Biggest SHOCK of the day!

[CoasterMatt]

Well, not really...

FEMA Accused Of Censorship (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050907/ts_nm/censorship_dc)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When U.S. officials asked the media not to take pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, they were censoring a key part of the disaster story, free speech watchdogs said on Wednesday.

[alphabassettgrrl]

It's a fine line between respect for the dead and their living relatives, and censorship. It's true that nobody wants to find out Uncle Harry's dead by seeing his face on the evening news.

There's also a difference between showing distance shots of the dead, and showing an ultra-close-up.

I think they've actually done quite a job showing the scope of the disaster, even without seeing the fields of the dead. It's clear it's a nightmare down there.

What I do want to see is- people being fed. People being housed. People clearing the streets of debris and rebuilding the city. I'm sure we'll get there, just a matter of time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's a fine line between respect for the dead and their living relatives, and censorship. No fine line here, as I see it. Big bold line that says no government agency should be dictating what can and can't be shown by the media. You may disagree with the media outlets' decission to show images you find objectionable, but that's their decission to make.

[Name]

No fine line here, as I see it. Big bold line that says no government agency should be dictating what can and can't be shown by the media. You may disagree with the media outlets' decission to show images you find objectionable, but that's their decission to make.
Unless of course they are caskets being drapped by an american flag coming back from Iraq.

Of course, even that is something that govt can't really stop from being printed, they can just deny access to the area's on the military bases where shots of those caskets can be taken.

[€uroMeinke]

No fine line here, as I see it. Big bold line that says no government agency should be dictating what can and can't be shown by the media. You may disagree with the media outlets' decission to show images you find objectionable, but that's their decission to make.

This may vary from state to state, but this might violate some privacy laws. I know my company is negotiating releasing historic photos some of which include dead bodies to a historical society and is spending a great deal of time securing releases to do so.

Do you think I should be allowed to publish your name, social security number, and address if I found it in a public place?

[scaeagles]

So asking is censorship?

[mousepod]

It depends how they "ask".

€uro - I'm surprised by your experience. I didn't realize that the dead had privacy. Can our legal eagle Prudence weigh in on this please?

[Prudence]

It depends how they "ask".

€uro - I'm surprised by your experience. I didn't realize that the dead had privacy. Can our legal eagle Prudence weigh in on this please?

Ur, okay. Keep in mind this is "black letter law" -- or "generic" law -- which may differ in specific areas.

While the dead might not have privacy, the living do.

In torts this summer we read a case about a newspaper sued for taking pictures of a gang-related gunshot victim. The newspaper was doing a piece on gang violence. They took pictures of his ER treatment (keeping the mother out of the room while they did so) and then took pictures and recorded statements the mother made while she was grieving over his freshly deceased body, and then I think took pictures of the dead body after she'd left. The paper was sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and of the three examples of conduct, they got in trouble for the first two. What we were supposed to learn is that when the paper's treatment of the victim directly impacted a relative who was physically present, the paper could be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

That doesn't exactly address this situation. However, I offer it as an example of a situation where taking photos of the dead was an issue due to the impact on the living. (It also may be why those "stories from the ER" sorts of shows are now re-enactments and not live.) There could well be other examples either outside tort law or under the specific laws of that jurisdiction.

Or not.

[SacTown Chronic]

So many of the people in the area, you know, were eventually going to die anyway, so this--this, heheh, is working very well for them.

[€uroMeinke]

For my situation, the photos are certainly more baout the privacy of the survivors and respecting what is done with images of their loved ones. I beleive there is also some question of copyright, but our primary concern is respect for the families.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

For my situation, the photos are certainly more baout the privacy of the survivors and respecting what is done with images of their loved ones. I beleive there is also some question of copyright, but our primary concern is respect for the families.This is definitely a sticky issue.

1 - I wouldn't want a picture of my corpse on TV.

2 - Perhaps if showing a picture of my corpse on TV made a difference towards positive change, I'd be ok with it.

3 - If I were dead I wouldn't be able to opine on it and may resent my picture being shown.

4 - Most importantly, I do not believe that the powers that be that stopped those pictures from being taken were thinking of privacy or respect for the dead. I believe they were thinking about how bad they would look when those pics got out.

