by
Paul Martin Lester
From (c) 1999
Public officials and celebrities also feel that journalists sometimes
cross that yellow journalism line in covering their everyday activities.
Television actress, Roseanne Barr, who frequently advocates her and her
family's right to privacy, told a story on the "Oprah Winfrey Show" (1989,
November 20) that illustrates this point. Her mother saw a television
camera, Barr said, coming through the window of her home. Barr's mother
was forced to lie on the floor to avoid being videotaped.
The judicial system in America has recognize that private and public
persons have different legal rights when it comes to privacy. Privacy
laws, as can be imagined, are much stricter for private citizens not
involved in a news story than for public celebrities who sometimes invite
media attention. Journalists need to be aware of the laws that are
concerned with privacy and trespass. But ethical behavior should not be
guided by what is strictly legal.
PRIVACY IS AN EARLY ISSUE
Historically, invasion of privacy issues are linked with candid
photography. Limitations with the type of camera, lenses, and film in the
early days of photography prevented many of the candid moments that are
commonplace today. Once cameras became hand-held and lenses and film
became faster, amateur and professional photographers were able to make
pictures that previously were impossible.
Early news photographers were forced to use bulky cameras that limited
the type of picture possible. Candid pictures were simply not possible
when subjects quickly spotted a photographer. The photographs of Paul
Martin and Jacques-Henri Lartique stand out as wonderful exceptions. They
captured many candid moments among 19th-century citizens.
Typical subjects of Martin's candid style were Victoria-era children
playing in public parks, women enjoying the surf during holidays, and men
working along the busy streets of London (Flukinger, Schaaf, &
Meacham, 1977).
It was rare when a photographer could capture a spontaneous news event.
More likely, subjects in news and feature assignments were carefully
composed by the photographer to create a static or stereotyped look. As
Wilson Hicks (1973), author of Words and Pictures wrote, "Instead
of picture consciousness, it was a time of camera consciousness.
Practically everybody looked at the camera. . . . When the photographer
entered a situation of movement involving people, life stopped dead in its
tracks and orientated itself to the camera" (pp. 26-27).
The successful documentary photographers during the early years of
newspaper photojournalism were the ones who could make pictures that did
not have a highly manipulated look. Jacob Riis and Lewis Hine were
photographers who used the equipment of their day-large, bulky cameras
with slow film and lenses. Although their photographs, for the most part,
showed individuals and groups looking into the camera's lens, their
pictures are classic documentary statements because of the lack of
manipulation by the photographers. It is a rare occurrence to find images
by Riis or Hine that show subjects unaware of the camera's presence.
Lewis Hine, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, worked in a factory for long hours
during the day when he was a boy. Consequently, his photographs of
children suffering for many hours at low pay and with dangerously,
fast-moving machines were vivid and disturbing. Child labor laws were
passed to protect children, a direct result of his photographs (Pollack,
1977, pp. 91-93).
George Eastman's Amateur Craze
The invention of a faster dry plate film meant that medium-sized and
smaller, handheld -cameras could be used. Such cameras allowed amateur and
professional photographers to make pictures of unsuspecting subjects.
George Eastman came up with a camera he dubbed, the Kodak. The Kodak
slogan was, "You push the button-and we do the rest." The camera was
small, easy to use, and contained 100 pictures on a dry gelatin roll. When
the snapshot shooter had exhausted the roll, the camera was mailed to
Rochester, New York where the film was processed, printed, and returned to
the owner with the camera and a fresh roll of exposures.
Amateur photographers immediately took snapshots of practically
anything that moved with the little Kodaks and other cameras. No one was
considered safe as unsuspecting strangers clicked off exposures. The
camera craze that began in the 1880s was an international epidemic that
prompted retaliation by those upset with photographers taking candid
pictures of people without permission. The New York Times "likened
the snapshot craze with an outbreak of cholera that had become a I
national scourge' " (Jay, 1984, p. 10). A popular poem, a parody of the
Kodak slogan was,
A photographer intent on capturing people in embarrassing or
compromising situations was despised by a great many people. Although
anti-photography bills were never introduced in America, Victorian London
photographers required free official permits to take pictures in parks.
