Image of Wounded Canadian Soldier

[tomahawk6]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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]

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]

Here's O'Reilly's web site.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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 ...  :

Thank you, that clarifies it for me. 

 

[mariomike]

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]

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]

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

I viewed yesterday a couple of photos credited to you with the following caption:

"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."

While the photos are very well done and tell a powerful story, I was surprised to see them published without the Canadian soldier's face obsured.  Though I am a retired Canadian Army officer, it has been many years since I've had any interaction with representatives of the press covering military operations so I am unaware of current guidelines under which you would be working.  Do you require specific consent from individual soldiers to publish identifiable photos of them?  If so, did the soldier in these photos provide such consent?  Does the military force in which you were embedded (U.S. or Canadian?) make any restrictions about using photos of soldiers in which their images are clearly identifiable, particularly if the soldier has been wounded?  This last item would be of more importance due to the very short time frame between the incident and publication of the photos making it possible that family members may have seen the images before being notified about the soldier being injured.

Thank for any information you could provide.

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

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.
I hope this answers your questions.

Regards, --Finbarr

 

[tomahawk6]

Great followup Blackadder.

 

[Strike]

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