ross]

I cant understand why didnt you just say to the cop that you would be happy to make your pictures available to them if required and happily give the him your details!

 

[Pablito]

......an armed society is a polite society, .........

now THAT is a bizarre concept!

 

[d_ross]

would that then imply an unarmed society was most likely unpolite ?

 

[Gumby]

now THAT is a bizarre concept!

It worked quite well in Rhodesia, and continues to work well in Switzerland.

 

[d_ross]

what exactly worked well in Rhodesia ?

 

[Gumby]

Armed citizens.

 

[d_ross]

Brave thing to mention Zimbabwe in a thread relating in any way to journalistic freedom 🙂

 

[Gumby]

I didn't mention Zimbabwe... I mentioned Rhodesia. Same geographic location, but there is a difference! The Rhodeasian crime rate was quite low because anyone could carried a firearm, even concealed, and the penlty for use of a firearm in the conduct of a crime was d-e-a-t-h. It scared the crime right out of that society.

I have no idea what the current Zimbabwe society is like - either from the crime perspective or journaliztic freedom.

 

[d_ross]

Zimbabwe was Rhodesia! and they are armed still, their society is at rock bottom, people are starving, they are oppressed by armed militants and corrupt government. and foreign Journalists are banned.

 

[Gumby]

Zimbabwe was Rhodesia! and they are armed still, their society is at rock bottom, people are starving, they are oppressed by armed militants and corrupt government. and foreign Journalists are banned.

Yes, of course, Z was once R. I said that first 😉 Just because they "once were" doesn't make them the same. Complete change of government and by the sounds of things, a large change in their society. They sound like they are much worse off than when they were "Rhodesians". But this is quite OT.

 

[Pablito]

the penlty for use of a firearm in the conduct of a crime was d-e-a-t-h. It scared the crime right out of that society.

Wow, death and fear. Let me buy a one-way ticket. And I'll be damn sure and be polite when I get there!

 

[cp_ste.croix]

That's right. There's a perception (that's even being perpetuated in this very thread!) that just because you know how to use a camera, you should be able to cover a news event just as well as a professional news photographer.
Well, just because you know how to drive a car doesn't mean you're qualified to start in the Monaco Grand Prix!

I agree with this sentiment, every time I hear someone who's not a teacher telling me what or how I should teach his kids. 😀

That said, my only contribution to the thread was to say that he did nothing wrong. Did he behave unwisely? I don't know. Was he being sensitive in photographing someone on a stretcher? Maybe not. Was he taking photos that were newsworthy? Perhaps, perhaps not. Are his photos as good as a professional's? Maybe not. Would an editor run his civillain contribution? Probably not. Was he behaving legally? yes.

 

[rlouzan]

Quote:
You are not a PJ, correct? So you were not covering the accident. You were a spectator who walked "four steps" or 10 feet into the road to take pictures.
The difference is that you are NOT a PJ and do not have the "right" to be in the street taking pictures. Most likely the crowd had been told to stay back (maybe before you arrived) and you did not.

- Pure Speculation!!!


Quote:
Professionals have bona fides to prove their capabilities to handle these kinds of situations, amateurs do not.

-Poor HCB

 

[sjw617]

Quote:
Most likely the crowd had been told to stay back (maybe before you arrived) and you did not.

- Pure Speculation!!!

The " most likely " part means I know it is speculation.