Necessary documentation of the news or a privacy violation? A photo, by Citizen-Times reporter Jason Sandford, of medics treating an over-heated Hare Krishna at Bele Chere has set off a debate.
The controversy began the moment the photo was taken, as Sandford reported in his Ashevegas blog that the EMTs threatened him with arrest.
“I came across a medical emergency about 8 p.m. Saturday night at the corner of Lexington and Walnut,” Sandford writes. “A woman was down on the sidewalk and EMTs had just jumped out of an ambulance to attend to her. I stopped and started snapping a few photos. I moved closer to get this shot when one of the EMTs told me to leave immediately. I said I was on a public sidewalk in the middle of a public festival. The EMT then threatened to call the police and have me arrested on the spot. ‘Do it,’ I responded. I moved along.”
Sandford defended the photo as a necessary part of covering the news.
“I wasn’t interfering with the emergency work at hand. I understand the privacy concerns of a person. But it’s news when people start dropping at a big city festival, and in the course of gathering the news, I’m allowed to shoot a photo. Don’t threaten to arrest me for something I have the right to do.”
Indeed, the law gives photographers few limits on publicly photographing people or incidents, as long as they’re not directly interfering with law enforcement or rescue operations. Sandford’s picture is clearly legal, but that hasn’t stopped the controversy over whether or not it was ethical.
When Sandford released the photo on Sunday, the debate continued over (where else?) Twitter. Weaverville meteorologist Bryant Korzeniewski saw a violation of privacy. While he didn’t dispute Sandford’s legal right to take the picture, he said he believed “a right to privacy of person in the pic who wasn’t in a condition to give consent” trumped the news value, adding that the picture should have blurred the person’s face or been shot from a different angle so as not to disclose it.
“Pic was very poor taste and judgment; passed out due to the heat, not due to crime,” Korzeniewski continued. “Showing it w/o blur didn’t advance the story further.”
Others weighed in, some defending Sandford, other asserting that he should have blurred the overheated victim’s face or otherwise obscured their identity.
It certainly hits a number of interesting faultlines. My father was an EMT, so I grew up with an appreciation of how desperately hard that job can be, especially during a heap of chaos like Bele Chere. While the threat to arrest Sandford was clearly out of line, tensions can run extremely high, and I’m glad the medics decided on a wiser course and didn’t follow up with the initial threat.
Generally, I think if people choose to go out in public, they accept that they may be recorded or photographed, especially at a massive event like Bele Chere. But I say that as a journalist whose job is far easier the more information I can get ahold of. At the same time, some measure of privacy is essential for a free society, and I generally cringe at the more extreme paparazzi-style tactics that give all media a bad name for little discernable value.
That’s not what happened here, and Sandford has given a news justification for taking the picture, which makes the case a more interesting (and less clear-cut) one.
So what do you think, readers? Necessary photojournalism or tasteless intrusion? Leave your comments below.
Photo by Jason Sandford, all rights reserved. Used with permission
He had every right to take the picture. Since when do privacy rights extend to public streets? As long as the image is not defaming a person or is not altered in a manner to change the actual event being documented, there is nothing wrong with it.
It isn’t like the photog was being a paparazzi, hounding someone or invading a “personal space.”
Why is there a controversy?
I REALLY don’t get what the problem is here.
It’s very simple.
Public street.
PERIOD.
If you don’t get this, please read this:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
And for the people who say that the face should’ve been blurred…..
Ummm, are people being arrested given the same consideration?
Why should this person’s face be blurred?
MX, would you PLEASE fix your frakking formatting.
For the love of all that’s good and holy….
I think this photograph is an excellent piece of photojournalism! Jason being a professional photojournalist/reporter for the Citizen-Times is a hired documenter of the current events that take place in WNC. This past Bele Chere was the one of hottest I remember, at least in the six years I’ve lived in town. This photo showing a passed out participant likely due to heat induced illness, is part of the story of Bele Chere 2010.
The National Press Photographers Association:
Code of Ethics
Photojournalists and those who manage visual news productions are accountable for upholding the following standards in their daily work:
Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one’s own biases in the work.
Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation.
Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.
Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
Ideally, photojournalists should:
Strive to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in public. Defend the rights of access for all journalists.
Think proactively, as a student of psychology, sociology, politics and art to develop a unique vision and presentation. Work with a voracious appetite for current events and contemporary visual media.
Strive for total and unrestricted access to subjects, recommend alternatives to shallow or rushed opportunities, seek a diversity of viewpoints, and work to show unpopular or unnoticed points of view.
Avoid political, civic and business involvements or other employment that compromise or give the appearance of compromising one’s own journalistic independence.
Strive to be unobtrusive and humble in dealing with subjects.
Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.
Strive by example and influence to maintain the spirit and high standards expressed in this code. When confronted with situations in which the proper action is not clear, seek the counsel of those who exhibit the highest standards of the profession. Photojournalists should continuously study their craft and the ethics that guide it.
This is just political correctness run amok. An incident occurred and he took a picture. When you’re in public, there’s no guarantee that you will be depicted in a flattering light or right to privacy. Many people seem to think that at least the face should have been blurred, but if that were the case, then the faces should be blurred on most publicly posted photographs. Pictures of kids on spring break (possibly embarrassing in 10 years). Pictures of Tea Partiers (maybe they don’t want to be identified in Asheville). The list is endless.
The American public needs to harden and stop living in la la land. If people are so resistant to a picture of a passed out girl, how are we to ever get the information that realistically depicts what’s going on in the world? It’s absurd that almost 40 years after the Vietnam War, we almost never see pictures of dead American troops overseas, only sanitized photos of insurgent casualties. If we can’t live with the reality and images of the tolls of our foreign policy, we really have no business doing what we do as a nation. This self-imposed censorship by the media is irresponsible and has kept our nation, and our public, for being morally accountable for our actions. Being transparent and documenting the world around us isn’t always pretty, but it’s ultimately better than the Pollyana world in which the PC police wish to reside.
This is just political correctness run amok. An incident occurred and he took a picture. When you’re in public, there’s no guarantee that you will be depicted in a flattering light or right to privacy. Many people seem to think that at least the face should have been blurred, but if that were the case, then the faces should be blurred on most publicly posted photographs. Pictures of kids on spring break (possibly embarrassing in 10 years). Pictures of Tea Partiers (maybe they don’t want to be identified in Asheville). The list is endless.
The American public needs to harden and stop living in la la land. If people are so resistant to a picture of a passed out girl, how are we to ever get the information that realistically depicts what’s going on in the world? It’s absurd that almost 40 years after the Vietnam War, we almost never see pictures of dead American troops overseas, only sanitized photos of insurgent casualties. If we can’t live with the reality and images of the tolls of our foreign policy, we really have no business doing what we do as a nation. This self-imposed censorship by the media is irresponsible and has kept our nation, and our public, for being morally accountable for our actions. Being transparent and documenting the world around us isn’t always pretty, but it’s ultimately better than the Pollyana world in which the PC police wish to reside.
Has the right? Absolutely. Is this “news?” No. Is it in poor taste? Absolutely.
Is this “news?” No.
I think I have to disagree.
Like Jonathan said above, someone passed out from heat-related illness is part of the Bele Chere story.
If anything, I wish the photog would’ve stuck around to get the ENTIRE story so that we would know if it was or was not a heat-related emergency.
Someone passed out from the Hare Krishna Kool-Aid ain’t news. Someone at a festival without adequate opportunities to rehydrate for free is.
I wish the photog would’ve stuck around to get the ENTIRE story so that we would know if it was or was not a heat-related emergency.
I guess this is why I can’t consider it news, there is no context. It just comes off as grandstanding, especially at the original blog post, about being “threatened” with arrest. Instead of looking for the actual story (your point about adequate opportunities to rehydrate as a public festival being an excellent one) the reporter made himself the story.
I agree.
But one of the most famous “news” photos ever was completely out of context and even ruined a man’s life.
http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Vietnam_Execution
But it also helped to stop a war.
Not that this is even remotely the same. Just sayin’.
