# Major Journalism Question



## Photographer Clayton (Apr 10, 2008)

I have a question for all photographers, journalist, and photojournalist.

This year we had a tragic incident at the school. We have two floors with outdoor walkways, and a depressed student who was pressured by her peers, jumped off head first. I saw the incident happen and had my camera with me at the time. Since the student survived, with a fractured skull, almost a broken neck, and a broken nose they called in a helicopter to airlift the student to Duke University Medical Center in Raleigh, NC. The event took place in a small town and everyone was shocked upon hearing the news. But Fox 8 NEWS and the local newspapers were still one hour away. So I took out my camera and *did not photograph the student*. But instead I ran to the entrance to the school and waited and as the fire, police, and EMS arrived I took photos of them turning into the school and evacuating the football team so they could turn the football field into a LZ (landing zone). As I saw the helicopter in the distance I took photos of it and *once the student was carried onto the field I put the camera up so there would be no question that I photographed the student*. *At the same time, Fox 8 NEWS arrived and filmed the student being placed on the helicopter*. I still photographed the helicopter leaving, *but made sure the students face or body was not shown in any of my photos*. But as I was putting the lens cover on my lens the school resource officer (school police) came up behind me and took my camera. *I explained I had no photos of the student and even showed the photos to him*. But he still forced me to delete the photos, *but let Fox 8 NEWS leave with their footage*.

My question is:
_Do you see any reason why he would have the right to make me delete my news story, but he let Fox 8 NEWS keep and publish their story? I know I did not disobey any laws, or rules, while photographing the event._


----------



## Fate (Apr 10, 2008)

he has no right to take your camera and delete the photos. Even if you had photos of the student he woulnt have that right im pretty sure.


----------



## Fate (Apr 10, 2008)

Also, adding to that. I dont think its right that people should get rid of photos just because they depict tragic events. There have been many cases where such a photo has helped prevent further tragedies... i believe in "shoot what you see" - how is documenting it on film or digital any different to seeing it with your eyes - at least with a negative or digital file of the event, you have the capacity to maybe (in this case) show other students that it is never worth letting your emotions get to this stage. 
This is in no way a dig at you btw... just a general comment. I think the person who took your camera is totally in the wrong.


----------



## Dioboleque (Apr 10, 2008)

In what way did he _force_ you to delete them?


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 10, 2008)

Undeleting data is very easy and just requires the correct software which you can find all over the internet.

With that being said, let no one touch your camera except maybe a REAL police officer.


----------



## Photographer Clayton (Apr 10, 2008)

Rand0m411 said:


> With that being said, let no one touch your camera except maybe a REAL police officer.



The school resource officer is a real police officer, who is from the sheriff's department.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 10, 2008)

Legally he had no right.  MORALLY, he had all the rights he needed.


----------



## Judge Sharpe (Apr 10, 2008)

As one who knows- The law enforcment officer (LEO) had no right, legally or morally, he commited a crime, and showed poor judgment. I would file a protest with the sheriff's department, and your school. 
The greatest historical photographs were taken by someone in the right place at the right time. 
If there was any question as to what happened, your record could be the only evidence avalible. A push, a trip, a jump, something happened. 
Besides the fact that you are permitted to take and record photographs on campus normally. 
The LEO had no probable cause to seize your camera. He may have obstructed an investigation. He distroyed evidence. He trampled your civil rights. He materially injured the students parent' case if the decide to pursue  legal action against the school. He deprived you of a possable source of income from the sale of the photographs to the news media. 
And You yourself, deprived yourself of the most valuable record by not shooting the poor student. Not for any money but for the compleat record of what happened. 
Next time if there is  a next time- demand that your camera be sealed in an evidence bag and taken at least to the school offfice, to preserve your evidence. 
I feel he did not want the photographs to appear on u-tube or something, and after all what could a kid have that was important. 
You were wronged. It is selective persicution, and the LEO does not have that kind of authority. 
Judge Sharpe
Who wishes he had that kind of record in Court daily.