Restrictions often included "Persons and groups of persons . . . on
Sundays . . . [with] hand cameras" and without tripods (Flukinger et al.,
1977). Germany passed a statute prohibiting photography without permission
in 1907.
Of newspaper and magazine photographers who put small cameras to use,
Bill Jay (1984) in his article, "The Photographer as Aggressor," wrote,
"As any impartial observer will admit, no aspect of a life was too
private, no tragedy too harrowing, no sorrow too personal, no event too
intimate to be witnessed and recorded by the ubiquitous photographer" (p.
12).
Small, hand-held professional cameras, particularly those made by the
Leica company, made it possible for photographers to take high quality
pictures of people in low-light situations without a subject's knowledge
or consent. Two early prolific and respected users of the small cameras
were Paul Wolff and Erich Salomon. Wolff became known for his feature
pictures where he, according to Hicks (1973), showed that a picture could
be made out of any subject. Salomon, a lawyer who took up photography to
earn a living after the loss of his family's fortune, made unposed
pictures of presidents and statesmen during meetings and public functions.
Salomon's images are beautifully composed candid moments of hard-talking
politicians caressed by the gentle glow of available light. His
photographs were published in several illustrated German publications and
became a model for candid pictures for future generations of news
photographers. Salomon's photographic career was tragically cut short when
he was captured and executed by the Nazis.
Privacy violations would not became an issue if it were not for editors
who were willing to publish the revealing, hidden moments. Magazine and
newspaper editors once the halftone process became relatively inexpensive
and aesthetically acceptable, were eager to fill their pages with
photographs that were used, admittedly, to sell more copies. Hicks (1973)
summed up the philosophy of the editors of the day with, "Get the
picture-nothing else mattered" (p. 25). This was the era of the scoop.
Competition was so fierce that photographers would go to great lengths to
beat a rival photographer. One of the best known freelance newspaper
photographers, Arthur Fellig, gained his reputation for taking pictures of
accident and murder victims no one else had. Fellig's motto was, "F/8 and
be there." Professionally known as "Weegee," a variation of the popular
table entertainment, "Ouija," Fellig, aided by police informants, arrived
at news events often before the police (Stettner, 1977).
The Courts Ban Cameras
The era culminated with the trial of Bruno Hauptmann for the kidnapping
and murder of aviator, Charles Lindbergh's baby. Over 700 reporters and
125 photographers covered the sensational events of the trial. Although
photographs were allowed in the courtroom before the trial, during
recesses, and after the trial, there were many abuses by
competitive-crazed photographers. After the trial, the American Bar
Association issued the 35th canon of Professional and Judicial Ethics.
Most states adopted Canon 35 to ban photographers from their courtrooms.
Before the ruling, a judge could independently decide whether to ban news
photographers.
In the 1950s, Joseph Costa and the NPPA lobbied to appeal the states'
ruling. Slowly, acceptance for photographers' presence in the courtroom
grew. Florida's cameras-in-the-courtroom model, approved by the Florida
Supreme Court, was tested successfully during the Ronnie Zamora trial in
1978 (Kobre, 1980).
In another Florida case, the Supreme Court in 1981 upheld the
conviction of two Miami Beach police officers for burglarizing a
restaurant. Officers Noel Chandler and Robert Granger felt that they were
denied a fair trial by the presence of television and still
photojournalists in the courtroom. The Supreme Court allowed individual
states to decide how to regulate the coverage of trials. Florida, as with
many other states, does not require permission from all participants for
photo news coverage, but restrictions were imposed. "Only one television
camera and only one still photographer are allowed in the courtroom at one
time. Equipment must be put in one place; photographers/camera persons
cannot come and go in the middle of the proceeding, and no artificial
light is allowed." Other states have opened up their courtrooms to
photographers. Federal trials are still off limits for cameras (Nelson
& Teeter, 1982).
As opposed to the small, 35mm camera, the bulky 4X5 press cameras were
seldom used for candid images. The press camera was simply a hand-held
version of the view camera that had to be set on a tripod. The camera only
held one 4 X 5-inch negative holder with two sheets of film at a time. The
negative holders were awkward to manage. There was no through-the-lens or
rangefinder mechanism to aid focusing. After each exposure a new flash
bulb had to be inserted into the flash unit while an unexposed film holder
had to be inserted in the back of the camera. Despite the availability of
small, hand-held cameras, a 1951 survey of 61 newspapers with circulation
of over 100,000 showed that 97% of the staff photographers used the 4X5
press cameras (Horrell, 1955).