Tat, I thought of this particular photo of the Vietnamese man being shot in the head, and how it did send shock waves around the world.
A news person never knows when that next world changing or City changing or neighborhood changing picture is going to be snapped. One needs always be at the ready. There are hits and misses in the quest for the “great” or life changing pic.
This wasn’t a life changer for sure, but indeed it did document a question….. one has to wonder if a street festival could be scheduled in a more temporate month? As for the EMS…I’d be testy too after a long day in the heat.
im pretty sure you arent allowed to interfere with emergency workers doing their job.
Notice that you give the copyright of the photograph to Jason Sandford. Does a photographer in the employ of a newspaper, taking photographs in the courses of his duties, own the copyright? Or does it belong to the newspaper he works for?
To me Jason had every right to take the photo and publish it, and i agree with those who say it’s of questionable taste. What is the story here? It is, as Jon Welch put it: This photo showing a passed out participant likely due to heat induced illness, is part of the story of Bele Chere 2010.
[br][br]
It is not part of a story of Jane Smith, the Hare Krishna from Lexington, NC who, having been warned by her sister not to go outside for too long because she’s had sunstroke before, fell prey to the Bele Chere promoters for not providing free water in such times of duress. It was perfectly in his right to take the photo with her face in it hoping that there may be a story to follow, but Jason is professional enough to have taken several if not many photos of the situation, some which include her face and some not.
[br][br]
Since there didn’t seem to be a story of a [i]particular, personal event[/] of someone unconscious during Bele Chere, it was just Jason Sandford pursuing the sensational aspects of the photo by (let’s remember how it was presented on his website) of a [b]story about a photojournalist who was brushed aside[/b] (wrongly) and who chose not to get into the face of the EMTs but in our face with his denial of his rights.
[br][br]
Personally, i wouldn’t have published the photo (on blog or to the news), but that’s my call and Jason is a professional who is paid to sniff out news – even if it’s him creating it.
Just went and checked the photog’s blog comments for this…
He’s getting drilled for it.
Man, my formatting skills suck. I need to post here more.
Again, if this subject’s face should’ve been blurred (or not shown), should a person being arrested (but not yet charged or convicted) have their face blurred in a public photo?
I’m not saying that this photo is necessarily relevant to the conversation or that its introduction to the community as ‘news’ was well thought out, but inferior journalism is different than unethical journalism.
I don’t think that it’s really an issue of a right but an issue of ethics. Yes, he does have a right to take pictures. And for those of us walking around we have the option of moving out of a camera’s range. Was this guy asked if an embarrassing picture could be posted? I mean, honestly if it was me I would be embarrassed and quite angry at MX if it was posted. Just because no one bothered to say “hey, got this embarrassing pic of you. Is it ok if it gets posted?”
Can I ask what the significance of this picture is news wise? I can’t say that I would really look forward to seeing pics about passed out people over seeing the awesome pics of smiling people enjoying our town.
And as a disclosure: I don’t think any less of Jason for doing this. I think he made poor judgment and all of us are human and make mistakes at time. But he is still a good guy.
Pictures of people passed out on the street are in papers everyday. People passing out in the streets at Bele Chere. Expected.
Isn’t the crux of this “controversy” based on the photographer’s complaint that he was threatened w/arrest for taking the picture?
Was he arrested? No. Issues of privacy? Good grief, hasn’t this been hashed out a million times in a million different Journalism schools?
This dynamic between photographer and emergency personnel is played out every day. What exactly is Sanford’s point?
It is known that if you are in a public place, outdoors not in a business, that your photograph can be taken without your consent. It is a courtesy if a photographer does ask, but it isn’t the law. If someone wants to publish the photograph in a newspaper or magazine, or online they should have a release form signed. I think this is a requirement, but I’m not sure to be honest. When I have looked into it for my own work it was a requirement to be published. This saves the publications a nice law suit later.
Just because you “can” does not mean you “should”.
