That subject header was a tough one to summarize. What I mean is... if a photo journalist takes a picture of an event... for example- a policeman slapping a waitress on the behind... but infact the waitress is his WIFE... but the image appears inflamitory although the reality was far from scandalous... is there a name for such a cheap shot?

I know that many gossip magazines and propaganda machines take full advantage of the way that photos can lie. I am just curious if there is a trade word- photo lingo for this. I am thinking of writing an essay on this and I would like to have the right vocabulary.

Does anone else have ideas about this?

-- Sarah Thompson (sthompso@seidata.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

Tom foolery? Just kidding Sarah, but in my 21 years as a photojournalist I can't think of a term being applied to such a photo. That dosen't mean there isn't one, there are a lot of things I can't remember...Doing that was such a taboo that I guess we just didn't think about it that much. You see, doing something like that would mean the photog would be fired if found out so it wasn't even a part of photojournalism.

-- Joe Cole (jcole@apha.com), January 03, 2000.

Hmmmm, defamatory imputation? Ah, but I'm thinking only of Australian tort law.

-- Tim (Timothy_Bolotnikoff@justice.qld.gov.au), January 03, 2000.

Hi,

You might take a look at Lynn Farmer's site. There was a recent disucssion about manipulation and what is and isn't legit. No concensus was reached, but it's an interesting related topic. He's at http://lynnfarmerphoto.net/35MMBoard/ You might also be interested in the Foundview site which, I think, is at www.foundview.com or something similar.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), January 03, 2000.

Early on, photography was considered the ultimate objective medium, but as we have become more sophisticated we have become increasingly aware just how easily the medium can be misinterpreted and/or misrepresented. This was true 50 years ago, and is even more obvious in the current era of digital manipulation.

-- (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), January 04, 2000.

Question: Interviewer, "Does a photograph ever lie?" Response: Walter Evans, "It always does."

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), January 04, 2000.

If you happen to candidly catch the police officer slapping his wife (the waitress) on the behind, then I wouldn't call it a cheap shot, but rather a potentially successful one, regardless of whether or not the two are married. If the shot was staged or somehow contrived to mislead, then it would definitely be a cheap shot for a photojournalist. In that case I'd call it a fraudulent act.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), January 04, 2000.

Accountants call this activity "creativity".

-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), January 05, 2000.

yellow journalism?... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), January 05, 2000.

Walter Evans? Is he a friend of Jean Smith? Or Jean Dixon?

-- Sean Yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.

There is a legal concept known as placing a person in a "false light" that might be applicable. One definition from the Restatement of Torts (a sort of summary of state tort laws) is that a person "is given unreasonable and highly objectionable publicity that attributes to him characteristics, conduct or beliefs that are false, and so is placed before the public in a false position."

-- Chris Patti (cmpatti@aol.com), January 11, 2000.

Hey- Thanks for all the great answers guys. Here is the low-down on my question. I have a cousin who was a fashion model who is getting into photography pretty big time. Last year she took a photo of me and my baby son at a family party, actually it was a post wedding reception picnic at a cabin in the woods. The cabin belonged to some relatives of the groom and was used as a hunting lodge. There was a clock on the wall that said "Gun Club" on it. The picture was not very flattering of either of us and was not compositionally interesting either. The only thing about the photo that was remotely interesting was the juxtaposition of a young mother and this gun club clock. Well, as an American it seemed all pretty bland, but she lives in London now, and I guess the American "gun culture" of which I am NOT a part seems pretty raw and exciting. She wound up getting the honor of having her picture displayed in the national portrait gallery. Anyway, I wind up looking like a crazed back woods redneck raising my kid in a KKK gun club, and she gets some fancy renown and all the congratulations for being such a great protograper (whoops- that was a typo- but I'll leave it as it stands). I am just a little peeved, both as a person and as an artist. I can't really confront her or the picture directly, but I would like to write and essay about cheap shots and the karma that will come with fame made on a false foundation.

-- Sarah Thompson (sthompso@seidata.com), January 11, 2000.

DO it Sarah!!! Rowr Snarl Grr!! Etc. Sheesh! National Portrait gallery!!! IS it next to the chimps finger painting or that one by the three year old that sold for a buhzillion?

My dander is hereby up

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000.

Sarah, the name is "dishonest." Did you sign a model release for your cousin to reproduce your image and exhibit it in public? If you're angry enough you might want to write your cousin and let her know she does not have permission to use your image publicly. Sending a copy to the national gallery would seem prudent too. If you're really angry you could seek the advice of an attorney.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did study journalism in college, and using an image out of context in this way seems a sure-fire way for a publication in the U.S. to open itself to a libel suit. It's the old "holding a subject up to public ridicule" and "willful disregard for the truth" argument. An attorney could tell you how international laws apply in this situation. At the very least your cousin should quit exhibiting this photo just as a matter of courtesy without getting attornies involved. If your cousin sells the image you should get a percentage of the sale or a flat payment for your modeling fee.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), January 13, 2000.

