Spectators at Incident Today

[Diver Tim]

A person dying in public view has no right to privacy. Taking their photo does not violate their rights if used for editorial purposes. You may find it distasteful but that's another argument.

This statment is utter, and complete BS. Not only does the person have a right to privacy, but also to decency and respect.

We should keep in mind that what we believe to be "proper" or "tasteful" is different from what may be protected or required by law. In the vast majority of cases, if you are in a public place, you have no legal right to privacy. I don't believe a person's physical condition (i.e., impending demise) has any bearing on the legalities of the issue.

This is really a right to dignity.
<snip>
While these voyeurs might feel empowered to callously steal the dignity from an injured or dying person, I feel that it is our duty to thwart them as much as is ethically possible.

I believe what I said above also applies to dignity. Do I think videotaping a rescue in progress is "tasteful" or "proper"? Depends. Can you attempt to thwart behavior you find distasteful or improper? Sure, and you'll probably be within your legal rights as long as you refrain from assault.

"Legal" and "tasteful" are often miles apart.

 

[bladephotog]

This statment is utter, and complete BS. Not only does the person have a right to privacy, but also to decency and respect. If not for the person who has just died, then for the family who has to watch their loved ones corpse be shown over, and over again, all over the evening news.

I think to many people are confusing what is morally right with what is legally right. I'm not saying I like the fact that if I get hit by a bus while crossing a public street it can be on You Tube in minutes. I'm saying legally it can happen whether I like it or not.

To many people are confusing what is morally and ethically right with what is legally right. If I'm standing on public property and someone is in public view, whether they're on public or private property, the law says I can photograph them and use it for editorial use without their consent. I need their consent for commercial use. It may be morally wrong depending on the case, but legally it's allowed.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Generally, there is no legal proscription against taking natural light pictures (or video) in public, unless it creates a hazard. For example, taking flash pictures of a helicopter landing at night can interfere with the pilot's ability to land the helo and is forbidden. Likewise, standing in the way of emergency personnel trying to get to where they need to be is reckless endangerment. If using a video light blinds or interferes with someone's ability to see what they're doing, that's often prohibited.
Put another way, there's no duty to *not* take pictures as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's activity. It may be a stretch, but it *may* be actionable if whipping out the camera scares away a potential life-saving rescuer from a dying victim.
In cases where the picture taking is clearly legal, generally there is no legal proscription against standing right in front of the lens, either. Put another way, there's no duty to facilitate picture taking, even if it's a news crew. From this side of the equation, it may be a stretch, but it *may* be actionable if blocking the camera emboldened a criminal to commit or continue an assault or other illegal activity.
--
I suppose that if the Emergency response team had a videographer as part of the team for the purpose of memorializing what they did, then bystanders would have a duty to stay out of the way.
--
Even when the law allows it, however, common sense, good manners, friendliness, decency, etc., may dictate keeping the camera off.

Rick

 

[belairbrian]

Second, was the person with the tripod from a local media outlet? Were they on private or public property? If private, did they have permission from the owners? If I show up at a dive site, pay my entry fee to dive, and there is an accident, just because I paid my entry fee does not give me the right to publish photos from the scene. I'm no lawyer but I do know how the law relates to my work and I have respect for it.

Bladephotog,
The guy with the tripod was local media. he arrived after the rescue and police and set his camera up. In fact he set it up directly behind the ambulance. From that position he would have had an obscured view until they brought the individual up to the ambulance. he then moved to get shots of the crowd and that is when I saw him being blocked. He tried to reposition but his efforts were thwarted until he went back to his vehicle. All of this was on private property including the place he parked. As I posted earlier the owner and staff were busy with the rescue and I doubt the photographer even had the opportunity to ask.


probably a large part of my position on this is from high school. I lived in a small town and some guys were out being teenagers and one decided to steal an airhorn off a dump truck. Another guy was goofing in the cab and lowered the box on him crushing him. A local paper photographer took detailed pictures of the body and they decided to run them front page.

Karma came around though. He was photographing the installation of lights at the high school stadium when a pole broke free from the crane crashing through the bleachers where he stood. he ran and tumbled down the bleachers. While bruised up he was OK. Alas his cameras were destroyed and he appeared to have a bladder malf.

 

[AquaExplorer]

Want to point something out, from another perspective:

I was also there Saturday, my 12 year old niece was getting open water certified and my older brother was doing a Nitrox dive for his card. Before we got to go in, the incident happened and we happened to be under the tents no where near the incident site.

I'd like to say, first off, I did not personally SEE the incident or those involved, but I talked to someone in our group who did.