Katrina, some of the most newsworthy photos did not have a release. For example the above mentioned world famous photo of the peasant having his head blown off that precipitated the end of the Vietnam war, certainly didn’t come with a release signed by the shooter. The Rodney King episode with taping his assault didn’t come with a release from the cops beating him up. I could go on ad infinitum, but you get the gist.
There’s a comment over on the photo’s blog by someone who claims to have witnessed this scene. According to them, the victim was neither female nor Hare Krishna and the photog was most assuredly in the way of the EMS response. I, for one, would like to hear some more follow up by the photog.
What is most concerning here is the slow but steady erosion of press freedom, and the clear willingness of now any state employee to threaten to call in the police to prevent the press from doing there job.
This is clearly a habit picked up by employees of the state in the post 9/11 era, as government officials found that they could use the “security” excuses to limit photography of any number of things, from oil spills to now emergencies in public places.
What is unfortunate about this piece is the lack of follow up. Who did this EMT work for, what are that agencies response to his threats? What training do EMT employed by that agencies receive/not receive when it comes to the press and working in public spaces.
Legal or not; Having a right or not; Show some class. Period. And get out of the way of the people trying to do their jobs and help this person!!! There are plenty of other things at Bele Chere that are photog worthy; a person lying on the ground unconscious is not one of them. It’s a complete lack of professionalism as a photographer, and he should know better.
There is no evidence that the photographer was preventing anyone from doing their job. There is no evidence of where they were standing, or how close (they could have been using any length of lens). Accusing someone of preventing emergency responders from doing their job without any evidence simply serves to tamp down legitimate debate.
The real crux of this story is that there wouldn’t be a story if Sandford hadn’t taken to his blog whining and moaning about his rights being violated, thus making the story about him.
If he’d actually been arrested then there would be a reason for debating. EMT told him to GTFO of the way and he did. End of “story”.
Also, is that a hare krishna wearing a gold chain and basketball shoes or some guy with horrid fashion sense?
@Bobaloo: yeah, I’m REALLY not seeing the female Hare Krishna in this photo.
Where did that come from? MX, care to elaborate?
There is no evidence that the photographer was preventing anyone from doing their job. There is no evidence of where they were standing, or how close (they could have been using any length of lens). Accusing someone of preventing emergency responders from doing their job without any evidence simply serves to tamp down legitimate debate.
Let’s break this down. At Bele Chere, do you think it’s possible Sandford was standing a good ways away without people obscuring the shot? Doubtful. Judging from the pic, he’s standing about 5 feet away which could possibly be impeding the work of the EMT’s.
Secondly, in a previous post you claim this is evidence of the erosion of press freedoms. Don’t you think this is the same sort of argument meant to tamp down legitimate debate? The EMT’s (not all of whom are state workers, btw) told him to move or they’d call the cops. Sandford moved instead of pressing the issue and no cops were called. Where in all of this is the erosion of his rights?
This isn’t the BP oil spill or similar tragedy being covered up by the government or a corporation, this is someone who got overheated at a festival in the middle of summer.
In other news, there were people puking by the end of Saturday night due to excessive alcohol consumption. Escandalo!
YAY Webmaster!
I think that the photographer has every right to shoot this. It is up to the publication to choose whether to publish it. The shot is o-k, but the actual frame and cropping is pretty bad. You could at least find a better angle.
It is simply more and more common for any sort of government official to claim to have the right arrest members of the media. To even threaten someone to arrest someone acts as a deterrent to media freedom because it threatens a loss of income/incurring of costs, even if you charges are dropped later on.
@ashevillejoe, the picture of the EMT having to look away from the person on the ground, taking away his attention from the emergency, is a clear indication that the person taking the picture was “in the way”. Who cares how near or far he was, he was a distraction. And if it were me on the ground, I’d appreciate having one’s focus on me and not some nosey photographer taking a “cheap” shot.
One aspect I haven’t seen addressed here: Because of the Internet and widespread adoption of smartphones with their picture-taking capabilities, the publication of photos is no longer a privileged action of a few newspapers and televisions stations.
Anyone could have taken this or other photos and posted them, making them publicly and widely available.