Arthur Geiselman of the York, Pennsylvania Gazette and Daily was
attacked by a crowd at the scene of a child's drowning. "The 4 X 5 is not
the camera for this kind of spot news coverage," wrote Geiselman (1959).
"1 believe if I had had a 35 millimeter camera I could have avoided
trouble. The clumsy, black box is too much in evidence at a time when a
camera should be inconspicuous" (p. 13).
The subjects of the press cameras, were for the most part, aware of the
photographer's presence, unless the subject was greatly preoccupied.
Privacy problems arose when editors chose to use sensational pictures on
their front pages. In an era of yellow journalism, photographs contributed
greatly to the public's repulsion of news photography as a profession.
Photojournalists were labeled as mindless ambulance chasers without a
thought for the subjects of the images. As one writer (Edom, 1976) noted,
photographers were considered "reporters with their brains knocked out"
(p. 26). Such a characterization was misleading because reporters also
wrote stories that contributed to the sensational era.
Should a News Subject be Compensated?
Photographers did produce moving photographic documents with large,
press cameras, however. The Farm Security Administration (FSA) was a
governmental agency set up by the Roosevelt administration to document the
weather and economic affects upon people during "The Great Depression."
Led by Harvard economics professor Roy Stryker, the photographic unit of
the FSA included such household names as Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange,
Russell Lee, Carl Mydans, and Arthur Rothstein.
One of the most memorable images of all time came from the FSA
collection. Dorothea Lange made "The Migrant Mother," a sad, roadside
close-up of a destitute mother with a faraway look and her shy children.
Unfortunately, the mother in the portrait, Florence Thompson, complained
that Lange received fame for the picture while she lived in relative
poverty. Nevertheless, when Mrs. Thompson suffered a stroke and her family
could not pay her medical expenses, people around the country donated over
$15,000. Many wrote that they were touched by Lange's photograph (see Los
Angeles Times, November 18, 1978, p. I and "Symbol of depression," 1983).
Newspaper photographers eventually replaced their 4X5 cameras with more
easily manipulated 35mm cameras. Consequently, photojournalism reporting
gained respect as many more photojournalists were more inclined to
photograph people as they really were rather than stage direct a subject's
actions. Private moments that involved social problems were now the
subject of photographers. Picture magazines such as the London Post
and America's Life and Look ushered in what many
considered to be the "Golden Age of Photojournalism." Gene Smith, Margaret
Bourke-White, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Leonard McCombe, and Bill Eppridge are
some of the photographers that worked for the picture magazines.
Eisenstaedt's Time's Square celebration kiss between two strangers, a
soldier and a nurse, beautifully shows the joy the world felt that World
War 11 was at an end. The picture, however, has been embroiled in
controversy as up to 10 sailors have claimed to be the man in the famous
picture. The ultimate goal of the claims made by the soldiers is a
percentage of the profits Time, Inc. has made throughout the years for the
sale of the image.
Smith made classic picture stories of individuals: a country doctor and
a nurse mid-wife are two of his favorite stories. McCombe produced one of
the first "A Day in the Life" stories with his coverage of a young woman
from a small town working in New York City. Bill Eppridge produced one of
the most dramatic picture stories in the history of Life magazine.
Headlined, "We are animals in a world no one knows," Eppridge and a
reporter, James Mills, produced a sensitive and shocking portrait of a
young, educated couple forced into prostitution and robbery to feed their
$100 a day heroin addiction. Eppridge and Mills received permission to
intrude into their daily lives without paying their subjects (Edom, 1980).
Robert Frank and Magazine Photography
Many photographers established a style of photography that was unique
to the 35mm film medium. Their images were usually of people in bars or on
the street who were unaware of the camera's presence. Inspired by the
writings of "beat" novelist, Jack Kerouac, Robert Frank is best known for
his gritty portrait of America contained in his book, The
Americans. Frank spent more than a year "on the road" through a
Guggenheim grant. He made pictures that showed a side of America that
contrasted greatly with the pretty picture postcard scenes that typically
"documented" America at that time. Although his photographs were severely
criticized by photography experts, Frank inspired future generations of
photographers who realized that the subjects for photography were not
limited to traditional, postcard views.
