[Leica] Re: Photo ethics

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

B.D.

>>I think you are ABSOLUTELY under the most basic of ethical obligations to
inform the editor that you
used a prop, rather than a live snake.<<

Actually, it's interesting that you should mention that. My first degree
was in Journalism. I studied ethics and I place a high value on
credibility, especially in relation to hard news.

I was hired by a large advertising agency right out of college. I worked on
a number of large agri-chemical accounts. Sometimes my work would be
published in internal publications and sometimes it was submitted to
outside publications. Everything went through legal. The only thing they
held me accountable for was to make certain that quotes and references were
correct. I submitted copies of my final drafts to all my sources and had
them sign off. Something I'd never do as a hard news reports. But most of
my work was considered editorial, rather than hard news. (The closest I got
to hard news was the spraying of pot fields in Mexico with paraquat. It was
fascinating there to see what went on behind the scenes). Legal never asked
me about photographs, and like I said, I wasn't always aware where they'd
end up. I saw my articles appear several years after I left the agency and
somebody else captioned my photographs. (Even years later in garden
publications since Ortho was my main account)

Should photographs be handled differently if they're news, or for
illustration, or art? And where do you draw the line? I've heard stories
about Wegee (did he ever own a Leica?) and he didn't always caption his
"staged" photographs. Sorry if this is drifting too far. I'll drop it, but
photographic ethics is an interesting topic.

David