----------



## Gopherkid (Apr 10, 2008)

Im not deffending the officer in any way because I deff dont agree.  But I do know that HS students (Im assuming your still in High school) have limited rights as far as the 1st ammendment goes.  Its a very large grey area.  I know students dont have the right to write what ever they want, so im assuming there is probably some technicality that spills over to photo journalism as well.  At least thats what I remember from HS days.  Really the only way to right it around is to get the media involved in your story about how you were wronged and your rights were violated.  But as far as going through the school system, I think you'll have disapointing results.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 10, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Legally he had no right. MORALLY, he had all the rights he needed.


 
I disagree. There student wasn't captured in any photos. Morally, the officer was being a jackass because he figured the student was probably some morbid punk kid with a camera.

And if that was the case where morality came into effect when deciding to take a photo of a traumatic event that did or did not show wounded people, then there would be a ton of important events that would have gone unrecorded.

Micahel Yohn, an independent journalist in Iraq captured a US soldier carrying a fatally wounded Iraqi girl in his arms away from the site of a car bomb blast to an awaiting medical evacuation chopper. It was TIME magazine's photo of the year. 

Anyone remember the monk that burned himself in the middle of the street to protest the government of his country? The one that Rage Against the Machine's album cover for their self titled album? If we would encourage people to take photos based on one person's morals that showing disturbing events, then that extremely powerful photo would have never been taken.

Pictures of the mass graves of concentration camp victims?

A girl that tried to commit suicide and is saved by local rescue personel?


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 10, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> I disagree. There student wasn't captured in any photos. Morally, the officer was being a jackass because he figured the student was probably some morbid punk kid with a camera.


 
Legal is where it is outlined in the law.  Moral is where an individual executed action based on his personal values.

I am NOT defending the guard, I am all for him getting his wrist slapped as an incentive for him to learn the law... however you or I feel, in the guard's eyes and or whatever reason besides that, he had a moral obligation to get rid of the pictures and he exercised it, much to his possible detriment.

Again, morally he felt he had all the rights he needed to do what he did.  If a police officer doesn't know the law... he'd better learn fast... or find another avenue of employment.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Apr 10, 2008)

Rand0m411 & Gopherkid are both right


----------



## Clutch (Apr 10, 2008)

*Photojournalism comes with no guarantee of morals and/or ethics so much as it comes with an obligation of the photojournalist to record events as they unfold. 

The facts of any story are what matters in journalism and photojournalism. Did anyone question the ethics of Eddie Adams as he photographed a South Vietnamese officer summarily executing a suspected Viet Cong on a street in Saigon? No, absolutely not. Adams simply covered the events as they unfolded... faces and all. As a matter of fact Adams was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his horrific photograph of the event.

The confiscation of your film/digital media without a court order constitutes theft of your personal property and I would think you have not only the grounds but the MORAL obligation to file charges against the individual who STOLE YOUR property. My guess is as a high school student you were coerced by an authority figure who used his place of assumed authority to deprive you of your constitutional rights. Basically, he's a minimum wage rent-a-cop on a power trip picking on someone he thinks is weaker than him. Pathetic and un-American in my opinion.

A school is, like it or not, PUBLIC PROPERTY and you have the right (legally and morally) to photograph whatever you choose to when in a public place where an individual's privacy is assumed to not exist. Had you photographed someone in a public place like an ATM while they entered their PIN number that would be different. There is assumed right to privacy and assumed non-right to privacy.

Personally, my friend, I think you have had your civil rights violated and would pursue not only legal action but I would also contact your local media and see if they were interested in the story.

Unbiased news reporting, whether written or photographed, isn't always some touch-feely, hug-a-tree love fest. Fact of the matter is the news is often ugly, violent, vulgar and horrific. It's not me making that up, that's how it is.

By the way, I'd INSIST on the return of your property immediately and in its original state. The moment you captured an image it was your property and you have been stolen from.

Frankly, you may not like my hard line approach to this type of thing but I don't think I can be argued with both from a legal and ethical standpoint. 

Now, get your a** in gear and stand up for yourself and your rights.

Eddie Adams' Pulitzer Prize winning photo

Your rights as a photographer by Bert P. Krages, Attorney at Law

Do you think the person who videotaped Rodney King being beaten by the LAPD was being unethical or immoral? Think about it...

Sorry, folks, but I'm a full-blown Constitutionalist and I'm sick and tired of my rights and yours being chipped away at little by little. Lenin and Stalin would be proud of that rent-a-cop.


