# Image of Wounded Canadian Soldier



## tomahawk6 (9 Oct 2010)

These photos appeared on militaryphotos.net evidently from a civilian embed. Most photos of injured soldiers that I see have the face obscured. I dont feel that photos such as these should be published without the permission of the person photographed. That may have been done in this case I dont know.


[pics temporarily removed until confirmation whether mbr gave permission to Milphotos.net*]  

A U.S. medic of the 101st Airborne Division's Task Force Shadow Dustoff examines a Canadian soldier who was suffering from a concussion and other problems a few days after being hit by a roadside bomb, during a medevac flight in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province, October 7, 2010. Picture taken October 7, 2010.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Oct 2010)

> . . . I dont feel that photos such as these should be published without the permission of the person photographed. That may have been done in this case I dont know.



Despite the confusing syntax of your statement, if you feel it is inappropriate to publish such identifiable photos of persons (in situations as per the above photos), why are you further distributing said photos without obsuring the identity of the soldier?


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Oct 2010)

The images are on the web and its now been several days after the image was taken. I think I posted the images to generate opinions. If its not appropriate then maybe the mods can take the thread down.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Oct 2010)

T6, did the MilitaryPhotos.Net article/caption note if the photos were used 'with permission'?  I'm thinking they would be, but I don't know Milphoto's policy.  While assuming works most of the time, things do slip through and it would be good to know the injured member had given consent to his photo being released.  If we can confirm this, then we can put the pics back up.

Thanks.

Cheers
G2G
*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Oct 2010)

With a little google these photos can be found on some news sites.  They are accredited as being from (and must likely in copyright of) REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly.  O'Reilly is a Canadian/British photojournalist of some note.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2010)

Here's O'Reilly's web site.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> They are accredited as being from (and must likely in copyright of) REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly.


The copyright is likely the property of Reuters, not FO himself.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Oct 2010)

Actually, I was referring to the issue of whether permission was sought from the injured Canadian soldier to use his image, not the "owner" of the image.  Personally, I don't consider Reuters to be a stalwart agency enough that I would trust they followed best practices regarding subject permission...remember the photoshop smoke over Beirut incident? 

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Actually, I was referring to the issue of whether permission was sought from the injured Canadian soldier to use his image, not the "owner" of the image.  Personally, I don't consider Reuters to be a stalwart agency enough that I would trust they followed best practices regarding subject permission...remember the photoshop smoke over Beirut incident?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Seen, and agreed.

I'd be curious to see what the photographer's embed agreement had to say, if anything, re:  taking photos of other foreign nationals.


----------



## Strike (9 Oct 2010)

He was probably embedded with Canadians.  It would be easy enough to drop him an e-mail.  He has contact info on his web site.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Oct 2010)

Whoever posted the pic's on militaryphotos.net probably just got them from an open source. In the caption with the images which I think were from the wire service did not indicate whether permission had been obtained from the injured soldier.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Oct 2010)

Personally, I don't see the issue, but then again, I don't own a website.

I mean, I doubt that any of these guys gave permission


----------



## mariomike (9 Oct 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think I posted the images to generate opinions.



Here is one from a journalist in British Columbia.
"Victim photographs; Dramatic story-telling or exploitation of grief?":
http://www.kelowna.com/2009/08/27/victim-photographs-dramatic-story-telling-or-exploitation-of-grief/


----------



## GGboy (10 Oct 2010)

Under Section 22(c) of the ISAF Media Ground Rules:
"Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service members prior written consent."

It goes on to say photos can be taken of patients in the hospital only with the consent of the attending physician and written consent of the patient.

So maybe he did get permission, but knowing Finbarr probably not ...  :


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> ...maybe he did get permission, but knowing Finbarr probably not...



That is the concern that led to the pics being removed here.  Benefit should go to the member.  I would place greater faith in confirmation from the member in the pictures himself that he had granted permission to have his photograph published than I would from the photographer telling me the soldier had done so.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2010)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> Under Section 22(c) of the ISAF Media Ground Rules:
> "Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service members prior written consent."
> 
> It goes on to say photos can be taken of patients in the hospital only with the consent of the attending physician and written consent of the patient.
> ...



Thank you, that clarifies it for me.


----------



## mariomike (10 Oct 2010)

RangerBoy said:
			
		

> Under Section 22(c) of the ISAF Media Ground Rules:
> "Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service members prior written consent."



Story in the New York Times ( 2007 ), reprinted in The Army Times, re: 11(a) of IAW Change 3, DoD Directive 5122.5: 
“Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent.”:
http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/army_opinion_fallen_070618/


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

Interesting article, Mariomike, thanks for that.  I can't help but think there's a wee bit more complaining about the apparent difficulty of securing the soldier's permission, making it seems as though it renders the process untenable.  



> Until last year, no permission was required to publish photographs of the wounded, *but families had to be notified of the soldier’s injury first.*



And this was easier than asking the soldier where the reporter is right there?  ???