Photographers such as Diane Arbus, Bruce Davidson, Lee Friedlander,
Danny Lyon, Mary Ellen Mark, and Garry Winogrand use a shooting style that
opened the streets to subjects previously not photographed.
Magazine photographs developed a more casual visual style as many of
the "street photographers" freelanced for the magazines. Magazine images
are usually more graphically complicated than straight-forward news
photographs because readers spend more time viewing an image in a weekly
or monthly magazine.
Curiously, magazine images of hard news subjects can be much more
graphically violent and threatening to an ordinary person's privacy
without the typical reader uproar found with similar images published in a
newspaper. Readers have a more protective, almost personal commitment to
their hometown newspaper. Nevertheless, newspaper photographers started to
imitate the candid shooting style seen in the magazines. When that style
is used for spot news situations in newspapers, subjects and readers
sometimes object that their privacy has been violated.
News Photographer magazine has printed several articles that
detail the right to privacy of a photographer's subject. In an article
titled, "'Inside Story' Inside Photos," a television program hosted by the
former state department spokesman for President Carter, Hodding Carter,
featured a discussion of controversial images. Editors and photographers
in the program generally agreed that a newspaper's mission is to sometimes
make people uncomfortable. Although it is unfortunate that people complain
when their anonymity is taken away when their picture is published, Hal
Buell of the Associated Press remarked that if newspapers do not print
pictures that upset people once in awhile, "Don't we stand a chance of the
reader losing his credibility in the newspaper?" ("Inside story," 1982, p.
30).
Some critics complain that deadline pressures and competitiveness are
responsible for journalists sometimes trampling on the privacy of others.
Zuckerman (1989) noted that "News organizations, driven by intense
competition, rarely let concern for a victim's privacy get in the way of a
scoop" (p. 49).
Hilda Bridges Sues for Her Privacy
A woman in Florida did more than complain about the loss of her
privacy. She sued the newspaper for millions of dollars. Hilda Bridges was
kidnapped by her estranged husband, Clyde Bridges and forced to remove all
of her clothes. He thought that his wife would be unwilling to escape if
she were nude. When police surrounded the apartment building, Bridges
killed himself. Behind police lines, Scott Maclay of the Cocoa
Today newspaper was waiting with a 300mm lens. The photograph Maclay
made shows a frightened woman, disrobed, but partially covered by a
dishtowel, running with a police official who's face shows deep concern
with his hand firmly grasping the woman's shoulder. After several hours of
consultation with various editors, Maclay's picture of Hilda Bridges'
rescue ran large on the front page. The newspaper's editor said that the
picture "best capsulated the dramatic and tragic events" (Hvidston, 1983,
p. 5). Some readers later complained that the picture of the scantily clad
woman was published to sell additional copies of the newspaper and for no
other reason.
Bridges claimed that her privacy had been invaded because she was
naked. She testified that the photograph made her want to "crawl away,
hoping nobody would see me." A lower court awarded the woman $10,000. On
appeal, the decision was overturned. The key in court cases seems to hinge
on the conduct of the news photographer or the news medium. "If the
conduct is so extreme, so 'beyond all possible bounds of decency' . . .
then one may be found guilty of intentional infliction of emotional
distress" (Hvidston, 1983, p. 5).
The court in the appeal said that the picture "revealed little more . .
. than some bathing suits seen on the beaches. The published photograph is
more a depiction of grief, fright, and emotional tension than it is an
appeal to other sensual appetites." Furthermore, the court said, "Because
the story and photograph may be embarrassing or distressful to the
plaintiff does not mean the newspaper cannot publish what is otherwise
newsworthy" (Johns, 1984, p. 8).
Ron Galella and Jackie Onassis: Celebrity Photographs
A classic example of a photographer overstepping the bounds of decency
was Ron Galella. Galella had one passion in his life-to photograph Jackie
Onassis and her family. It was a lucrative passion. He once earned over
$20,000 a year just for his pictures of Onassis. But Galella was no "one
shot wonder." He followed Onassis and her family wherever he could.