While this may not alter the “ethics” or “good taste” of publication, it does mean that media outlets can no longer expect or be expected to control what images reach the public.
I seriously doubt that anyone on here would appreciate their picture being taken if it was “them” who were laying on the street. Rights or not, it shows poor taste. It’s making a story out of a non-story. Instead of talking about the persons’ well-being, we’re talking about the photographer…pathetic.
Do unto others, Joe. I sincerely hope somebody snaps a pix of you next time your pants are down around you ankles. Joe needs a heavy dose of ego anti-inflammatories. A wanna-be “journalist” suffering a journalist’s most common malady. miss guided self aggrandizement. I might suggest Joe go for the big story and try to find an I.E.D.in Afghanistan for us. Picture that. A legend in his own mind. Grow up. Forgive my rage. Maybe I was P.O’d at some “photog” snapping pictures while the injured were being aided at the last bad wreck I worked.
i’ll say it again: When an EMT says to get back, do it.
They are potentially saving a life. You are taking a photo to make money. Get your priorities straight and have some freaking decency, paparazzi.
Hah, you’ll find no wanna-be journalist here, just a simple barista, but if you read my comments right you might be able to guess where. Oh, and I’ll forgive your rage, but perhaps you best reread my comments, you’ll find only a concern for the growing tendency for folks in the public’s employ to want to be beyond public scrutiny. It is always amazing how the Internet’s anonymity can lead so quickly to wishes of harm though, I’ll wish none of the same to you.
I’ve had my share of my picture taken when I didn’t want it, of course, I wasn’t being paid by the person taking the picture.
For a final comment I’ll simply suggest that the EMT threatening to call the cops and have a photographer arrested is part of the trend that also includes this story
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/27/0212232/Facing-16-Years-In-Prison-For-Videotaping-Police
in which a bystander faces 16 years in prison for videotaping police (who he pays for) pulling a gun on someone on a public roadway.
@Jeff, that’s an interesting point about the ease and access to photos and the net. With more and more camera phones in the hands of our soldiers for example, they are taking and posting ‘trophy’ shots of limbs, burns, body parts – and i think it does in fact erode the base ethics of what is perceived as ‘good taste.’
It’s funny, i’ve been prevented from taking shots both in public and at music venues because i had an “official looking” DSLR. When i put that in my backpack and whipped out my 14 Megapixel point-n-shoot, that was ok!
Go figya.
For a final comment I’ll simply suggest that the EMT threatening to call the cops and have a photographer arrested is part of the trend that also includes this story
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/27/0212232/Facing-16-Years-In-Prison-For-Videotaping-Police
in which a bystander faces 16 years in prison for videotaping police (who he pays for) pulling a gun on someone on a public roadway.
Hare Krishna?
I see a guy in street shoes and an orange shirt and shorts.
The EMT looking away is not because he is being interfered with — the EMT looking away is because he is doing his job poorly.
The photography which sticks with me tends to document an event. I did not go to Bele Chere so I would probably not remember that attendees were overheating unless I happened on this photograph. The controversy surrounding it will help me remember, too.
But I think of photos documenting pretty tragic happenings, such as the poignant cover of Newsweek after the 2004 train attack in Spain. The bloody figure in the photo is still in my mind. Nobody told the photographer not to photograph.
That said, paramedics have very tough jobs and addressing a photographer is definitely fair. Perhaps the paramedic thinks the photographer might end up getting in her or his way and decides to get the photographer as far away as possible. Threatening police involvement takes it too far but I think David Forbes’ point about how tensions run high is quite apt.
Seriously MX, can you confirm or deny that this is
A). a woman
B). a Hare Krishna
Just curious.
OBSERVATION: Did you ever hear of a zoom lens?
Just tryin’ to see if ya’ll even read this….
Or care.
*SIGH*
Why don’t ya’ll just run the photo with, shit, I don’t know, a headline that touts sexual prowess or a cure for pony-tails?
@tatuaje:
Most people just turn their head when someone is in an embarrassing situation to preserve their dignity, i.e. Human Decency.
A minority of people would look, out of morbid curiosity, and an even smaller minority would exploit that situation to their advantage.
