A very interesting conversation occurred recently in the RPS Documentary group on photographic ethics. Copied here with permission of the participants.
Frankie McAllister
A general question on ethics please, if people don’t mind. I’m having a debate about ethics in travel photography, which led to a debate on documentary photography. Would you say documentary photography can be a) valid and b) ethical if undertaken by an amateur, by which I mean someone who is not on paid assignment to do the project. Would be very grateful to hear some views on this – it’s a neutral question as I don’t know the answer.
Alan
As someone who would consider themselves an ‘Amateur’ (IE: Not paid for my work) I would consider the work of an ‘Amateur’ to be both valid and ethical. I would also consider myself as a ‘Documentary’ photographer – I’m interested in what is happening around me and want to record some small portion of it. During my MA course I undertook a small project based on public transport where the subject of what is or is not ethical arose’.
I concluded that yes, it was ethical to photograph members of the public in a candid manner (think Walker Evans) for the simple reason that they were already having their image captured on the security cameras of the bus or train, without them necessarily being aware of it. Now, If I’d gone on to sell that work then I might have taken a very different view but, again that would depend on the use to which the images were being put.
Frankie McAllister
Thank you. I’m trying to see the distinction between amateur and professional from the point of view of the ‘subject’. I tend to think that it is a matter of the behaviour of the photographer and the use he/she puts the images to that determines the ethical impact rather than the status of the photographer per se. That didn’t seem to be the view of the semi pro I was having the debate with and it was hard to know if that was a degree of protectionism (understandable to some extent).
Graham Wilson
Alan: “Yes, it was ethical to photograph members of the public in a candid manner (think Walker Evans) for the simple reason that they were already having their image captured on the security cameras of the bus or train, without them necessarily being aware of it.”
So because something is happening already, it makes it ETHICAL to do so again? Did your supervisor/tutor agree with that rationale?
So, for example, because women are being objectified already it is ethically OK to continue to do so…? Or because white male anthropologists have always taken pictures of indigenous people in the nude, it is ethical to continue to do so…?
Alan
Graham, no, it’s not ethical, in fact it’s a dangerous oversimplification in so many ways. But, by the same argument can street photography can ever be ethical? I think the ethics really come into it after the shutter has been pressed and you’ve seen the result – keep, destroy or publish?
I try and avoid capturing faces wherever possible, I won’t photograph children and I won’t photograph nudity. Every candid image is an internal debate that continues after the shutter is pressed but, I do have problems with issues around cctv and it’s presence in our society.
Stewart Wall
I’ve been a professional photographer for over 40 years Frankie, money does not effect the validity of the work
Frankie McAllister
Stewart, no, of course. I wasn’t saying it did. The person I was debating with thought the reverse. I’m just trying to work it all out.
Graham Wilson
Curious, Frankie … what do you mean by “valid” and why do you question whether it is “ethical”? I can understand that certain practices may not be commonplace, or might in themselves be not so much unethical as untasteful, but what is it that you feel might be intrinsically “unethical”?
Frankie McAllister
Graham – ethical in the sense of working in sensitive places or with vulnerable people, possibly altering outcomes or behaviour by your presence – this is in particular regard to travel documentary.
Graham Wilson
OK… well, firstly, I don’t see that as “travel photography”. The RPS defines TP as “images that express a feeling of a time and place, or portray a land, its people or a culture in its natural state.”
I would say that there ARE ethical questions if you are travelling to a place in order deliberately to portray sensitive places or vulnerable people. This is why the statement of intent (which, by definition, is formed before the images are taken not retrospectively as some people here seem to think) is so important. By portraying something (I’ve photographed nuclear power stations, for example), or vulnerable people (thinking of Salgado’s child labourers), then understanding your intent is crucial.
However, these are still about personal ethics, rather than those of your society. If you are doing so to provide images to a protest group, to put onto Alamy as stock photos (which could be used by a regional economic development group who think nuclear fission is OK), or to illustrate a Wikipedia page about the phenomenon, then these choices are yours and the imagery personally is both “valid” and “ethical” – others might disagree.