Galella was seen taking pictures of her while hiding "behind a coat rack
in a restaurant, jumping out from behind bushes into the path of her
children, and flicking a camera strap at Onassis while grunting, 'Glad to
see me back, aren't you Jackie?" Galella even disguised himself as a Greek
sailor and made pictures of Onassis sunbathing in the nude on the island
of Scorpios. The pictures were later published in Hustler magazine.
Galella claimed he was simply exercising his right as a journalist
under the First Amendment. In two courtroom decisions, (he simply ignored
the first decision that ordered he stay at least 25 feet from Onassis) the
court said he was guilty of "acts of extremely outrageous conduct." To
avoid a possible 6-year prison term and a fine of $120,000, Galella signed
an agreement to "never again aim a camera at Mrs. Onassis or her children"
("Photographers pledge," 1982, p. A-27).
Thousands of dollars and careers can be made by photographing famous
people either doing extraordinary or quite ordinary actions. Readers seem
to enjoy seeing famous people in ordinary situations given the popularity
of the publications that use the images and the high prices editors pay to
photographers for their pictures. Pictures that show the windblown skirts
of a queen, the bikini look of a pregnant princess, and a president
slipping down a plane's steps have earned large paychecks for the
photographers. The foreign and national press have a tremendous interest
in star-studded photographs as the popularity of personality publications
and "infotainment" television programs attest.
Photojournalist Ross Baughman suggests that pictures of famous people
undergoing ordinary activities need to be taken. Such pictures "can play
an important role in democratizing royalty or in letting the public know
these people are only human like the rest of us" (Johns, 1984, p. 7).
The intense competition among photographers to come up with unique
angles of famous people have led to some obvious excesses. Six helicopters
filled with photographers flew over the wedding of movie stars Michael Fox
and Tracy Pollan. Recently, photographers have drawn criticism from the
public and their colleagues by confronting a famous person until a
reaction is visually demonstrated. Comedian Eddie Murphy was recently
badgered by a photographer until he angrily reacted. The photographer then
took the unflattering portrait of Murphy. Other celebrities such as Cher,
Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, and the bodyguards for Prince have all had recent
confrontations with overzealous photographers with some resulting in
criminal action (Stein, 1988).
Louisiana State University journalism instructor Whitney Mundt said,
"The furtive manner in which paparazzi operate in order to track down
famous individuals is inherently unethical." Mundt suggested that
photojournalists should not photograph famous people simply because they
have familiar faces, but wait until they are involved in a situation that
has "intrinsic news value" (cited in Johns, 1984, p. 8). A photographer
who saw Zsa Zsa Gabor walking her dog would avoid taking her picture,
according to Mundt's standard. A photographer, however, who saw Gabor
slapping a Beverly Hills policeman would take the photograph. Such a
standard, according to Mundt, "would have photojournalism which is no
longer exploitive, and would no longer endanger the credibility of the
press." The trend in that direction may have started with the publisher of
The People newspaper in London who fired his editor for printing pictures
of 7-year-old Prince William urinating in a public park ("London editor,"
1989).
Although photographers have been criticized for their over-zealous
candid coverage of the rich and famous, studio portraits of stars, for the
most part, are carefully controlled public relations pictures. Jim
Marshall, a photographer represented in the book, Rolling Stone The
Photographs, criticized the magazine for accepting the strict photographic
demands of stars and their representatives. "The stakes are much higher
now," Marshall explained, "and with that kind of money at stake, everybody
is very edgy about everything. Now we're seeing only what the artists and
their managers want us to see. I think we are the lesser for it" (Sipchen,
1989, p. E- 1).
FOUR AREAS OF PRIVACY LAW
A quarterly publication of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press titled, "Photographers' Guide to Privacy," is helpful in sorting out
the areas of privacy law that affect news photographers. Privacy law is
divided into four areas:
Consent is the most important factor when dealing with unreasonable
intrusion or public disclosure of private facts. Generally, anything that
can be seen in plain, public view can be photographed. Pictures in private
places require permission. A photographer must be sure that the person who
gives permission has the authority to grant the request. Some states will
not accept the authority of a police or fire official or a landlord for a
photographer to enter a private home. Written consent is preferred over
oral consent. The Galella case was certainly an example of unreasonable
intrusion on public property. The Lindbergh case was another.
