Photographic Ethics: The "Weegee dilemma"

[Rafael]

Every morning I take one of our dogs and walk my wife to the bus stop when she leaves for work. This morning, I was walking back to the house when all of a sudden I heard a squeal of tires and a huge bang. I came around the corner and found the wreck of a car that had just slammed into a house. A group of people had already assembled and were busy trying to get to the driver and calling police and ambulances. I was not an actual witness to the accident and the group of people there had everything in hand. So there was no need for me to stay at the scene of the accident. In fact, I would only have gotten in the way. However, I was only a block and a half from my own house where my M4 was loaded with film and my bag was ready to go. I raced home with every intention of dropping off the dog and heading back out to the scene of the accident with camera in hand. But after a few moments' reflection, I decided not to go.

I am still not sure whether or not I regret my decision. The accident looked pretty gruesome. And seeing as how I would not have been taking photographs for any news agency but solely for my own interest, I thought that I would have felt uncomfortable moving through the large crowd taking photographs. On the other hand, this was an opportunity to capture some pretty powerful images. What I am calling the "Weegee problem" is a dilemma that has been discussed at great lengths. However, this was the first time that I have actually found myself in a position of having to make that decision. Have you ever found yourself in a similar situation? What did you do? What would you have done in my situation?

 

[ywenz]

I would not even have thought about taking a picture, even if I had a camera with me. Much less running home to grab a camera with the intention of taking a picture of the accident scene. I mean we're talking about someone being hurt inside there. Are these pictures for rotten.com? I'd feel extremely bad for myself if I raced back with the camera and took pics of the accident

 

[triplefinger]

I had a camera in hand when my aunt fell badly on a bike and very badly broke her wrist.
I shot about a dozen frames and was happy about it later when I showed them to her. I say SHOOT, it's your duty!

 

[sleepyhead]

Remember, Weegee took pictures of crime scenes, mob murders, and accidents for a living.

But, accidents are part of life, and life and society are there to be documented by photographers and artists. I think the important thing is to have compassion and love for other people as the driving force, then any photos of the scene would reflect this, and not be simply about spectacular gore or misery, or whatever. But i don't see a "moral or ethical" issue here, as long as the victims were getting help and you weren't needed for that.
Yaron

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

On the other hand, this was an opportunity to capture some pretty powerful images. What I am calling the "Weegee problem" is a dilemma that has been discussed at great lengths. However, this was the first time that I have actually found myself in a position of having to make that decision. Have you ever found yourself in a similar situation? What did you do? What would you have done in my situation?

The first question is, were there any images you were after from such an event? Second, what images are most powerful?

In viewing war photography, I've always been more moved by photos of the survivors, their reactions to the tragedy, rather than the victims of the tragedy themselves, or the actual carnage. Pictures can be moving, without gore, and can be conveyed from indirect subjects rather than literal subjects.

You could have gone back and taken shots of the expressions of the bystanders. But I think you are wise to have bypassed the literal gore (if any).

 

[FrankS]

I had a similar experince a few years ago. I actually had a camera with me. A block (100 yards/meters) from where I was walking I saw a child run out onto the street at an intersection (that I was walking towards) and get struck by a car. I felt so sick to my stomach I turned around and walked away. (There were lots of people around at the scene so my assistance was not required.) Several months later I saw this child in a body cast in a wheelchair, and a year later saw her walking again. (Small town living.)

 

[kbg32]

I was downtown when the WTT were hit by the planes. I had my cameras, but I was too horrified to take any images. I wanted to offer my services and help out. I did what I could until the towers actually started to fall, and like everyone around me, we ran as fast as we could from the falling debris. I didn't stop running until I hit Chinatown, where I promptly threw up, as with other people around me. The sight of seeing people jump from the Towers because of the fires and the thought of all those people dying in the collaspe was too much for me to bear to take pictures.

 

[Scarpia]

A former colleague of mine who worked in Albany, NY but whose job took him to NYC from time to time was walking the streets of NYC with a camera hoping to capture some local color. Suddenly, shots rang out and the man walking in front of him fell to the ground, shot. He immediately snapped some pictures and was able to sell them to a NYC tabloid for something like $3000.00. This was about 40 years ago. He never came to NYC again without his camera.
Possibly you could have sold pictures of this accident to a local paper. Nothing wrong with being a journalist when the opportunity arises.
Kurt M.

 

[MelanieC]

When I was 12 my father was rushed from my house by an ambulance. He had had a stroke. My younger brother and I were home with him at the time.

I remember how angry I was at the people (neighbors, passers-by) who were standing around rubbernecking at the commotion. I remember screaming at them to go away as another (good, kind, compassionate) neighbor led (dragged, really) me and my brother (ten years old at the time) to a car to take us to the hospital after the ambulance.

Had anyone been taking photos, it would have been a thousand times worse. I can't even imagine it. Probably I would never have picked up a camera myself ever again.

I think not taking pictures was the right thing to do. Maybe one or two images would have come out powerful and interesting. It's not worth it. In college, I majored in communication with the intention of becoming a journalist. One of the reasons I changed my mind is that there are too many of these kinds of choices to be made in journalism (photo or otherwise) and ultimately I decided that I did not feel comfortable with the idea of possibly having to be a vulture for a living.

Just my opinion.

 

[FrankS]

It takes a certain kind of person to be a photo journalist, a doctor, a fireman, a teacher.... I failed the Weegee test. We need all these different kinds of people to do the work that they do.