I think it is best that we just look away and let the situation die.
The fact that we don’t know what happened to the alleged victim tells us that the photographer had no interest in journalism or reporting on the heat, or whatever conditions led to that persons collapse. The photographer seems more interested in their own rights than the rights of an unconscious person or in conveying any useful information about the subject of the photo.
When a person is unconscious in an emergency situation, the emergency responders act as guardians for their victims, and have the authority to make decisions on their behalf. This includes medical care and the preservation of the dignity of their patient, especially if they have to cut off or remove clothing during the course of patient evaluation or rendering care. Oftentimes, if there is enough personnel (or bystanders who can be recruited), a blanket or sheet is held up to shield their patient from a crowd of rubberneckers, Lookie-Loos, the morbidly curious or thrill-seekers.
I’m disappointed, but not surprised, to see that so many people think that their rights trump the right to privacy of another.
As a blogger, I’ve covered events where people have passed out or otherwise needed emergency care. The most recent of which was at the Macon County Law Enforcement Memorial. I took photos of the ambulance, but none where you could recognize the victim. http://twitpic.com/1nqvp2 I even had video of the victim keeling over in the background of the ceremony, but did not call attention to it. Instead, I tried to angle my shot of the ongoing ceremony so you couldn’t see the person in distress and those who were rendering care because that was not the story.
I did not rush in and try to get a sensational shot that would have drawn in viewers or garnered attention or extra ad revenue.
Jason had the right to take the photo. I think he cashed in some of his human decency to post it in a public venue. So did the Xpress.
The whole Bele Chere event coverage was in excess. This may or may not have been an occasion where Sanford was caught up in the promotional mindset that seemed to be on order from MtxEXp & other local news media. It was definately overkill.
Maybe since he’s at ACT now he was feeling competitive with the “tweet by tweet” coverage the alternative publication was doing.
I don’t find this particular pic that obtrusive.
Tatuaje: I closed your comment with the obviously inappropriate language. 3:30 a.m. is a strange time to get upset that no one from Xpress is reading your comments.
I don’t know the answers to your question. I suggest you call David Forbes at Xpress and ask him.
Has the right? Absolutely. Is this “news?” No. Is it in poor taste? Absolutely.
That’s what I said.
I thought it was news. I don’t go to Belle Chere often and was suprised to hear people were passing out from heat. The Hare Krishna pic, in this case, was valid. I’ve talked to several people, both local and not, since then about the heat and the most common response I got was something along the lines of, “that’s what happens when you drink a lot of alcohol.” This picture proves it wasn’t just alcohol and heat, it was really dangerously hot out there! News-worthy story (it’s dangerously hot) and appropriate picture (example of why this story pertains to everyone).
The EMT over-reacted. Simple, clean-cut.
He’s lucky he didn’t get shot in the head like the bicyclist. More training is need to educate officials that interact with the public. Freedom of the Press is part of our Constitution. This attorney, Bert P. Krages has prepared a list of photographers’ rights: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm . If officials do not learn what citizens’ rights are, then they are opening up the city, county and state to civil lawsuits which will cost us money.
Just go back and read these. Some people can’t even complain intelligently. Complaining has become a way of life for some who believe they donot exist unless they can be heard ranting about something. Don’t want your picture taken in public – stay home.
I would like a close up photo of the tattoo on the EMT’s leg.
A dangerous trend now grows apace for officials to threaten the arrest of photographers. I was threatened with arrest at Bele Chere by a gorilla APD officer on a Segway when I stood across Patton Avenue and took photos of the Camel Tobacco exhibit. A motorcyclist in Maryland was thrown in jail and his house searched and computers confiscated for taking a video of a plainclothes highway patrolman who menaced him with a firearm. After the biker put the video on YouTube all hell broke loose on him. The people responsible for violating the biker’s rights should all be held accountable, but we know that power often trumps the law. And in this case it is Constitutional law, the supreme law of the land, that is at risk.
not that he was physically in the way but I think it would be slightly annoying/distracting while treating an emergency to have some one standing there snapping photos.