# REACH emergency medical helicopter (NSFW)



## Hooligan Dan

A scooter accident today. Lady lost control and crashed. They don't know how long she was out there before someone came along and called 911. It was out on a country road. I got there just in time for them to take her out of the ambulance and transfer her to the chopper. We are running the wide shot of the chopper because we have a strict no blood policy. The shots look a bit wonky after uploading them on photobucket. Like they lost some contrast. Not sure what that's about.


----------



## mrodgers

I'm sure if she ever saw these, she would surely appreciate seeing photos of herself on the internet in a bra and bloodied face.  Very nicely done with the respect.  Sometimes you have to put away the snobbish "it's my right" and think a little bit with photography.


----------



## epp_b

^ She's not identifiable, so I don't see the problem.


----------



## mrodgers

If it were an image of yourself, would you not be able to identify yourself?


----------



## Sinister_kid

mrodgers said:


> If it were an image of yourself, would you not be able to identify yourself?



It all depends actually. She may not have been coherient or even conscious to know that she was being loaded into a helicopter.. and if she wasn't then she wouldnt be able to tell it was her.


----------



## SrBiscuit

interesting...i hope this turns into a good debate and not a flame war.

personally, i dont know where i stand on the issue...initially i agree that shes not identifiable and it would be fine to post these pics. part of me views it as no different than someone on a beach who may be equally exposed, caught in someones pic and published on the webs.

but then i think hmmm...if it were my wife or my mom maybe i wouldnt be as OK with it...


so im not sure exactly where i stand on it.

interesting issue.


----------



## mikemicki

This accident happened on a *public* road?  I'd see a privacy issue if she had crashed her motor-bike on her driveway or her private property.  If privacy turns out to be a big issue, you could always blur out her face and upper chest area.


----------



## Hooligan Dan

If anyone finds it offensive I'll take it down.


----------



## SrBiscuit

Hooligan Dan said:


> If anyone finds it offensive I'll take it down.


 
i think the initial comment was made from an ethical standpoint, not about offensive content...
don't take it down, i'm curious to see others' positions on the issue that was brought up.:thumbup:


----------



## Hooligan Dan

SrBiscuit said:


> i think the initial comment was made from an ethical standpoint, not about offensive content...
> don't take it down, i'm curious to see others' positions on the issue that was brought up.:thumbup:



Ah. Then as far as journalism ethical policies it doesn't violate any rules. The first post would be more of a moral decision.


----------



## Hooligan Dan

SrBiscuit said:


> but then i think hmmm...if it were my wife or my mom maybe i wouldn't be as OK with it...
> 
> 
> interesting issue.



This subject always comes up between us photogs and the editor when we cover a tragic event. What do we show without being offensive. Obviously we photogs are willing to show more than the editors and the paper has missed running some excellent photos because they are too scared to run something controversial. My editor always asks, "What if this was your **** or your ****," and so on. But the thing is it's always going to be someone's mom or someone's brother. And if we we are always forced to take that into account than people woiuld be blind to what happens in this world.

Take Vietnam for example. The photos out of Nam were the first to show the true horrors of war and that was a huge part of the backlash against it. But what if everything single photog and publisher were to ask themselves 'What if this were my brother," and they didn't show the photos? Where would we be now? 

Now I'm not comparing these accident photos to war photos, just merely addressing the Idea that "What if this was my ****" should be asked before running a photo. 

Last year 6 locals died when they ran a stop sign on a farm road, were hit by a truck, and plunged into a canal. Two days later I was there when the pulled up the body of a 16 year old victim. You can see her leg and on the high res version you can see her gray toes on one foot if you blow it up enough. We ran this shot(rumor is that it's now used at Sac State to debate this very topic) on the front page right next to a shot I took of the mother on scene. Obviously we got complaints from readers as we always do with controversial shots. But not a single complaint came from the family. Even with the photo of the mother seeing her daughter being taken out of the water. 






So the idea of "What if it were" should not be taken into account for every single photo. Just because a shot may be controversial and may not be liked, it doesn't mean it shouldn't run.

