To Photograph, or Intervene?

One of the ethical dilemmas of photographers involves capturing controversial or tragic events. Does a photographer stand back and take pictures, or intervene to help the subjects?

Photography is all about documenting events and people. Some images captured by photographers are powerful, heart breaking, startling, even horrifying. 

(image credit: Graeme Robertson/Getty Images)

But what do photographers who capture such images feel about their decision to keep taking pictures?

The Guardian has an excellent story about this subject, with photographers describing the circumstances of their arresting images and their thoughts about choosing to take pictures. This is a moral quandary every photojournalist faces at one point or another.

LINK to slide show story 


A perfect example of this concept is the iconic "Napalm Girl" photograph, below.

This is one of the most famous photographs ever published.

This grim image captured the horror of the Vietnam War the way no other photo had, and became famous worldwide, winning a Pulitzer prize for photography.

The photo was taken in the  Vietnamese town of Trang Bang by Associated Press photographer Nick Ut on June 8, 1972.

The children running down the road are fleeing from a napalm (a burning, jelly-like substance) attack launched by the South Vietnamese. The girl in the center of the photograph is Kim Phuc, and she was just nine years old when she ran from her village after it was attacked. The napalm jelly had burned through her clothes, and moments after snapping what would be an iconic photograph, Nick Ut brought the young girl to a hospital and demanded she be treated, saving her life. The Associated Press almost didn't run the story because of the nudity, but the local press chief decided that the image was so powerful it deserved to be published.

Kim Phuc eventually recovered from her burns and now lives in Canada. The Guardian newspaper has a fascinating story about Ms. Phuc, the life she led, and the origin of one of the most famous and iconic photographs ever taken.

President Richard Nixon, who was determined to win the war in Vietnam, reacted to the photo and its impact by stating he believed it was altered. More than any other factor, photography has the power to influence public opinion, and word events, and this image is exhibit A.

LINK to Guardian story

Link to Wikipedia entry about Kim Phuc

Publishing Executive Admits Breaking DRM On His Own E-Books

Laura Hazard Owen has an interesting blog post about how a publishing executive broke the DRM on the e-books he bought for himself, because they wouldn't work on all his devices. In the process, he realized how anti-consumer DRM is (not to mention easily circumvented). 

When you buy an e-book from Amazon, you are not buying the book. You are buying a license for that book, one that can be revoked at any time, without warning (such as the incident where Amazon deleted the copies of George Orwell's 1984 from customers' Kindle devices, read about that HERE). 

Amazon's move backfired spectacularly, making people aware of the downsides of DRM. Any e-book you buy can be removed from your device at any time, and you are prevented from "loaning" your book to anyone else. Imagine a publishing company walking into your house to confiscate books you've purchased because your rights to own it have changed.

This is an interesting interview with a publishing insider who has had a change of heart about DRM. 

LINK

CISPA: More Efforts To Threaten On-Line Freedoms

Here we go again.

I try to limit the number of activist posts on this blog to those that I feel directly affect this blog's followers; who wants to read a constant series of protest rants? Not me, that's for sure.

But, every so often a threat to our Internet freedoms comes along that is so overly broad and just so repugnant that I feel it's my duty to let you know what is happening, and how it will affect you, whether you know it or not.

Like my posts about SOPA and PIPA, I'm raising the alarm about the newest threat to our free speech: CISPA (I know, alphabet soup...I don't like it either, trust me).

CISPA stands for The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a cybersecurity bill allows companies and the federal government to share information to prevent or defend from  cyberattacks. However, the bill also authorizes monitoring of our private communications, and is written so broadly that it allows companies to hand over large amounts of personal information to the government with no judicial oversight—effectively creating a huge loophole in all existing privacy laws.  

In a nutshell, CISPA would:  

• allow a private company to read all of your e-mails
• allow the government to read all of your e-mails
• allow your Internet service provider to hand over your communications to the government without your consent or knowledge
• prevent you from suing a company for invading your privacy or sharing your information
• allow the government to keep and use your information for whatever purpose it wants

Is this what's good for the Internet and its users? I think not.

