Big Trouble for Image Doctoring

Photo District News reports that Getty Images dropped a freelance photographer for digitally altering a golf photo, even though the transgressing photo was apparently transmitted by mistake.

Dallas Morning News photo editor Guy Reynolds originally alerted Getty to the fact that he had received two near-identical images of golfer Matt Bettencourt, both by photographer Marc Feldman. One showed his caddy over his shoulder (above), but in the other the caddy is replaced by trees (below).

(Read Reynolds' account here.)

Getty immediately issued a "kill" command to subscribers, and in adherance to a zero-tolerance policy on photo manipulation, terminated its relationship with Feldman.

Feldman called Reynolds to explain:

He said he was in the press tent processing the images when Bettencourt and his caddie stopped by to see some of the pictures. Feldman said the caddie, looking at the image in question, said it would be better if he wasn't in it. "So I showed them how easy I could do that. I thought I just saved it to the desktop, not to the send folder," he said. "I certainly did not mean to send both of them to Getty."

"There was absolutely no intent to pass this off as a real image. Only a moron would have sent both," he said. "And I would've done it a lot better, too."

The fact that he sent both the original and the retouched photo is pretty solid evidence that he wasn't trying to pull a fast one. ...

Feldman, 61, certainly isn't the only photographer to make a gaffe and pay the price for it.

"I understand Getty has a reputation to uphold. I certainly don't blame them for letting me go," he said. "I know the ethical standards for editorial clients. I just wish my long relationship with them didn't have to end like this....I've been doing this for 26 years," he said. "Sometimes you make a mistake and it's fatal. I made a fatal mistake."

*****
Another digitally doctored photo is causing a stir, but because it wasn't committed by a journalism institution, the ethical breach isn't as cut-and-dried. However, because it was committed by BP, it has cast a shadow over the beleaguered oil company's claims of communications "transparency."

The snafu was caught by America Blog, and eventually came to the attention of the Washington Post.

The offending photo, of employees gathered in BP's Houston crisis room, is prominently displayed on the company's Website. Essentially, someone did a really lousy job of copying/pasting three underwater images onto a wall display. The blogger took BP to task for the sloppiness of its subterfuge as much as it did for the deceit itself.

BP blamed the photographer, though it's unclear whether the photographer was working at the company's behest, as is usually the case with corporate images. You can follow the brouhaha, in infinite detail, here.

As the Washington Post concluded: "Apparently BP is no more adept at doctoring photos than it is at plugging deep-sea oil leaks."

What is perhaps most startling about both the golf and BP incidents is that the online commenters are split over whether doctoring photos this way is acceptable practice -- even in journalism. Some cite the "slippery slope" warning, other vehemently claim it's no big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Given the technological capabilities of programs like Photoshop, many people apparently presume photos are somehow tidied up before publication anyway. Hardcore ethicists (and professional news guidelines), however, argue that a lie is a lie, and altering reality destroys credibility.

Journalists vs. Law Enforcement: Know Your Rights

Journalists have been complaining that BP officials and local law enforcement officials have been actively preventing them from shooting photos and video of the public beaches tarnished by the catastrophic oil spill.

Both credentialed journalists from major news organizations and independent journalists say they are being illegally bullied.

One example is Marguerite Cravatt (pictured), an L.A.-based indie producer who grew up on the Gulf Coast. She brought her producing partner and a cameraperson to the Gulf Coast to shoot documentary footage along the deserted coastline of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. She says she repeatedly witnessed the media being blocked and bullied. "In one incident, a local on-duty Police Officer tried to protect the interest of BP and prohibit us from filming a sick worker being taken way in an ambulance."

Outraged, she posted her experience on YouTube:



*****
We thoroughly address the subject of where photojournalists can legally take pictures in Chapter 16 of "Photojournalism: The Professionals' Approach." Nearly all the time, public property (such as a public beach) is fair game. Know your rights! More importantly, know what to do, and how to behave, when a law enforcement officer mistakenly tries to prevent you from recording what you are entitled to.

Photographers who disregard police directives -- even if the shooters have the right to be where they are -- can be arrested for disorderly conduct or for interfering with the performance of a police officer's duty. Continuing to take pictures or failing to move after a policeman gives you a direct order could constitute a possible felony.

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and some of its chapters have for years worked to improve the situation, and reduce conflict, by educating police and fire personnel on the role of the news media in society. The NPPA is keeping a close eye on the BP situation as well.

The NPPA has asked President Obama to order the rescinding of a ban on members of the media speaking with clean-up workers, and to instruct the federal government to work with the press to create a more reasonable "safety zone" for journalists who are covering the Gulf oil spill and attempting to document the Deepwater Horizon booming efforts.

"NPPA is outraged at reports that the U.S. Coast Guard has created an extremely restrictive 'safety zone' surrounding all Deepwater Horizon booming operations, and at reports that the federal government has banned members of the news media from speaking with clean-up workers," NPPA president Bob Carey wrote to the president.

(Read more here.)

Carey appeared on KCRW's program "To The Point" to discuss with a U.S. Coast Guard spokesman and reporters from the Times-Picayune and Time magazine how the Coast Guard's 65-square foot "safety zone" has affected journalists' reporting on the impact of one of the biggest environmental disasters in U.S. history.

The 65 square-foot area effectively blocks reporters and photographers from getting close enough to do their jobs well. Off-duty police officers hired by BP to run security details have also been criticized for harassing journalists trying to cover the story. BP now says efforts to stop the spill may pay off in the next few weeks, but what’s happening to the flow of information about the disaster?

*****
On a similar note, NPR's "Talk of the Nation" program yesterday addressed the volatile issue of videotaping police in action.

The Los Angeles police beating of Rodney King resonated, in part, because it was caught on video. Now, most modern cell phones have video cameras. Many police departments struggle to draw the line between citizens' and journalists' rights to film arrests, and their officers' rights to privacy.

Incredibly, in some states you can get arrested for taking video of an arrest -- even if you're on public property and not interfering with the arrest.

In its half-hour segment, "The Rules and Your Rights for Recording Arrests," we hear from guests
Radley Balko, senior editor, Reason; Carlos Miller, arrested for photographing police making an arrest; and James Machado, executive director, Massachusetts Police Association.