*UPDATE to my rant: Many people call controversial shots sensationalism. Shot's with no real purpose other then to show something outrageous or to sell papers. Running the lady above in her bra being loaded onto the chopper. That would be considered sensationalism. It doesn't actually add anything to the story other than showing what happened to the victim. That and the blood is why we wouldn't show it in our local paper(other papers would show it though). I showed it here assuming that most photogs would be more accepting of what accidents look like in real life as opposed to the cleverly composed shots you see hiding this kind of stuff or the wide shots that don't really show anything.


----------



## Sardine

Good pictures, pity about the circumstances. Personally, if I was in a bike accident, I wouldn't want my picture going up on the web. The first 2 are alright, but the 3rd one is too 'close'.

Tell me, did they shut the chopper down? Doesn't look like there's any blade movement.

Regards


----------



## Dmitri

Sardine said:


> Good pictures, pity about the circumstances. Personally, if I was in a bike accident, I wouldn't want my picture going up on the web. The first 2 are alright, but the 3rd one is too 'close'.
> 
> Tell me, did they shut the chopper down? Doesn't look like there's any blade movement.
> 
> Regards



1/1600 shutter speed. The back propeller looks like it's in motion, tho.


----------



## Heck

The local spanish paper drips with blood with the shots they show. It depends on the paper. I think people should be able to see what a accident really looks like and would understand what Ems, Police and so on see everyday and maybe would understand there point of view when it comes to enforcing safety issues. As long as viewer know what there gonna get when they read a paper photos like these should be ok.


----------



## KmH

Heck said:


> I think people should be able to see what a accident really looks like and would understand what Ems, Police and so on see everyday and maybe would understand there point of view when it comes to enforcing safety issues.


 Well said.


----------



## mooimeisie

*Right to Privacy

Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place. On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.*

The above was taken from a thread on this forum, Articles of Interest. 

I believe that in the first two photos the main focus seems to be of the rescue workers and the work they are doing.  The third one doesn't really do much for me.  I feel sorry for the woman being in such a vulnerable position and not being able to speak for herself.


----------



## prodigy2k7

mooimeisie said:


> *Right to Privacy
> 
> Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place. On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.*
> 
> The above was taken from a thread on this forum, Articles of Interest.
> 
> I believe that in the first two photos the main focus seems to be of the rescue workers and the work they are doing.  The third one doesn't really do much for me.  I feel sorry for the woman being in such a vulnerable position and not being able to speak for herself.



Agreed.


----------



## Hellhound

> Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place.




You're confusing this with 4th Amendment search and seizure issues.  There is no law against photographing a person in the circumstances described.


----------



## Captain IK

If I understand correctly, the debate on this thread is a moral one not a legal one.
That being said, I believe as a photog you have to be able to sleep at night.  If you capture an image and have questions about whether it should be published or not...perhaps it shouldn't.
I would not have published the 3rd shot in the OP, but see no problem with publishing the shot of deceased girls foot being covered by the emergency personnel.
I think you can be a good photog and a respectable one at the same time.

...no offence directed at the OP.


----------



## JE Kay

> On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.



In Canada actually it is illegal to just snap photos of someone on the street without their permission unless it's in the commission of 'news gathering', as in this instance where an accident and helicopter extraction would be considered news worthy for submittal. If you're shooting a street scene and people are around that's legal as well, but you can't single someone out and just shoot them, well you can but if they see you and want to make a stink about it you can get in serious trouble.

There was a case a number of years ago in TO where a photographer was charged with assault for following a girl along the street shooting as she walked somewhere. He said he was scouting, the police disagreed and he was charged. If he had been photographing a water fountain and she walked past and was in the shot, there is no issue with that. You have to use your head sometimes when photographing people.

Myself I have no problem simply asking if I can shoot someone I see on the street if they look interesting or whatever. I'll give them my card, if they say no I move on. 

I have no problem with the OP shots. :thumbup:


----------



## stsinner

Nice pics, Dan..  It's a shame you have to endure the whiners and haters of freedom..  You see the equivalent of a bra on beach all the time, albeit in pastels and pretty colors and called a bikini top..  I don't think your pictures are out of line at all, but depict a rescue very nicely.  I wish I had my camera with me on the life flights I've been a part of.