It won't take much time or effort to make your voice heard. Please do: this is important. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has made it easy to register your objections to this awful legislation. Below are some links. The more voices that are raised in opposition, the more hope we have of killing this terrible legislation (just like we did with SOPA and PIPA).

• FAQs about CISPA
• Sign the petition to stop this bill
• Donate to the EFF - they work hard to defend the rights of Internet users and protect our on-line freedoms
• If you want to do something FUN to protest, click HERE

The video below asks a larger question: copyright exists to "promote the useful arts" according to the Constitution. But is it still doing that? And should the government protect so-called "intellectual property" in the same way it protects other forms of property?

 If you steal a car, the owner no longer has that car. If you download a movie, the studio still has its movie, although it is not making as much money as it would like. Regardless of whether you think downloading movies is wrong or not, is it the same as theft, in the true sense of the word?

This is an interesting debate about this divisive issue.

The MPAA: Bully of Film Makers

The Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA, is the national film ratings agency that reviews films and applies the ratings to them, be it G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 (which used to be XXX).

image credit: http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_genhist_censorship.cfm

It is also a group that many filmmakers hate.


It is the reason why you see the above screen in theaters at every movie you go to. Their review decisions are made in secret, infuriating film makers, who are given little to no information about why a film has been given a particular rating. The appeals process allows no documentation or recordings, and produces no written judgments, and is a system in which the deck is stacked against the filmmakers. 

This is a problem, because films that are released unrated, or worse, with an NC-17 rating, are often not shown in the big movie theater chains. While the MPAA claims its rating system is voluntary, the reality is that it is a form of censorship, because unrated films are seen by far fewer people. It is a system that thrives on secrecy and has been resistant to change.

The most recent example is the film Bully, from Miramax, about the trauma of school bullying. The MPAA gave it an NC-17 rating for some offensive language (the kind heard in schools across the country) and refused to review its decision. As a result, Miramax is going to release the film unrated, even though that will lower the amount of theaters in which it can be seen.


This video covers the campaign to pressure the MPAA to back down on its arbitrary R-rating.

Turning The Spotlight On The MPAA

In the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Academy Award-nominated director Kirby Dick  puts the powerful MPAA under the microscope for inspection, looking at stateside cinema's most notorious non-censoring censors. 


Disturbed by the huge amount of power that the MPAA ratings board wields, the filmmaker seeks out the true identities of the anonymous raters who control what films make it to the multiplex (and which ones don't), hiring a private investigator to stake out MPAA headquarters.


Along the way, Dick speaks with numerous filmmakers whose careers have been negatively affected by the seemingly random judgments of the MPAA.

This is a fascinating documentary and well worth watching (be aware there are snippets of nudity and some coarse language, necessary to examine the issues covered in the film)


Predictably, the film was given an NC-17 rating by the MPAA, and Dick describes the unfair, arbitrary nature of the appeals process. 


The MPAA was also caught red handed making copies of the film, something they go after others for, but the MPAA justified its hypocracy  by claiming it was acting to protect its members (story about this HERE).  Apparently the same rules they so zealously advocate for do not apply to them.

The bottom line is the fact that the MPAA has an enormous amount of control over what movies the public is allowed to see, and there are movies that do not get made or released at all because of this system, something that damages the freedom of culture that is supposed to be a hallmark of our society.

Boston Finally Admits Wrongful Arrest

The city of Boston, after five years, has finally admitted that the arrest of Simon Glik for recording police officers in public was wrong. Until this point, the city has steadfastly refused to admit their officers had done anything wrong.

Their intransigence will cost Boston taxpayers $170,000. 

CNET has a good article about this case, and the increasing confrontations between police departments who are able to record citizens in public without their consent, but are arresting citizens who record police. Wiretapping laws were never meant to suppress citizens' constitutional rights, and yet they are increasingly being invoked by the police to prevent recording in public. 

Yet another example: a Coral Springs, Florida woman was arrested by police and charged with felony obstruction and DUI - charges that were dropped after a recording of the altercation was made public. Now the two officers are being investigated, something that never would have happened without the recording.