*


----------



## Clutch (Apr 10, 2008)

Rand0m411 said:


> Undeleting data is very easy and just requires the correct software which you can find all over the internet.
> 
> With that being said, let no one touch your camera except maybe a REAL police officer.



* Actually, even a real police officer requires a court order to confiscate your personal property. Confiscating your camera and/or media is no different than confiscating your car, table saw, computer or coffee pot. It can be done but not without a court order.

An officer can only confiscate ILLEGAL items without a court order and last time I checked a camera isn't exactly the same as a bag of weed.*


----------



## Kentanner11 (Apr 10, 2008)

Dude, that sucks! I would seriously stand up for yourself! 
How do you carry your camera around school? I would be terrified that mine would be broken or stolen. (Shows what kind of school I go to lol)


----------



## MarcusM (Apr 10, 2008)

Judge Sharpe said:


> It is selective *persicution*, and the LEO does not have that kind of authority.



lol, this struck me as kind of funny. A judge who doesn't know how to spell "persecution"? I understand about typos, but the "I" is nowhere near the "E" on the keyboard.


----------



## MarcusM (Apr 10, 2008)

Also, to add to the discussion, I'm sure the laws vary from state to state. When I lived in California we were in San Diego on a business trip, and I was with the president of the company and other co-workers and we were all bodysurfing at the beach.

The waves were pretty heavy one morning and one slammed the president against the beach and I think knocked him out for a second. When he got up he was having trouble moving. He ended up fracturing a vertebrae and an ambulance came out and they strapped him in a gurney. I had my camera and one of our co-workers (who was a happy-go-lucky guy who was kind of laughing about the incident and was very close to the president) urged me to take some photos of the president. So I did, and one of the EMTs warned me that it is illegal to take photographs of an injured person without their consent. 

My coworker informed him it's ok, and they kind of just gave a disapproving look and didn't say much else.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 10, 2008)

As a former Photo Journalist, I agree with all the statements against the LEO.  As a news event with significant social/community ramifications, you had every right as a US citizen to document the event, up to and including capturing images of the student.

Now comes the tough part ... you need to be pro-active and right the wrong that occurred against you.  Contact the local paper ... the police administration, ACLU and if you have a family attorney ... when him/her as well.  

Remember that the easiest road would be to do nothing ... but the honorable man does what is right regardless of the consequence.  The easy road won't take you very far in life ... the steeper the road, the harder the climb ... but also the greater the view.

Gary


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 10, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> Also, to add to the discussion, I'm sure the laws vary from state to state. When I lived in California we were in San Diego on a business trip, and I was with the president of the company and other co-workers and we were all bodysurfing at the beach.
> 
> The waves were pretty heavy one morning and one slammed the president against the beach and I think knocked him out for a second. When he got up he was having trouble moving. He ended up fracturing a vertebrae and an ambulance came out and they strapped him in a gurney. I had my camera and one of our co-workers (who was a happy-go-lucky guy who was kind of laughing about the incident and was very close to the president) urged me to take some photos of the president. So I did, and one of the EMTs warned me that it is illegal to take photographs of an injured person without their consent.
> 
> My coworker informed him it's ok, and they kind of just gave a disapproving look and didn't say much else.



It is not illegal to photograph a person without their consent, it is "illegal" to interfere with emergency personnel in the performance of their work.  The EMT was imposing his moral judgment on the situation, similar to the LEO above ... thinking/assuming that you're just some kid with a camera and the entire scene will end up on some internet site in a non-journalistic context.  

The general rule is that if it's in public then it's fair game.  There are some exceptions to this general rule, some are confining while other exceptions are broadening. 

Gary


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 11, 2008)

Clutch said:


> * Actually, even a real police officer requires a court order to confiscate your personal property. Confiscating your camera and/or media is no different than confiscating your car, table saw, computer or coffee pot. It can be done but not without a court order.
> 
> An officer can only confiscate ILLEGAL items without a court order and last time I checked a camera isn't exactly the same as a bag of weed.*



Yeah, I kinda kicked myself for the last part I wrote because I knew it wasnt legally accurate after I wrote it. I need to remember the edit function.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Apr 11, 2008)

This is the very reason we have to fight for our rights- now, more than ever.

Yes, you should report the jackass who took your camera. Gary is right- stand up for your rights.