What's important to realize is that while it seems heartless and a little disgusting that someone would want a video of a diver's death, it's necessary. I'm not sure what the grandmother's attitude was, or the reporter's, but any evidence at all of what happened is used for legal purposes. From what I heard there was no real eye witness to the actual incident, only the recovery afterwards.

And a certified rescue diver in my group said that there were a few things that were 'wrong' with the recovery. Once again, I wasn't there, just from what people who were there told me.

Basically just want to let you know that video is the best evidence possible. I know there was no foul play, and I know everyone involved in the recovery wanted to do their part to save this man, but if you think about it from the investigation team's perspective, even video of the recovery could help them sort through what happened.

Prayers out to the family of the man and everyone involved.

Safe diving, everyone.

Why worry about legal issues? Why is that even a thought? Any mechanical issue with the gear would be found without taping...and the rescue divers, what the hell can you do "wrong" when bringing up someone who is unconscious and is under water?

 

[lamont]

Again, not entirely true in my experience. I've had incident commanders keep people from attacking me, threatening me and even standing in front of me, when I'm legally doing my job. Just depends on what kind of person is in charge and if said journalist is being an A-hole or not. Being professional and compassionate goes a long way.

And make no mistake, not all "professional" rescuers know how to deal with the media. I find the higher up the food chain so to speak the more professional they act. IMO, volunteer departments are the least professional to deal with, large fire departments, state patrol, Feds, generally the most professional. But that's not always the case.

In the paragraph you were responding to I was assuming an amateur rescue in progress, where there wouldn't be any kind of incident commander.

I tried to clarify that with the second paragraph which is after the professionals show up with an incident commander, its their job to deal with the scene, and they're actually trained to do it.

 

[dburg30]

The whole private property thing is sticky also. Unless it is posted no photography or videography allowed, then a place like this probably wouldnt really be considered private and of course that would mean no one would be allowed, above or below water. I'm sure since there were spectators there, it means you can pay or are allowed in to the premises even if you arent diving / swimming / snorkeling. It's not like your house which isnt open to the public, that is private property. As far as the should they or shouldnt they take pics / video.. Hard to say. Everyone seems to be assuming that the ONLY reason people were taking any pics / video were to get their 15 minutes of fame. How do you know? Maybe after it was over, they watched it, and realized there was no real reason for them to have the video and they deleted it? Maybe they have it, maybe they checked to see if any news orgs wanted it, maybe they will take it to a lawyer. Who knows, but there is a lot of assumptions going on it seems.

Now if you are on private property and are told to stop taking pictures, you must stop. They cant make you delete or destroy any pictures. They cant keep you from leaving. Until you are told to stop, on private property that the public has access to, any pictures you take would be yours. Now that doesnt mean you could publish them. As far as privacy goes, unless you are in a place that a resonable person would consider private, ie: changing rooms, bathrooms, inside your home, you really dont have much privacy. As far as dignity goes... that's a more personal issue.

If it seems to be a media frenzy, the courts can step in or a family can step in and stop things from being aired. ie: the sea world trainer that got killed. Didnt a court step in and say it couldnt be shown?

 

[AquaExplorer]

This is a bit off the topic, but frankly, those who are negative on a journalist videotaping this incident are, in fact, anti-free press. The videographer was doing his constitutionally protected job. The fact that a video record of the incident may be helpful to divers is actually immaterial, although certainly a benefit.

When it comes to journalism, the vast majority of real news stories involve someone, maybe a lot of someones, who really, REALLY, don't want the story told. BP does not want any cameras near the Gulf of Mexico; Richard Nixon did not want Woodward and Bernstein to investigate Water gate; Cheney didn't want anyone looking into his shooting someone in the face. You get the idea.

I constantly read people blasting the media about doing a lousy job of covering scuba stories --which is true. And at the same time, when a journalist is there covering the story, divers are negative as well. How, exactly, are journalists supposed to learn to cover these stories more accurately?

I've been a journalist (newspaper, radio, TV, magazine, web) for decades and I can tell you, there are news stories, which almost always involve someone not wanting you around --and then there is just public relations.

Personally, I prefer news.

Jeff

What press, what purpose, is served by video taping the placement of a dead body in the EMS bus?

Seriously.

Yes I DO have a huge problem with our ghoulish, hype-it-up, press that cares little for people, or even the truth in many cases.

If it bleeds it leads....that is not journalism that is vampire new selling.

 

[Kevin Carlisle]

Interesting opinions here. I too think its kinda tasteless, kinda like rubberneckers of car wrecks. However if I was the victim and somethinng could be learned I say tape my rescue or recovery. If I live I don't care if my naked butt is on youtube. I think if I wasn't involved I would get out of the way tho.

 

[Cave Diver]

Now that we are winding down on this,

The horse just twitched! Beat it! Beat it!