Here's one more: a security video proves that a man who spent three days in jail was the victim of a clear-cut case of false arrest by an officer, who claimed his life had been threatened. Now the officer is facing several serious charges for lying. If not for video of the encounter, this man would have probably spent a lot of time in jail. LINK

Further proof of why recording of the police is so important. The website Cop Block, whose goal is police accountability, has a good article listing nine reasons to film encounters with police. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the rights you have, you have only because they were exercised. Use 'em or lose 'em.

Nine Reasons To Record Police Encounters

Link to CNET story Boston admits it: Cell phone photography is not a crime

Link to Boston Herald story Police reverse stance on taping of officers’ actions

Link to Miami Herald story Broward driver busted by cops, exonerated by cell phone
Link to the ACLU's excellent web page describing photographer's rights, and how to interact with the police who demand you stop recording

Four Groups Protecting Your Digital Rights

Forbes Magazine has a great article about four public interest groups that are fighting to protect your digital rights. These are groups which deserve our thanks and support. 

• These public interest groups are in a constant battle to fight against laws that restrict our freedom or threaten our privacy, or to alter aged laws and policies that don’t keep current with rapidly evolving technology. Their victories—and there are many—have improved the lives of everyone who’s ever owned a tech toy. 

This is a good overview of the threats to our freedoms that, if not challenged, will allow others to dictate what rights we have. Be sure to check it out.

LINK

Warner Home Entertainment: Jump Through Our Hoops For Our DRM Scheme

Yet another "this has gotta be a joke, right?" proclamation from Hollywood, this time from Warner, which gives you an option to rip your DVDs legally by driving over to a special DVD-ripping depot and paying a fee.

The catch? They will only be converted to DRM-locked formats that only play in approved devices. Warner calls this "safe and convenient."

"This has gotta be a joke, right?" 

Public Knowledge has a scathing commentary about Warner's cluelessness, which includes the helpful chart comparing the two ways to unlock a DVD you legally purchases, below:

LINK 

LINK to previous blog post The Piracy Dilemma, in which I examine the issue of piracy, and big content creators' desire to control how customers use their products in every way

Amazon Is Pro-Amazon, Not Pro-Author

Jim C Hines is a published author who offers a cautionary tale about publishing books through Amazon. He publishes several e-book titles with Amazon, and recently discovered that Amazon reserves the right to re-price his books at will, and pay him royalties on the lower rate, not the original, agreed-upon rate, regardless of whether he has agreed to this change or not.

Amazon has declined to respond to his questions about the matter.

This is something traditional publishers would never do, but as Hines concludes, " I am telling you to go in with your eyes open, and to understand that despite what the cheerleaders might suggest, Amazon is not pro-author. They’re pro-Amazon."

A cautionary tale about the power Amazon has over books, and the way they are created, consumed and sold.

LINK

Sony Hikes Album Prices After Houston Death

The Guardian reports that just hours after R&B singer Whitney Houston's death was reported, Sony decided to cash in by jacking up the price of her greatest hits album, anticipating a wave of nostalgia at the singer's passing.

This is just the latest in a long line of arrogant moves and offenses against its customers by Sony, a company that takes cluelessness to a whole new level. Stay classy, Sony.


UPDATE: Sony has backtracked, claiming the 60% price hike was simply an accident, issuing an apology in the face of widespread negative reaction to the move. Hmm...funny how this accident just happened to occur hours after the singer's passing. Yeah, I'm calling bunk on this excuse.


No word on if Sony will be refunding the difference to people who have already purchased the mistakenly-priced album, as it was their error. (I wouldn't lay odds on it)


LINK

Link to Guardian article

Previous examples of Sony's contempt for its customers:

Sony finally admits theft of customer's data

Sony's mandatory firmware updates frustrate, alienate customers

Sony's mandatory update takes away right to sue, forces customers into binding arbitration

Sony promotes features on PS3, takes them away without warning, shrugs

Sony infects customers' computers with malware, lawsuits ensue

Sony's disregard for customers, DCMA led to rootkit fiasco