[mousepod]

But I think the only real legal (as opposed to moral or ethical) stickiness probably has to do with the survivors, not the dead person. You might not like it, but in US law, there's no such thing as 'slander' or 'libel' with regards to a dead person, for example.

[Morrigoon]

Here's another reason... and really, the same reason that names of the dead are not released on tv before the family is notified:
The police generally like to do the notification to immediate family members in case news of the death is so shocking that someone needs to be there to help them deal with it.

So for example, little Grandmere Thibodeaux is walking past a tv in the shelter at the Astrodome, not knowing where her daughter and grandkids are, then happens to glance up at the moment the tv news displays the gruesome image of her daughter's rotting, bloated corpse. Little Grandmere Thibodeaux is so shocked, she collapses, bonking her head on the cold cement floor. Now two people are dead.

On the other hand, it could be some months before someone processes the dead properly (by which time little GT will probably suspect something, but not be smacked upside the head with it), and a police office comes to little GT, asks her to sit down, then delivers the news. Much better, no?

[€uroMeinke]

But I think the only real legal (as opposed to moral or ethical) stickiness probably has to do with the survivors, not the dead person. You might not like it, but in US law, there's no such thing as 'slander' or 'libel' with regards to a dead person, for example.

Yes, but the dead still have copyright (or their trustees do anyway)

[mousepod]

Well, the photographer would have the copyright - not the subject.

[Name]

But I think the only real legal (as opposed to moral or ethical) stickiness probably has to do with the survivors, not the dead person. You might not like it, but in US law, there's no such thing as 'slander' or 'libel' with regards to a dead person, for example.
Its a little hard to slander or libel a dead person if you are calling them dead, its not a misrepresentation of them, for they are in fact, dead.

[€uroMeinke]

Well, the photographer would have the copyright - not the subject.

So what's the deal with model releases? Are they just a curtesy?

[mousepod]

So what's the deal with model releases? Are they just a courtesy?

Well, not "just a courtesy", but clearly not always necessary either. There's more gray than black and white in the case of model releases. Do paparazzis who lurk in the bushes outside of restaurants require model release forms before they can sell pictures to the Enquirer for publication? Do any of us get model release forms from the people we photograph at theme parks before we post them to the web - although we know that a third-party company makes a profit every time those pictures are downloaded?

Here's a decent web page addressing the question. (http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#3)

But as far as copyright goes - it's the photographer, not the subject.

[Name]

The photographer does own the copyright, always will(unless they have some contract with someone that expressly gives the other person or entity the copyright). Model releases are necessary to cover the photographer from lawsuits pertaining to the use of the image of a person, its basically a way for the photographer to cover their arse in case the subject of the image decides they don't want their image to be published. The photograper can argue in court that they have a release signed by the model.

The paparazzies generally shoot in public area's, out in the street and use teh guise of "journalism" to make it unneccessary for model releases. Even teh shots of "celebrities" in private places are generally shot from a public location to allow them to keep this blanket of "journalism" intact.

Just my thoughts on the subject, none have been researched at teh time of posting, but were researched at an earlier date and were pulled from my memory for teh purposes of posting. Some inaccuracies may be included in this posting due to memory lapse.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The paparazzies generally shoot in public area's, out in the street and use teh guise of "journalism" to make it unneccessary for model releases. Even teh shots of "celebrities" in private places are generally shot from a public location to allow them to keep this blanket of "journalism" intact. Yes, the photographer has a lot of rights if they are in a public place and the subject is in view.

This is kind of a tangent, but it highlights how the subject has little rights. There was a case a few years back of a couple that was successfully convicted for corruption of a minor. Why? Well, for some reason (I don't remember the full setup, something about she had seen the couple having sex through their window and wanted to teach her son and them a lesson or some such rot) while the couple was having sex in their own bedroom with the door mostly closed, she brough her son to a place in their yard where they could see them through the window and in their bathroom mirror and proceeded to film them. And instead of this weirdo being convicted of invasion of privacy, this couple was given community service for having sex in their own bedroom.

So yeah, if the photographer is in a public place, they've got the rights.