If a photojournalist takes a picture, it's for a news publication, which has different copyright rules than a shot exhibited in a gallery. In general, your image shouldn't be exhibited in a gallery if you haven't signed a model release and you're an average person (lawyers can tell you about the exceptions I'm sure.)

If you're upset about the image enough, you've firm legal ground in the US and probably also in the UK to ask the gallery to remove it with or without the consent of the photographer.

If you're not that upset, you should probably talk to your cousin anyway, otherwise you'll end up with bad feelings that will last a long time.

Finally, take a few minutes to step back and relax, while the use for gallery work is definitely unethical without a release, you can now think of yourself and your child as internationally famous models!

I'd definitely demand an exhorbitant modeling fee based on the fact that your images are good enough to be displayed in a foreign gallery :) You'll also gain the decisive advantage that your child has earned some money working, which could then be depositied in an IRA to take advantage of tax-deferred interest. It's likely that you'd create a millionaire at this stage if the seed was large enough.

It'd make for a great ending to your essay too :)

Paul

-- Paul D. Robertson (proberts@clark.net), January 14, 2000.

Sarah, I have great sympathy for you. A very difficult situation.

I suggest that you have a heart-to-heart with your cousin. Are you sure you have made your feelings known, or have you been holding back? Getting the photographer on your side is the cleanest way out of this.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know how the gallery would react if you explained the situation to them. If they think you are trying to make a fast buck (make your child a millionaire, etc) I don't think they would be very sympathetic. If, instead, you explain about how much this picture has hurt you, they might be more sympathetic. They regularly rotate pictures anyway, and might be quite willing to take yours down.

Nor should I advise on the legal side. The international issue makes it very complex. I think that under purely UK law, you don't have any grounds for suing the photographer, or the gallery. The photographer could argue that you weren't being misrepresented, as you were merely juxtaposed with the sign, forming a contrast (life of the child, death through guns, etc etc).

I also suggest that you try to think and act coldly. Try not to be upset. Try to be a duck's back, and let it slide off you.

My heart does go out to you. If I were the photographer, I hope I would withdraw the image. But it would be hard, it is a very prestigious gallery.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), January 14, 2000.

Oh- Slow down a minute... I'm not quite THAT miffed. I don't think at the time the photo was taken (at a family function) model releases were in order. And I don't know if she really intended to show me in a poor light- but I do think she composed the gun club clock on purpose- so perhaps that was in the back of her mind. I am not interested in suing, profiting or destroying my cousin. I don't think she is a villan. And she is family- and god know we have a tough enough time holding it together without going for the throat. It really is a funny position because the National Portrait gallery gig is a wonderful boost for her, and I suppose I could be flattered to have MY likeness there- and she has won another big award, so obviously there is something in her work that is working. It's actually more of a personal hope for her to bring her work to a higher level through seeking honesty rather than stretching truth... see? Rather than crush her, I'd like this lesson to elevate her- I just have to figure out how to approach this. I really don't want to appear bitter, petty or jealous. I hardly see her and I guess the next time we get together I will just try to stay in the shadows (probably wind up looking like some frightened kook in an asylum) Sarah

-- Sarah Thompson (stompso@seidata.com), January 18, 2000.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=16878&a=1376753&p=15211914

Here is a REAL portrait of me taken by my sister- who is also a real great photographer (my unbiased opinion :-). I am a draft horse owner and our draft mailing list is having a photo contest this month on photopoint.

-- Sarah (sthompso@seidata.com), January 18, 2000.

There are many levels of honesty (or 'truth', not quite the same thing) in a photograph, and especially in a portrait. One is a purely visual truth: the unmanipulated image. Another is a representative truth: is the photograph a typical representation of the person? And then we get into the deeper levels: does the photo reveal something about the person's inner character? The honesty at those levels is harder, especially when the photographer don't know the subjet well.

And then the photographer might have to choose between an honest portrait that isn't a good photograph, or a less-than-honest one that is a better photo. The judges of a competition will not know the truth of the subject, so the temptation is to submit the better photo.

My rule in these circumstances is to ask myself what the subject thinks of the photo. Do they like it, do they regard it as truthful? If not, the photo doesn't get submitted, no matter how good it is. The reason is pragmatic: if I win the competition, and the photo gets published, I don't want to lose a friend.

When you see your cousin, you might engage her in a discussion about photographic truth an honesty. She may not have thought through these issues for herself.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), January 19, 2000.