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2008/04/07/the-story-behind-the-pictures/


----------



## RyanLilly (Apr 11, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Legal is where it is outlined in the law.  Moral is where an individual executed action based on his personal values.
> 
> I am NOT defending the guard, I am all for him getting his wrist slapped as an incentive for him to learn the law... however you or I feel, in the guard's eyes and or whatever reason besides that, he had a moral obligation to get rid of the pictures and he exercised it, much to his possible detriment.
> 
> Again, morally he felt he had all the rights he needed to do what he did.  If a police officer doesn't know the law... he'd better learn fast... or find another avenue of employment.



I agree that this was the case, but the officer was on duty is foremost a government official, he/she has an obligation to protect the rights of people and uphold the law regardless of their personal views.

The other question is did he "take" your camera, as in just ripped it from yours hands, Or did he say, "hey give me that." I you hand him the camera? you just gave him consent to take it. Did he say, "delete you pictures or I'll arrest you? Or I'll Shoot you?, probably not. Police officers are very good at convincing people to give consent, thats just part of their job. You as the photographer, need to remember to stand up for your rights, 

Cop:
        "hey give me your camera!"

you:
        "No."

Cop:
             "you need to delete those photos."

You:
        "No, I do not, we both Know our rights under the first amendment. Have a nice day."

That should be the end of it. Some times, especially for young people, it is hard to stand up to authority  figures, but I you are knowledgeable, and know your rights there should be no problem.

Now if you went through this conversation, and the officer, still attempted to make physical contact with you, then He has committed assault, If he did touch you, he has committed battery, if he did take your camera, he has committed theft.

This however would be extreme, most police know their legal boundaries quite well, and the above conversation should suffice.

and always be polite and respectful, just as you would be with anyone.


----------



## Judge Sharpe (Apr 11, 2008)

OK- Just because I am an attorney does not mean that my fingers always work the way I want.them to-and I did not review my post as I should have. Mea Cupa.  OLO 
Legality trumps morality always. 
The photos were deleted at the time so there is nothing to return. 
The LEO did not think about what he was doing, or thought, Here is a kid who I can tell what to do. His better course would be to have seized the camers, and then after preserving it, checked with his superiors and flet Chris have his say. The LEO took too much on himself. 
Its over now- get on with life. 
Judge Sharpe


----------



## LiveWave (Apr 12, 2008)

Illegal, photojournalists then and now will always capture tragic moments. Back then we had people like Eddie Adams and Robert Capa. Today we have people like  Micahel Yohn and James Nachtwey.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 12, 2008)

Fate said:


> he has no right to take your camera and delete the photos. Even if you had photos of the student he woulnt have that right im pretty sure.



I don't know the law in the U.K. and, in the U.S., the law differs among the states.  However, in the state where I live, students do not have the same rights as adults.  IF the school had an established policy that students are not to carry cameras in or on school property, he would have lost not only the photos but also his camera!


----------



## Photographer Clayton (Apr 12, 2008)

Socrates said:


> IF the school had an established policy that students are not to carry cameras in or on school property, he would have lost not only the photos but also his camera!


They know me, and they know I am a photographer and starting photojournalism, so they let me carry my camera on school grounds.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 12, 2008)

Photographer Clayton said:


> They know me, and they know I am a photographer and starting photojournalism, so they let me carry my camera on school grounds.



In that case, you might want to schedule a heart-to-heart with the principal.  If you're known for that reason and permitted to carry your camera, then obviously it's reasonable that you use it.  Try to politely determine what went wrong.  Try to determine why the officer apparently contradicted the permission that you received from the school authorities.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 12, 2008)

Photographer Clayton said:


> They know me, and they know I am a photographer and starting photojournalism, so they let me carry my camera on school grounds.


Perfect.  This would have been the exact reason to politely but fervently objected to the request to dispose of your images.  Now you need to persue the matter further.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 12, 2008)

Socrates said:


> In that case, you might want to schedule a heart-to-heart with the principal.  If you're known for that reason and permitted to carry your camera, then obviously it's reasonable that you use it.  Try to politely determine what went wrong.  Try to determine why the officer apparently contradicted the permission that you received from the school authorities.



In a perfect society ... that may be the best course ... but if the OP is serious about righting this wrong then don't except the principal to:
1) understand 1st amendment rights and freedom of the press; and
2) respect the concerns of a student.