Also, it's interesting one poster thought you'd be interested in the laws of Canada when your location says Cali..  I actually had no idea they lacked freedom to that extent, but it's irrelevant, anyway.


----------



## Hooligan Dan

Captain IK said:


> That being said, I believe as a photog you have to be able to sleep at night.



I can tell you that if a person has problems sleeping after seeing and shooting things like this than they shouldn't a photojournalist. I've seen horrors far worse than this and I have no doubt I will see others even worse than those. 

It's not photographing it and wondering if the shot should run that you'll lose sleep over. It's just seeing that kind of thing in person. It's knowing your photo may be the way a person finds out a friend has died. It's knowing that your job is to photograph a scene where a mother has found out her kid has died. That's why you'll lose sleep. 

I am however glad this has sparked such a vigorous debate.


----------



## adamwilliamking

Sinister_kid said:


> It all depends actually. She may not have been coherient or even conscious to know that she was being loaded into a helicopter.. and if she wasn't then she wouldnt be able to tell it was her.


 
Im sorry but that just sounds ridiculous. If that were you, you would know, regardless if you were awake or asleep when the photo was taken.
Barring serious brain damage.


----------



## 250Gimp

stsinner said:


> Also, it's interesting one poster thought you'd be interested in the laws of Canada when your location says Cali.. I actually had no idea they lacked freedom to that extent, but it's irrelevant, anyway.


 

JE Kay was merely pointing out that things are a bit different in Canada, as I am sure they are in other parts of the world. The fact that the OP is from California doesn't factor in when you read the entire thread.

As for my opinion of the original pics....I don't have any problems with them.

Cheers


----------



## flea77

stsinner said:


> Nice pics, Dan..  It's a shame you have to endure the whiners and haters of freedom..  You see the equivalent of a bra on beach all the time, albeit in pastels and pretty colors and called a bikini top..  I don't think your pictures are out of line at all, but depict a rescue very nicely.



I think there is a huge difference between intentionally dressing to present yourself on the beach in a bikini and having your shirt cut off by paramedics. This woman obviously has absolutely no control over how she was presented to the camera, and that I think is the crux in my view. I would personally run either of the first two, and not the third. That is just me. I think my freedom to shoot her picture ends when her freedom to object or cover herself is removed.

Allan


----------



## JE Kay

> I actually had no idea they lacked freedom to that extent



Are you serious?!!  We have way more freedom when it comes to what and where and how we shoot in Canada. That comment is absolutely hilarious! 

Hell, I've read countless and countless threads from people in the US being harassed, tossed from public places for merely pointing their camera at some building or other _perceived_ security sensitive structure.

As for photographing private citizens in the US in public places without consent in the manner I described? I can assure you those laws exist in your country as well in various forms in various states.

Lacked freedom compared to the US,  god that's the funniest **** I've read in a long time, thanks man.... :lmao:


----------



## stsinner

JE Kay said:


> Are you serious?!!  We have way more freedom when it comes to what and where and how we shoot in Canada. That comment is absolutely hilarious!
> 
> Hell, I've read countless and countless threads from people in the US being harassed, tossed from public places for merely pointing their camera at some building or other _perceived_ security sensitive structure.
> 
> As for photographing private citizens in the US in public places without consent in the manner I described? I can assure you those laws exist in your country as well in various forms in various states.  Wrong
> 
> Lacked freedom compared to the US,  god that's the funniest **** I've read in a long time, thanks man.... :lmao:



Did I mention America anywhere in my post or make a comparison in any way?  Grow up.

And you're wrong about not being able to photograph anyone you want in public in America.  It's absolutely legal unless they tell you that you may not or ask you to stop..  The pictures you took before they asked you to stop, however, are yours.


----------



## SouthEastFirePhoto

Hey Everyone. I had to way in on this one. I am a fire service photographer and shoot freelance for several online news sources as well as a fire service newspaper and I can tell you that in that venue this image would not even be considered an issue. The legalities of it are clear but the way people feel about it are very different no matter where you go.