Disclosure of Private Facts
Trespass laws require that photojournalists have the permission of an
owner of a property before access can be gained. However, court rulings
have sent mixed messages. A tenant at an alleged substandard apartment
complex in Philadelphia gave permission to a television crew to enter the
property. The landlord sued, but loss the case. Permission from a tenant
is acceptable. A Kansas film crew lost its case when it was shown they
used deceitful methods to obtain permission to film a nonpublic area of a
restaurant. Misrepresentation is not acceptable. A Florida newspaper
photographer was found not guilty of trespassing after obtaining
permission from police and fire officials to photograph the body remains
of a young girl killed in a fire. Permission from police officials is
acceptable. However, that same Florida Supreme Court upheld a lower court
decision in the case of a television crew who obtained permission from
police officials to enter a private home that was part of a drug raid.
States have different laws for journalists and trespassing. Editors should
put together a package with the newspaper's legal representatives for all
journalists on their staff telling them the trespassing laws that apply in
their state (Sherer, 1986a).
False Light
Dr. Michael Sherer (1987) of the University of Nebraska explained the
concept of false light. "Generally speaking," Sherer wrote, "a
photojournalist can be found guilty of false light invasion of privacy if
a person's image is placed before the public . . . in an untrue setting or
situation" (p. 18). For there to be a false light decision against a
photographer, the image must be highly offensive to a reasonable person,
the photographer must have known that the image was false, or the
photographer acted "with 'reckless disregard' (in other words, did not
care) about whether the information was true or not" (p. 18).
The publication of a "stoutish" woman was ruled acceptable as the court
noted, "There is no occasion for law to intervene in every case where
someone's feelings are hurt." Filming by a camera crew of a man holding
hands with a woman who was not his wife was ruled "not an act of extremely
outrageous conduct." A person accidentally identified falsely in a caption
does not constitute outrageous conduct. However, the publisher of
Cinema-X magazine was cited for a "misidentified . . . photograph of a
nude woman in a section of the magazine featuring I aspiring erotic actors
and actresses' " (Sherer, 1986b, p. 26).
Misappropriation
The fourth area of trouble for a photojournalist in a privacy case is
using a person's image for monetary gain without that person's permission.
Clarence Arrington sued the New York Times for a picture it printed
on the cover of its Sunday magazine illustrating an article, "Making It in
the Black Middle Class." Arrington's "suit for invasion of constitutional
and common law right to privacy was dismissed, but his complaint based on
the sale of the photograph (by Contact Press Images-CPI-to the New York
Times) was upheld in the New York Court of Appeals." The newspaper
could not be sued because of the First Amendment protection, but CPI and
the freelance photographer, Gianfranco Gorgoni, could have a claim against
them. Unfortunately, the case was settled out of court without a ruling
that might have protected picture agencies and freelance photographers
(Henderson, 1989). A photographer may have the right to photograph anyone
in public, but problems will occur when that image is published and is
used to represent a class of individuals without that person's consent
(Coleman, 1988). Freelance photographers need to be especially careful.
One of the main reasons magazine editors and picture agency managers
require releases from freelance photographers is to protect them from
lawsuits by subjects.
When covering a news event, courts have ruled that photographers do not
have to conform to rigid rules required for a subject's consent.
Nevertheless, news media organizations are sometimes sued by individuals
who argue that because the newspaper makes money, their violation of
privacy case is valid. Most of these cases go in favor of the news
organization on appeal because of the newsworthiness of the images.
Freelance photographers, as Sherer (1987) noted, "need to pay special
attention to the appropriation concept. There have been cases in which the
selling of a photograph without the permission of those in the image had
been held to be an appropriation of the person's likeness" (p. 18).