If your intent is to document a situation that you feel is indicative of a socially challenging issue, then personally, I would describe that as “contemporary photography” rather than “documentary” or “travel”.
There are organisations that sell travel packages to visit places where the environment, the fauna and flora, and the people are all vulnerable. They endeavour to present these trips as being of benefit to the charities hosting them because the photographers will supply copies of the images, when the reality is that most pictures will be useless and the real benefit is a few thousands dollars from a bunch of white, Anglo-Saxon, exploiters.
This issue was particularly strongly identified in 2017 as the growth of “orphanage tourism” in low-income countries had reached obscene levels. Simply because a “charity” is working in a field, this doesn’t mean that its practices are good.
Mick
I’d agree with Stewart – one’s professional status (or not) does not affect the ethics of one’s work.
Frankie McAllister
Mick, see my reply to Stewart. I’m really not suggesting that professional = bad. I’m trying to understand where the line lies and why amateur/independent is considered bad but professional isn’t. The dilemma is precisely whether one’s status affects the ethics of the work.
Mick
Frankie, I am not suggesting that there is a difference. I am simply saying that the matter of ethics applies both to professionals and amateurs alike. Both can do both good and bad things. Ethics applies to the social system to which both belong. Of course personal morality might be at odds with that, but that’s not defined by amateur vs professional.
Frankie McAllister
Mick, thank you. Yes, that’s really what I thought too (as I’ve probably said earlier in this feed). My debate was with a semi professional who essentially thought any amateur photography in documentary subjects, was photo tourism and unnecessary, therefore dubious. Whereas, if it was a ‘professional’ project, it would be justifiable. As an amateur (or you could say independent) photographer, I question that but I’m not sure.
Mick
Frankie, I did understand. It would seem to me that the ‘semi professional’ is trying to self-justify rather than really deal with ethical issues. It’s also possible that he / she is trying to justify his / her status. No doubt a professional photojournalist might face more difficult choices more often than a non professional (war, conflict for example) but the ethical issues remain constant.
Frankie McAllister
Mick, yes, I can see that. I was concerned that what genuine exploration, travel, research, documenting of situations should be denied to amateurs on grounds of ethics. I think the ethical question is huge and growing, believed that personal ethics and sensibility was more relevant than status. I’m reassured to understand from this argument that is probably right.
Graham Wilson
Mick and Stewart – “one’s professional status (or not) does not affect the ethics of one’s work.” I’m not convinced by this argument. If I was a forensic photographer employed by the police, and as part of my work I took pictures of a corpse, then I would be doing my job and, I don’t think there’s anything ethically or morally wrong with that.
If I was an amateur who happened upon a road accident, and had nothing else to do, but started to take photographs of the scene including a body that was clearly not going to be resuscitated, then I would (I think) be acting outside the norms of society. In our present society, this would be morally unacceptable, and therefore unethical.
Have I missed something in your argument?
Mick
Graham yes, but that’s a category mistake. Why would photographing a corpse be outside the realms of society? Documentary photographers and journalists do it all the time, as do ‘citizen journalists’, bystanders at accidents (whose images get used by police) and even family members when people die.
There are of course ethical considerations in how the images are used. If the autopsy images were sold for profit, that would be unethical. But if a bystander took pictures of a traffic accident that solved a crime, that would be ethical. I contend the issue is not the profession, it’s the use.
It was Susie Linfield that noted ‘Photojournalists are responsible for the ethics of showing, but we are responsible for the ethics of seeing’. Substitute another noun for ‘photojournalist’.
I am not trying to absolve the amateur paparazzi, but some kind of blanket statement about what people can and cannot take photographs of is equivalent to predetermining what they can paint or sculpt. And again, profession is not the criteria. Personally, there are many things I would not photograph. But that’s not because I am either amateur or professional. It’s because I have moral opinions.
Graham Wilson
Thanks Mick. Yes, fair point – it’s the use that they are put to rather than the taking – in this context certainly.
Stewart Wall
Putting academia and legal statute etc to one side, ‘ethics’ are personally agreed with oneself. For example, I refused to do a job for the Sun newspaper because it went against my personally set code of ethical practice.