The images contained in the camera are a liability for the principal and the school district ... the principal will place his well being and job security on the top of his list of concerns ... the concern for the student will be right below getting his/her clothes from the cleaners. (It will be the exceptional principal that thinks otherwise.)  Similarly, most attorney's will feel likewise about a kids 1st amendment's right being bullied and trampled by the school district and ... as Judge Sharp above stated, "... just get over it." 

As a former journalist and as one who has had to face a trial and the wrath of the Anaheim Police Department over 1st Amendment rights ... I take all these instances seriously.

Gary

PS- As a course of what is proper and of honor you should allow the school the opportunity to remedy the situation ... but don't hold your breath with the expectation of a positive, pro-1st amendment outcome.
G

PSPS-  Amongst other actions, you should enlist the services of a reporter from your school newspaper and write a series of stories on what happened to you and the aftermath as you attempt to reverse the wrong.  Interview elected officials, the Police Chief, ACLA officials ... and publish it all ... if you think they school was brutal in destroying your images ... wait until they get wind of this approach ... contact local electronic talk shows and newspapers ... start a blog of your findings.  You will truly learn a lot of how "The System" works ... a real eye opener.
G

PSPSPS- If you do follow this course , keep me in the loop, I'd love to follow the action.
G

PSPSPSPS- If you are interested in journalism as a career ... this course of action, especially if executed by you in a leadership position ... will show conviction, moral fiber and will be instrumental as a tool to help you be admitted into the college of your choice.  On the flip side ... there is always a flip side ... the school authorities my define your actions as "defiance of authority" and keep tossing referrals at you until you are expelled.
G


----------



## skieur (Apr 12, 2008)

RyanLilly said:


> I agree that this was the case, but the officer was on duty is foremost a government official, he/she has an obligation to protect the rights of people and uphold the law regardless of their personal views.
> 
> The other question is did he "take" your camera, as in just ripped it from yours hands, Or did he say, "hey give me that." I you hand him the camera? you just gave him consent to take it. Did he say, "delete you pictures or I'll arrest you? Or I'll Shoot you?, probably not. Police officers are very good at convincing people to give consent, thats just part of their job. You as the photographer, need to remember to stand up for your rights,
> 
> ...


 
Giving someone an item due to intimidation real or apparent constitutes theft in law.

skieur


----------



## Socrates (Apr 12, 2008)

skieur said:


> Giving someone an item due to intimidation real or apparent constitutes theft in law.
> 
> skieur



Not necessarily.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 12, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> In a perfect society ... that may be the best course ... but if the OP is serious about righting this wrong then don't except the principal to:
> 1) understand 1st amendment rights and freedom of the press; and
> 2) respect the concerns of a student.
> 
> ...



This has nothing to do with any alleged "First Amendment rights."  Children's rights are routinely limited.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 12, 2008)

Socrates said:


> This has nothing to do with any alleged "First Amendment rights."  Children's rights are routinely limited.



Are you a constitutional attorney or a constitutional expert of some kind?  What similar cases have you reviewed which clearly supports your statement?  What background or expertise do you draw upon to make such an all encompassing remark?  Additionally, the Op mentioned that he was in high school, by which construing or assuming that he is a minor based solely upon his schooling level is not valid.

I am neither an attorney or a constitutional expert, but, the OP ... as a staffer for the school's newspaper covering a fast breaking and bonafide news event of which the community has the right to know ...  and knowledge of this event may serve to the betterment of the community as a whole ... I see 1st Amendment all over this. 

While true, minors have less rights than adults, 1st Amendment trumps all that ... then toss in the malicious and wanton destruction of evidence (as pointed out by the Judge Sharp) ... there seems a lot of meat here for unlawful practices in many different arenas.  

But, as you pointed out nothing is clear cut (the flip side of the coin) ... which is precisely why we have courts  ... attorneys and expert witnesses to make the arguments for both sides.