I always try and protect the identities of people in situations like this but sometimes it is very difficult to do. I always go for the best shot and if the editor feels it is too questionable, it won't get run. Maybe that is the wrong approach but that is what I have done and it works well enough for me right now. 

I have many images of people that maybe didn't want me to take of them and never ever have I lost sleep over it. 

That being said, to the OP, great set of images!!


----------



## Hooligan Dan

I'm reading through the comments and I get the impression that many of you think we ran the third photo for the story. To clear things up, the third photo has been seen here and here alone. It was not published with the newspaper story in otherwise.


----------



## stsinner

SouthEastFirePhoto said:


> Hey Everyone. I had to way in on this one.




Good post, and just for future reference, it's, "weigh-in.."


----------



## stsinner

Hey, Dan, what exactly is REACH?  I noticed that it's kind of a ghetto helicopter for life flighting people..  Our choppers out of Boston open with huge double-doors from the rear and are like an ambulance inside size-wise...  They're loading her from the side in your pics, which must be a pain in the rear.. 

Boston Angels... WOOT!!!!


----------



## Hooligan Dan

Reach is an independent system. We have Life-Flight too which is a little more on the scale of the chopper in your shots.


----------



## JE Kay

> Did I mention America anywhere in my post or make a comparison in any way



K, whatever... So why make a point of commenting on it then? It was another reference point to an issue that does span boarders where media rights are concerned. And how do you know what others are interested in reading about? You make that call for everyone do you? :mrgreen:



> As for photographing private citizens in the US in public places without consent in the manner I described? I can assure you those laws exist in your country as well in various forms in various states





> It's absolutely legal unless they tell you that you may not or ask you to stop..



Ya, that's what I said... That's what consent means, that you may shoot photographs, _without consent_ means no you can't. And just because you don't get caught or called out on photographing someone without consent doesn't mean it's legal.


----------



## stsinner

JE Kay said:


> And just because you don't get caught or called out on photographing someone without consent doesn't mean it's legal.



It IS legal until that right is taken away by the subject..  You ARE AUTHORIZED to shoot whatever you want on public property until that right is revoked by the subject.  It's not a matter of getting caught.

That may be what you meant, but the way you said it sounded my like you need to be granted authorization before shooting anyone in public in Canada.

My mistake if I interpreted your post wrongly.


----------



## skieur

Hellhound said:


> You're confusing this with 4th Amendment search and seizure issues.  There is no law against photographing a person in the circumstances described.
> [/color][/font]



I wrote the quoted article. There is indeed no law against photographing a person in the circumstances above, but judges have nevertheless ruled that such shots invade the privacy of the victim and if the photographer publishes such shots he can be held liable.

skieur


----------



## skieur

stsinner said:


> It IS legal until that right is taken away by the subject..  You ARE AUTHORIZED to shoot whatever you want on public property until that right is revoked by the subject.  It's not a matter of getting caught.
> 
> That may be what you meant, but the way you said it sounded my like you need to be granted authorization before shooting anyone in public in Canada.
> 
> My mistake if I interpreted your post wrongly.



That is not legally correct either. In both Canada and the US, you can take a shot of anyone in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation to privacy. That right can ONLY be revoked if you are on private property by the owner or his representative.

skieur


----------



## Hellhound

skieur said:


> I wrote the quoted article. There is indeed no law against photographing a person in the circumstances above, but judges have nevertheless ruled that such shots invade the privacy of the victim and if the photographer publishes such shots he can be held liable.
> 
> skieur



I didn't read the quoted article.  I was responding to what I correctly or incorrectly perceived as a misconception on the part of one poster or another--one that seemed to equate _photographing _someone with _publishing_ their photograph.  It would appear that you and I have no disagreement, other than perhaps a minor one regarding the use of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy."  I acknowledge that my experience with this phrase is mainly related to the 4th Amendment.


----------



## Hellhound

Here's one of my old ones from over three decades ago of a motorcycle crash victim (bad quality scan of bad quality newsprint; all of my negatives from back then were lost in a flood).  It differs from the photo in question--in terms of quality of composition, obviously, but also due to the fact that it's a male and there's no view of underwear.  Still, the guy was in critical condition at the time of publishing (unknown as to his eventual outcome), and it's graphic enough that his family would no doubt be upset, especially if he went on to die.  Interestingly, I had another (_much _better) one rejected the following week that showed just one bare foot of a drowning victim sticking out from under the tarp they'd temporarily covered him with.  Different paper, different standards.