What I will concede is that professionals, in practice know the law better than non professionals. I have a qualification from the National Council for the Training of Journalists and we studied the law during that period. However this is a generalisation and there are non-professionals who know the law as well as I.
Mick
Stewart, of course, always a personal choice. And yes, some pros might know the law better than some non-pros – but not all. I’d add, though, that the law is something else. Just because the law says it is possible, does not mean it is ethically right.
For example the law allows me to take candid pictures of anyone I please in a public place (law of panorama). But I personally do not take pictures of the vulnerable unless there is a conversation and a very good reason. Even so, the use of any photographs may be subject to defamation laws etc.
I also stand by my words that personal choices are moral ones, and that whilst ethics and morals get to be used interchangeably, it’s a useful way of defining them separately, especially in academic circles and to help people understand the issues.
See my earlier post Street Photography, The Law and Data Collection
Paul Moran
Take a look at the Overton Window Theory. This shows how ‘acceptability’ changes over time.
Frankie McAllister
Paul, thank you
To reply to all the comments, which are helpful to receive. I’m in a debate with a semi professional photographer, actually about travel photography, and the crossover between photojournalism and independent or amateur travel documentary photography. The issue is about the impact a photographer has in certain situations and whether their status in any way changes that.
Stewart Wall
I often recommend this book to my students Frankie, especially when I am teaching on the documentary course. I think it will help you.
BARTHES, Roland. 1980. Camera Lucida. New York: Hill & Wang.
Frankie McAllister
Stewart, again, thank you for the recommendation. It’s a tricky area and I’m grateful for the discussion and pointers to writings.
Graham Wilson
I read this, which helped me see how this can get tangled up:
- Norms deal with standards of appropriate behavior. There is no value judgment by the individual as there is with morals. Instead society dictates what is acceptable.
- Morals involve value judgments and principles about right and wrong in behavior. They can be decided by individuals or society.
- Ethics are based upon rules of what is morally good or bad behavior. Since ethics are rules, they are generally determined by society.
The terms are all similar in that they deal with right and wrong in behavior. They are different in that norms deal with societal standards, morals involve value judgments by individuals or society, and ethics are based upon rules (usually dictated by society).
Morals are the basis for the definitions of ethics (rules based upon morally good or bad behavior) and norms (appropriate behavior is arguably, generally moral).”
Mick
Graham indeed, though my simplification would be that ethics are systemic (determined by societies, organisations, religions, cultures, philosophies) whilst morals are personal (determined by choice or belief). We tend to use the words interchangeably in everyday use, but …
Graham Wilson
Mick – Yes, however, I think that distinguishing norms from the others is useful especially in the current political environment. People are having their perspective of norms manipulated profoundly.
Mick
Agree. Though ‘norms’ may or not be questions of ethics
Graham Wilson
Mick – Yes, absolutely
Frankie McAllister
Can I just say, looking back over all the comments, that some very interesting points have been made and it has been a really useful exercise for me to get such considered and different views on the question. It’s much appreciated, so my thanks to all. P
Paul Moran
Frankie McAllister can I just say – it’s nice to have such an intellectual, interesting and intelligent debate without any aggression, rudeness, baiting and confrontation that I so often see on other sites.
Frankie McAllister
Paul Moran agreed!
Andrew Mills
I’ve been a pro photog all my working life: Advertising, commercial, magazines, tourism, and then as a senior lecturer, field chair at a university for 20 years … in most of that time I used the Association of Photographers’ book, “Beyond the Lens” as the go-to reference work for almost all aspects of photographic law including copyright etc.
There’s a small section on trespass and it is dead simple … you can photograph anywhere in a public place and any thing from a public place … ethically is different from legally, as I think Stewart said in his responses. I never photograph disadvantaged people without their knowledge and permission and even then the shots will be for a purpose – to show dignity, or to advertise the plight of someone – with their permission.
And, I never shoot anything stealthily. Be upfront or don’t shoot. My attitude is that stealth is like stealing, it’s furtive and voyeuristic. It doesn’t settle with my integrity.