Gary


----------



## Socrates (Apr 12, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> Are you a constitutional attorney or a constitutional expert of some kind?  What similar cases have you reviewed which clearly supports your statement?  What background or expertise do you draw upon to make such an all encompassing remark?  Additionally, the Op mentioned that he was in high school, by which construing or assuming that he is a minor based solely upon his schooling level is not valid.
> 
> I am neither an attorney or a constitutional expert, but, the OP ... as a staffer for the school's newspaper covering a fast breaking and bonafide news event of which the community has the right to know ...  and knowledge of this event may serve to the betterment of the community as a whole ... I see 1st Amendment all over this.
> 
> ...


Former member (and president) of the school board.  What are your credentials?

Be reminded that I am somewhat confused by the OP's statement that he was specifically given permission to carry the camera because "they" knew he was a journalism student (or something like that, his post is not in front of me).  I don't know who he meant by "they."

Just to give you an idea regarding the "rights" that the students do not possess, we could routinely search lockers based on nothing more than a teacher's hunch (no warrant required).  There was a restriction that the decision MUST have been a school decision.  We could not do the search based upon a request from the police in the absence of a warrant.  However, if we did the search on our own and uncovered any illegal substances, we could then contact the police for subsequent prosecution.

By the way, yes I do conclude that a high school student is a minor and I consider that to be a reasonable conclusion.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 12, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I don't know the law in the U.K. and, in the U.S., the law differs among the states.  However, in the state where I live, students do not have the same rights as adults.  ...



What state is that?



Socrates said:


> Former member (and president) of the school board.  What are your credentials?
> 
> Be reminded that I am somewhat confused ...



You know, I've never seen a photo you've posted. Would love to see your work.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 12, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Former member (and president) of the school board.  What are your credentials?
> 
> Be reminded that I am somewhat confused by the OP's statement that he was specifically given permission to carry the camera because "they" knew he was a journalism student (or something like that, his post is not in front of me).
> 
> Just to give you an idea regarding the "rights" that the students do not possess, we could routinely search lockers with nothing more than a teacher's hunch (no warrant required).  In my state, there was a restriction that the decision MUST have been a school decision.  We could not do the search upon a request from the police.  However, if we did the search on our own and uncovered any illegal substances, we could then contact the police for subsequent prosecution.



Former Board of Trustees for a private school 1 - 8.  

Photo Journalist. Arrested by police and went through an extensive 1st Amendment trial where I was found innocent.  Majored in Communications/journalism where several "Law of Mass Communications"  classes were a core prerequisite for graduation. 

Government wise - Los Angeles City Commissioner (Vice President).  Consultant to State and local lawmakers/elected officials in the drafting of environmental laws.

Volunteer consultant to a private high school administrators and a public high school administrators. I spoke with a high school principal and an administrator regarding Photographer Clayton's case, prior to my post with all the "PS's".

While I see the expertise for your statement of "Children's rights are routinely limited."  I see no expertise for you to be able to clearly and undeniable state that this is not a 1st Amendment case.

Gary 

PS- Here I am about to be arrested which ultimately required a trial:






I am not the photog in the picture ... that's an AP photog ... the hand belongs to the long arm of the law about to snatch me up.
G


----------



## KOrmechea (Apr 12, 2008)

> A school is, like it or not, PUBLIC PROPERTY



I backed into a Hummer at my former high school once (a public high school).  An officer responded to the owners call but wouldn't really do anything because "they don't respond to accident calls on private property..."

I'm not trying to make a statement or anything (or maybe I am), but it just struck me as odd.  I thought it was public too...


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 13, 2008)

I fear that this thread is moving away from the OP's request for information ... so I will refrain from further posts ... I leave a closing statement that I suggest he finds his answer(s) amongst those most qualified to provide said answers ... the legal community, those with 1st Amendment expertise and balanced with opinions from legal experts with expertise with education/schools and minors (should Photographer Clayton actually be a minor).

Gary


----------



## Socrates (Apr 13, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> I see no expertise for you to be able to clearly and undeniable state that this is not a 1st Amendment case.
> G



It's not a First Amendment case unless and until it's a case.  The OP made no reference to any court action and, in the absence of court action, this is not a "case" of any sort.  Now, if you wish to bankroll the student to obtain a court decision, my response would be different.

Neat picture!


----------



## Socrates (Apr 13, 2008)

KOrmechea said:


> I backed into a Hummer at my former high school once (a public high school).  An officer responded to the owners call but wouldn't really do anything because "they don't respond to accident calls on private property..."
> 
> I'm not trying to make a statement or anything (or maybe I am), but it just struck me as odd.  I thought it was public too...