The Where and When of Picture Taking
Because many readers react strongly to pictures that seem to violate
the privacy of others, it is important to be clear on the legal and
ethical issues surrounding the right to privacy. An editorial writer in a
1907 edition of The Independent commented, "As regards photography in
public it may be laid as a fundamental principle that one has a right to
photograph anything that he has the right to look at" ("The ethics and
etiquette," 1907, pp. 107-109). Such a declaration is not true for today's
more complicated society, however. Ken Kobre (1980) in his textbook,
Photojournalism The Professionals' Approach listed where and when a
photojournalist can take pictures:
Where and When Pictures Can be Taken
Public Area
Street (Anytime) In Public School
Preschool (Anytime) In Public Area--With Restrictions
Police headquarters (Restricted) In Medical Facilities
Hospital (Permission) Private but Open-to-the-Public
Movie theater lobby (If No Objections) Shooting from Public Street into Private Area
Window of home (Anytime) In Private
Home (If No Objections) If photographers persist in harassing their subjects, courts can
further limit their actions in public and with famous persons. If courts
can limit the actions of photographers making images of famous
individuals, there may come a time when injured and grieving subjects are
ruled off limits by sympathetic courtroom decisions as was done in some
countries during the early years of photography.
Legal rights should not be the guiding principles for ethical
consideration. What is legally acceptable is not always the right action
to take. Staff photographer Sherry Bockwinkel of the Bellevue, Washington
Journal-Gazette photographed a photojournalist who learned a lesson
about the ethics of privacy. During a rope-descending performance, a
Japanese acrobat fell to his death. A television videographer moved close
to the scene as attempts were made to help the dancer. Suddenly a
spectator angrily pushed him back. Although the news event occurred on a
public sidewalk in downtown Seattle, managing editor, Jan Brandt wrote
that the videographer "had moved into a sensitive area. Bockwinkel defines
it as personal space, others call it invading privacy. His presence had
become an intrusion seen and felt by those close to the scene and the
feeling spilled over onto other photographers" ("Boundaries," 1986, p.
24).
A photographer must be aware of the privacy laws that apply to his or
her jurisdiction, but that photographer must also realize that
credibility, a highly valued principle, might be lost if a publicly
grieving or famous person is unduly harassed.
Photojournalism An Ethical Approach
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
When victims of
violence and their families, through no fault of their own, are suddenly
thrust into the harsh light of public scrutiny, they often bitterly
complain. Their private life is suddenly the subject of front-page
pictures and articles. Readers are quick to react when they feel a
journalist has crossed the line and intruded into a subject's personal
moment of grief. Anne Seymour, public affairs director for the National
Victim Center in Fort Worth said, "Any time there is a yellow line, some
journalists in the interest of news will cross over" (Zuckerman, 1989, p.
49).
Picturesque landscape,
Vigilante associations were
formed to protect the honor of unsuspecting women. A brick thrown through
a camera's lens was advocated as a possible remedy. The Chicago
Tribune wrote in an editorial that "something must be done, and will
be done, soon. . . . A jury would not convict a man who violently
destroyed the camera of an impudent photographer guilty of a constructive
assault upon modest women" (Jay, 1984).
Babbling brook,
Maid in a
hammock
Reading a book;
Man with a Kodak
In secret
prepared
To picture the maid,
As she sits unawares.
Her two
strapping brothers
Were chancing to pass;
Saw the man with the
Kodak
And also the lass.
They rolled up their sleeves
Threw
off hat, coat and vest
The man pressed the button
And they did the
rest! (Jay, 1984, pp. 11-12)* unreasonable intrusion into the seclusion of another,
Unreasonable Intrusion
* public disclosure of private facts,
* placing a person in a
false light in the public eye, and
* misappropriation of a name or
likeness for commercial gain (Strongman,
1987).
Sidewalk (Anytime)
Airport (Anytime)
Beach
(Anytime)
Park (Anytime)
Zoo (Anytime)
Train station (Anytime)
Bus station (Anytime)
Grade school (Anytime)
High school
(Anytime)
Univ. campus (Anytime)
Class in session (Permission)
Govt. buildings (Restricted)
Courtroom (Permission)
Prison (Permission)
Legislative chambers
(Permission)
Rehab. center (Permission)
Emergency van
(Permission)
Mental health center (Permission)
Doctor's office
(Permission)
Clinic (Permission)
Business office (If No
Objections)
Hotel lobby (If No Objections)
Restaurant (If No
Objections)
Casino (Restricted)
Museum (Restricted)
Porch (Anytime)
Lawn (Anytime)
Porch (If No Objections)
Lawn (If No
Objections)
Apartment (If No Objections)
Hotel room (If No
Objections)
Car (If No Objections)