Breaking:Large explosion at public event in Boston***Mod warning in OP**

FoxyVixen wrote: »

I noticed that too

Though I didn't see the opportunity for jokes to be made - to me it sums up the entire catastrophe in one image.

it's sad. but without being too obvious a well-done steak goes a certain colour on the outside etc

anyway people will have thousands of "witty" jokes lined up over it already.

FoxyVixen wrote: »

I agree it does lack empathy, but that's the life of a photographic journalist. To tell an unbiased account of the story, and that means for them to take images without interaction and walk away. There's a documentary regarding such characters called War of Photography I think by the BBC. These guys may appear heartless but to them they're showing the world life in all its gritty glory. photos aren't limited to fun days at the park.

i have no problem with those type of photos. At all.

My problem is they often get in the public domain before the families have even been informed. That is unforgivable.

space_man wrote: »

Imagine sitting in a cafe or a hotel lobby, whipping out your iPad and seeing your brother, son or dad lying there?!!

Exactly. It's just not on.

How can it be stopped? Well, it's difficult as i'm not sure if there is legislation in place to prevent it. And once a photo goes viral you can't exactly prosecute everybody for sharing it.

What i would like to see, domestically and abroad, is a determination for the uploaders of these images to be prosecuted. Putting photos of fatalities online mere minutes after they occur, the only deterrent to this is prosecution.

Once the families have been informed, then the images are documentary evidence and can be shared as they wish.

I'm not sure if that is enforceable but i can't see any rational reason to allow people to publish the faces of dead people minutes after an incident when their families are almost certainly still clueless as to their bereavement.

FoxyVixen wrote: »

True, I wouldn't like to find out someone died that way myself .

But at the end of the day, and as hard as this is for most people to hear, that is the job and the life of a photographic journalist. They can not allow their personal feelings to prevent getting the image out there when the story is relevant. There will never be legislation preventing this.

In the UK there is civil legislation anyway.

I know from back in my Uni days doing Law, there was definitely Tort proceedings brought for Nervous Shock over Hillsborough but they lost effectively because the cameras did not focus on individual faces of the family members in question.

But in the UK at least, if this was the London marathon and those images of fatalities went up in mere minutes, there is definitely a case for nervous shock civil liability which could run into a massive payout.

No amount of money can compensate for learning of a loved ones death on the internet though.

I just realized the apartment i lived in when i first moved over here was the building where the first bomb went off. The Bank Of America on the corner is where i opened my bank account...my checkbook still has my orignal address...so fcuked up.

Interesting point made by an expert from the John Hopkins Center on Sky News just now.

Pointing out this particular week is usually the week when right-wing domestic attacks are more likely. Due to the extreme right-wingers associating this week with the Waco Siege in Texas which ended April 19th in 1993. Extreme right wingers apparently point to Waco as an example of Government having too much power and control.

FoxyVixen wrote: »

Can they show faces of people who are injured and not dead? I'm only curious as I'm uncertain whether anyone is actually dead in the first photo of those images and so the photographer may still be legally ok for taking the photograph.

Laws are much differant in America regarding photography, if you're a celebrity there you've lost all privacy. It's not as tolerated here at all but I'm unsure whether that's due to legislation or just Irish cop on to leave celebrities alone.

It's a civil tort, so effectively let's imagine your father died in a similar incident, you go online see his body in a picture and suffer tremendously as a result - you could sue the uploader of the photo for nervous shock. By which point you'd have to rely on time of death to show he was dead at time photo was uploaded etc etc

It's quite complicated and not overly relevant to the thread so i will leave it there. But something has to be done to stop this. Family members, on every moral and common decency ground, have the right to be informed of the death of a loved one before Joe Soap on the internet does.