I can't remember the legality behind that but school property is in somewhat of a special category.


----------



## Seefutlung (Apr 13, 2008)

Socrates said:


> It's not a First Amendment case unless and until it's a case.  The OP made no reference to any court action and, in the absence of court action, this is not a "case" of any sort.  Now, if you wish to bankroll the student to obtain a court decision, my response would be different.
> 
> Neat picture!



Oh please ... now you're attempting to divert the "argument" to something completely different and totally irrelevant.   Okay Socrates ... you're right .. it's Not a 1st Amendment Case because you say so or until I pay for it.

Man, I should have stopped when I said I was gonna stop.  I'm out of here ... Socrates you gotta find someone else to troll.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 13, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I can't remember the legality behind that but school property is in somewhat of a special category.



Then you're pretending?


----------



## skieur (Apr 13, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Not necessarily.


 
That is defined and written into the law in some areas.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Apr 13, 2008)

KOrmechea said:


> I backed into a Hummer at my former high school once (a public high school). An officer responded to the owners call but wouldn't really do anything because "they don't respond to accident calls on private property..."
> 
> I'm not trying to make a statement or anything (or maybe I am), but it just struck me as odd. I thought it was public too...


 
A school may be public property but it is not a public place as defined in law. Public place is defined by access and access to schools is limited to parents/gardians, students, school board employees, education officials, police, fire, etc. It is NOT accessible to the general public and trespass laws can be exercised by the principal or board official against anyone that they feel does not belong on school property.

skieur


----------



## Doug (Apr 13, 2008)

I'm wondering if there were any witnesses that saw or heard the SRO. If not then it&#8217;s a he said, I said situation regardless of who is right or wrong. This is not meant that Photographer Clayton can&#8217;t pursue action; it&#8217;s just going to be more work. I think that Photographer Clayton should have said Lets go talk to my Photojournalism Teacher and see what he or she has to say. 

Photographer Clayton, if Photojournalism is the career you want to pursue than this is the type of situations that you are going to have to deal with. This could be the perfect opportunity to learn your way through this type of treatment from others. You will definitely have to stick up for what you believe in and know is right.

I would say chalk this up to a learning experience because the story is now old news and the TV and papers won&#8217;t want it now. I say this because that is how it will be when you are on the job trying to make a living. Not because you were treated wrong, that&#8217;s another story.

Like mentioned earlier in the thread there is software that will recover the images provided you didn&#8217;t fill the card with more images. Remember that the images haven&#8217;t been deleted; the camera has just been permitted to write over the data that is there.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 14, 2008)

skieur said:


> That is defined and written into the law in some areas.
> 
> skieur


Please be specific.


----------



## KristinaS (Apr 14, 2008)

I don't want to get into the legalities because everyone else seems to covering that, but I did want to bring up some other moral issues about this particular instance. I think you did the right thing about not photographing the face of the person who jumped. It's kind of a gray area, but I would think that someone who has committed or attempted suicide falls in the same sort of category as rape victims. The two are very personal issues. 
I think it would have been an entirely different story had someone pushed the person off the building. I've never been in the situation, so I don't know how I would react, but I don't think I would have a problem shooting the picture if it wasn't an overly gruesome scene. I would also shoot reactions from the other students.
I think this picture kinda sums up what I'm trying to say. It's one of the most powerful images in photojournalism history, IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kent_State_massacre.jpg


----------



## abraxas (Apr 14, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Please be specific.



:roll:


----------



## skieur (Apr 14, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Please be specific.


 
How about practicing what you are asking from others?

Is: "Not necessarily." an example of being specific?

skieur


----------



## Chibamonkey (Apr 15, 2008)

To the OP, thank you for being considerate of the "patient" and going to lengths to make sure that the "patient" was not photographed or identifiable.  Journalism is one thing, but capitalizing on the misfortunes of others is a whole other can of worms.

One can effectively capture the moment without capturing the graphic side of the moment (as our society is becoming more and more prevalent to do....through email, the internet, and extreme tabloid journalism).

I have seen first hand what graphic photos can do to a patient and their loved ones, and it is not pretty.

Once again, thank you for caring enough to protect the patient.


----------