----------



## photo guy

As far as I remember dating back to 2009, if the person(s) face is able to be identified, the person is identifiable and the photo is not to be shown unless edited to not show the face or identifing marks


----------



## EIngerson

I think it's poor form to post the pic with no top on. If you have to post NSFW from someones tragedy, it's probably not cool.

The other two are tasteful and accurately depicting the mood.


----------



## rdtagman

Old thread, but an interesting subject.  As individuals, we get to choose what is pleasing - what is not, what is acceptable - what is not.  These forums survive because of photo posting and C & C. One person likes soft focus, the next doesn't, and so on. From a personal perspective, the two shots remaining on the post (third removed before I got here) are appropriate to show emergency responders doing their job.  Having been at those scenes for many years, one of the "housekeeping" details I taught new firefighters was to clean the scene of personal reminders of tragedy.  For every fatality on the highway, there will be family members visiting the site soon afterwards.  I always had my firefighters remove any blood that might be visible on the roadway/ground before we left.  Not a department policy, just what seemed right.  I'm a strong First and Second Amendment believer, but try to be strong at what really makes sense at the same time.  Again - personal preference.  Good comments in this thread.


----------



## imagemaker46

There is nothing wrong with the photos at all. If the photos had of been graphic in nature, lots of blood etc, then they would not have ended up being printed. These ones, for lack of a better word are, tasteful.  They show the scene, rescue, but not the woman's face.  These are news related photos, nothing more or nothing less.  I've shot photos at accidents and crime scenes that were never printed, there was no reason, but they did simply record the scene, and there were times when I wouldn't shoot what I saw, not even as a record, some images are better left un-recorded.


----------



## dakkon76

Heck said:


> The local spanish paper drips with blood with the shots they show. It depends on the paper. I think people should be able to see what a accident really looks like and would understand what Ems, Police and so on see everyday and maybe would understand there point of view when it comes to enforcing safety issues. As long as viewer know what there gonna get when they read a paper photos like these should be ok.



I remember a few years back there was a story about a girl who was driving a Porsche through a toll gate, 2007 I think. Anyway, the car had hit a divider and split it down the middle as it was going over 100 mph. Consequently, the young girl who was driving (16 y/o IIRC) was also split down the middle. There were some very graphic photos of this that had been leaked by one of the officers. They showed her head peeled in half down the middle. It looked like something out of a body works display only done with a hatchet and not cleaned up. Chunks of blood, bone, hair, and brain matter. The problem was... her parents heard about those photos. Granted, it was their choice to look... but they did look. Imagine that image haunting you the rest of your life.

The moral of the story- regardless of whether or not the victim is "identifiable" is sometimes irrelevant. If you're posting pictures of a specific accident right after it's occurred, you risk showing them to someone who was associated with the victim. That's not to say that these photos are doing that... but just to point out that just because you can't see someone's face doesn't mean that it's alright (ethically, if not legally) to post these types of pictures.


----------



## imagemaker46

dakkon76 said:


> Heck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The local spanish paper drips with blood with the shots they show. It depends on the paper. I think people should be able to see what a accident really looks like and would understand what Ems, Police and so on see everyday and maybe would understand there point of view when it comes to enforcing safety issues. As long as viewer know what there gonna get when they read a paper photos like these should be ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember a few years back there was a story about a girl who was driving a Porsche through a toll gate, 2007 I think. Anyway, the car had hit a divider and split it down the middle as it was going over 100 mph. Consequently, the young girl who was driving (16 y/o IIRC) was also split down the middle. There were some very graphic photos of this that had been leaked by one of the officers. They showed her head peeled in half down the middle. It looked like something out of a body works display only done with a hatchet and not cleaned up. Chunks of blood, bone, hair, and brain matter. The problem was... her parents heard about those photos. Granted, it was their choice to look... but they did look. Imagine that image haunting you the rest of your life.
> 
> The moral of the story- regardless of whether or not the victim is "identifiable" is sometimes irrelevant. If you're posting pictures of a specific accident right after it's occurred, you risk showing them to someone who was associated with the victim. That's not to say that these photos are doing that... but just to point out that just because you can't see someone's face doesn't mean that it's alright (ethically, if not legally) to post these types of pictures.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with this situation, I went to an accident many years ago working for a paper, some kids had been burned to death in a van, I arrived via a short cut before the coroner and when they started to take the kids out, I didn't shoot any frames, they were photos that didn't need to be seen by anyone, the reporter I was with was throwing up in the ditch.  I still see those images in my head, the entire scene, this was 30 years ago.  The desk editor gave me crap for not having those pictures, I explained the situation to him and then told him what an a-hole he was for even asking about it.  I made the right decision. Not every photo has to be shot.


----------



## Snyder

prodigy2k7 said:


> mooimeisie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Right to Privacy
> 
> Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place. On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.*
> 
> The above was taken from a thread on this forum, Articles of Interest.
> 
> I believe that in the first two photos the main focus seems to be of the rescue workers and the work they are doing. The third one doesn't really do much for me. I feel sorry for the woman being in such a vulnerable position and not being able to speak for herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...


False, that theory would fail. Look up Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.


----------



## jake337

LET'S NERF THE WORLD!!!!!!










or not....


----------



## JoeyV

As far as I'm concerned I think that all pictures taken on public property are fine. *Unless* involving minors or that it was specifically asked not to be shown by the involved or a representative of theirs - as long as it's BEFORE they are published. Also, no pictures, no story. Once published, too bad. In my part of Canada there is a strict rule about not making minors public unless authorized by the parents or guardians. Graphic or "tasteless" images are only thought of that way by a person looking at them (I see nothing wrong with seeing blood and/or body parts). As previously mentioned, what some find okay, others find offensive (Thinking about the teen model and the American flag right now). Regardless of that, when people buy a newspaper to read the news, I think they've purchased the right to view what a photographer on sight has seen, and possibly captured with his/her camera. I think that the only pictures that should not be printed, are those with low photographic "performance" , for lack of better words (I.E. bad framing, bad lighting, blurry, etc.) When I read an article about a hockey player's throat being cut by a skate, I wanna see the picture that goes with it or not read the story at all. Call me gruesome or gory, that's how I am. 

I've noticed that this forum has a lot of sensitive/touchy/(I'm gonna call it)stuck-up members that pretty much raise their nose at anything that isn't "what society deems customary or perfect" (Again thinking about the teen with the flag)

urghh....:shrug:

P.S.: Oh, and the "What happens in Canada/how it is in Canada doesn't matter" comment...real winner right there buddy.

P.P.S: Yes, I know this is a 2.5 year old thread that was revived.I just wanted to join in and vent some frustration built up by reading this whole thread.


----------



## rexbobcat

mrodgers said:


> I'm sure if she ever saw these, she would surely appreciate seeing photos of herself on the internet in a bra and bloodied face.  Very nicely done with the respect.  Sometimes you have to put away the snobbish "it's my right" and think a little bit with photography.



Censorship is totally what photojournalism is all about.


----------



## prettybeautiful

Couldn't you just save the photo, or future photos, and then speak to the subjects in the photo for written consent? You know, similar concept to a model release.

I don't usually see photos of people in accidents all over the media..I usually just see a photo of an EMS vehicle or snapshot of the scene of the incident...Except for tragic events, then in those cases you do see people in the images. 

For archival purposes, documenting how our society is during present day, is a good thing. Photos like this may be beneficial years from now. Maybe. 

I can understand the Subject of the photo may be upset by seeing this on the web...perhaps for privacy reasons or the fact that she didnt even know a photo was taken, or seeing herself may trigger memories from the traumatic event in her life.

I don't really know, I've never been in this situation. I was just taught that one could end up in some trouble if they published a photo of someone without their consent..but that rule mostly applied to whether or not the persons in the photo were clearly identifiable or not. 

Theyre good photos though.


----------