> Now, not only is permission required, but any image of casualties that shows a recognizable name or unit is off-limits.



Heck, if Reuters can photoshop more smoke and destruction over Beirut, surely a nametape or unit patch could be discretely 'shopped' out?

Overall, the article comes across as whining or looking for sympathy...heck, the reporter has travelled across the globe and is following soldiers in a war zone, and suddenly asking a soldier for permission to use a good shot or two is a straw to break the camel's back?

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Oct 2010)

I emailed the following to Mr. O'Reilly.


> From: ***** ******** <********@***.******.com>;
> To: <finbarroreilly@*****.com>;
> Subject: Photo of U.S. medic examining Canadian Soldier
> Sent: Sun, Oct 10, 2010 6:52:11 AM
> ...



His reply to me was:



> From: Finbarr O&#39;Reilly
> To: *********@***.******.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 1:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Photo of U.S. medic examining Canadian Soldier
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Oct 2010)

Great followup Blackadder.


----------



## Strike (10 Oct 2010)

Sorry for the late reply.  I got the same reply from him, so the photos should be okay.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Oct 2010)

Thanks for that, Blackadder. That's good to know.  T6, we're good to hoist the pics back up, if you'd like.

Regards
G2G


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Oct 2010)

Very well boss. 












A U.S. medic of the 101st Airborne Division's Task Force Shadow Dustoff examines a Canadian soldier who was suffering from a concussion and other problems a few days after being hit by a roadside bomb, during a medevac flight in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province, October 7, 2010. Picture taken October 7, 2010.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Oct 2010)

Good follow-up, Blackadder!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Oct 2010)

After contemplating O'Reilly reply to my email, there was an element that continued to concern me.



> Thanks for your message and your concern. The photos you mention were taken last week. *Embed rules on photographing injured, wounded or deceased Canadian soldiers are such that you must allow time for next of kin to be notified. After that, it is permitted, or if you have permission from the soldier in question, you can publish the picture. For US soldiers, consent must always be given*. In this case, the soldier gave me personal consent himself on the helicopter and I waited 24 hours before publishing the image so he could first be in touch with his family. Also, the IED strike in which he was hurt took place 3 days earlier.



Note the difference in rules between Canadian and American soldiers.  Though the actual guidelines of each force are probably not so brief as explained by O'Reilly, I am a little concerned that identifiable images of injured (or dead) Canadians could be published without their permission, even if there is a waiting period.  Granted, any embedded reporter who creates controversy by inappropriately releasing such photos may find himself frozen out by the troops who he is covering, even if he has not violated the letter of any guidelines to which he agreed.


Note:  Taking O'Reilly explanation at face value that he obtained permission from the soldier in the photos which started this thread, I do not consider their publication inappropriate.


----------



## Strike (11 Oct 2010)

He can only publish the photo with consent of the member of the member is identifiable.  That's all in Privacy Law.  Doesn't mean he can't publish a photo where a face can't be seen.

Deceased is a different story altogether.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2010)

I think this link is relevant to the discussion.

ISAF Media Ground Rules:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/stories/File/Media-Visit-Docs/ISAF%20Media%20Ground%20Rules%20and%20Hold%20Harmless%20Agreements.pdf


----------



## Pusser (12 Oct 2010)

What is interesting in all of this is that back in Canada, a photographer doesn't need anybody's permission to publish photographs taken in public areas.  For example a photgrapher can take a picture of you walking down the street and publish it on the front page of a newspaper, without your permission and without having to pay royalties.  In fact, if you were to take that picture from the newspaper's website and publish it yourself, without the photographer's (or perhaps the newspaper's) permission, you would be violating the photographer's copyright.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What is interesting in all of this is that back in Canada, a photographer doesn't need anybody's permission to publish photographs taken in public areas.



Published accident scene photos are more tame now than they used to be. ( Showing the car, not so much the victims. ) They got away with a lot more in the old days because the photos were considered to be of some educational value, as there was an implied public safety message, other than morbid curiosity. That people would see what happened to the victims, and decide to fasten their seat belts ( even before it became law ). 
Sort of like how they justified the legendary ( before disc brakes ) "Highway Safety" films some of us were subjected to in Driver Ed. They followed that up with a slide-show.

Once they load you inside the ambulance, your right to privacy is ( supposedly ) protected. The media know the rules, but your average spectator with a digital camera built into their cell-phone and access to the Internet might not.

Years ago, there was a Child Struck P.I. photo. Lying in front of a car. The little girl was looking directly into the camera. It was published, without a problem, because it was news of the day, and on a public street.
But, a couple of years later, that same file-photo was re-published along with a with a very strongly worded story about child traffic-safety. Because of the attached photo, the story indirectly implied carelessness on the part of the child, and her parents. Not about that child specifically. But, it might as well have been, because it was her face in the picture. The parents complained, and I believe, won some financial compensation.


----------