 

[Rafael]

I would not even have thought about taking a picture, even if I had a camera with me. Much less running home to grab a camera with the intention of taking a picture of the accident scene. I mean we're talking about someone being hurt inside there. Are these pictures for rotten.com? I'd feel extremely bad for myself if I raced back with the camera and took pics of the accident

I had never even heard of rotten.com until you posted about it. And of course I realised that the people in the car were injured. Maybe you missed the point of my post, but that was the root of the dilemma. Your flippant response dismisses a dilemma that confronts artists on a very regular basis. And I do not at all appreciate your insinuation that I am somehow degenerate for considering taking photographs when confronted with such a scene.

Maybe I should have been more explicit, but I had no intention of simply taking photographs of gore. As Tom suggests, I was far more interested in taking photographs of the crowd, the family (if they appeared at the accident scene) and the rescue workers. Accidents and tragedies are scenes of heightened emotion. As a photographer, I am interested in capturing those emotional responses.

My concern was with how I would be perceived by the other bystanders (or the victims if they were conscious). There was nothing I could do to help the victims. There were already people on the scene when I got there. And, by the time that I would have gotten back from dropping off the dog, the paramedics and police would also have been on scene. So my dilemma was not whether to help the victims or take their photographs. Rather the dilemma was whether or not to take photographs and capture the emotional responses to this tragedy if there was a possibility that I would be perceived by the other people on scene to be exploiting the situation.

I think that this is an important dilemma for artists of all stripes (film makers, photographers, writers, painters, etc...). And I am interested to hear how others have dealt with it or how they think they would if confronted with a similar situation to the one I faced this morning.

 

[Rafael]

I remember how angry I was at the people (neighbors, passers-by) who were standing around rubbernecking at the commotion. I remember screaming at them to go away as another (good, kind, compassionate) neighbor led (dragged, really) me and my brother (ten years old at the time) to a car to take us to the hospital after the ambulance.

Had anyone been taking photos, it would have been a thousand times worse. I can't even imagine it.

This was precisely my concern.

 

[Kin Lau]

I've been in the position to witness several horrific accidents (rollover, head-on collision, side-impact, pedestrian-vehicle) and 1 suicide, but never in a position to record them. I don't know what I would have done.

Imagine if there was no pictures of 9/11 - WTT, Hindenberg, JFK & Lee-Harvey Oswald's assassination etc.

In hindsight, it's a lot easier to say "that was gratuitous" or "that was historic/important" than during the moment. For Weegee, it's easier because it was his job, to make a public record. How those pictures are used will often decide it.

So in short, I choose not to judge anyone in those circumstances.

ps. how many tourist shots of the Golden Gate Bridge in SF do you think there are out there with someone falling/jumping from it?

 

[Pherdinand]

an accident scene does not necessarily result in some powerful images, i think.

 

[FrankS]

The emotional response of those present will.

 

[ywenz]

The event you observed is not news worthy and no one short of the families affected really cares about it. I'm glad you made it clear that you were going after the emotions of the families, as opposed to the gore, but I'm thinking from a photographer/artist perspective - what is the point of taking a picture of that? Auto accidents happen all the time and this one is surely no different than the others. Had you went in with your camera, you would be intruding on a sensitive area at a sensitive time. If it was my family/friend in that car, I would have beat the crap out of any self-indulgent photographer that poked their lens in for their decisive moment at the expense of someone I know.

 

[FrankS]

Ywenz, I think you are beginning to believe that you are your avatar.

 

[RayPA]

I wouldn't have found an issue with you taking your camera to the scene to document the accident. Going to the site and asking if anyone needs photos taken of the scene could have served some purpose down the road, both to the homeowner and the victims/families. You can offer your skill/hobby/ability as a service. That would have been a good-neighbor approach, especially if the home owner wasn't home. If your neighbor didn't need the service, then don't take the pictures. Most people wish they had taken pictures of such events, even in minor car accidents/fender benders.

When I drove a company car/van we were required to carry a disposable p&s camera in an emergency pack kept in the car (yes, the heat of an interior car). We were instructed to document all accidents.

I think your impulse (to go get your camera) was a good one, maybe the motivation wasn't (?), so you probably did the right thing.

 

[steve garza]

Unless you earn your living by submitting photos for $$, you are probably not a photojournalist. The reality is if you don' t need the money, the pictures would probably have served no purpose (other proof for an insurance company). Someone in this thread mentioned a personal tragedy in which photos would've amplified the situation. That has happened to me. During my father's funeral a person took photo even after I asked him not to. I have never forgotten that man's disrespect to me and my mother. The world does not need photos of another traffic accident. YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION. It is far more difficult to portray beauty in life than tragedy and misery.

 

[oftheherd]

Rafael - you did the right thing for yourself. Others may have felt differently and taken other actions. That would have been alright for them. As to ywenz, you may indeed have felt someone was trying to exploit your pain and been upset. Going to blows over it wouldn't have improved you situation, but you probably said that tongue in cheek.

Don't forget the other side: How about the home owner and any insurance companies involved? Photographs might help both sides refresh their memories, or just understand what happened. It might save a person from defending the indefensible that they honestly believed was correct, until viewing photographs. That would be a service.

What I think it boils down to is that each person has to make the decision for themselves and be able to live with it.

EDIT: Duties here at work allowed others to make this point while I was trying to get it all typed. I think it is a valid point that photos could help others, but that as I said, each person has to decide for themselves if they think they should get involved in any way not required by law.