The post concerning climbing Delicate Arch brings up some very interesting questions regarding photography ethics.
In the news article the photo used says underneath, "photo courtesy Dean Potter." This makes me think that whoever took the photos probably just gave them to Dean.
Should Dean Potter be allowed to market photos of himself climbing the arch?
Or, if someone else owns the copyright to the photos and was aware that the illegal climb was going to happen beforehand, should he/she be allowed to make income from the photos?
Here's something else that would muddy the waters more concerning ethics: Lets say I just happened to be at the Delicate Arch that Sunday morning to shoot some stock photos. I was unaware of the climb until I got there (but happily clicked away )
Should I be able to market the photos anywhere I please? How about advertising, should I license the use of the photos to a company to illustrate concepts like independence or freedom, when on one hand I may be helping perpetuate an illusion that people should be able to go anywhere they please (rules be dammed).
What do you think? And what would you do personally if you took the photos? Randy
Randy: something you need to be aware of with climbing photography is that it is almost always pre-planned and staged. I guarantee you that the photographer who made that photograph was either his wife (famous climber Steph Davis) or a friend of Potter's who does not otherwise make and market photographs for a living.
As for your scenario in paragraphs five and six: SURE! As long as you got a model release you can market the image however you please. Whether you'd feel right about doing so (say in the case of a "rules be damned" usage) is for you to decide.
I don't know if I'd even have TAKEN any photos if I were there, because I'd be so P.O.'d that I'd either be screaming bloody murder at him, or I'd be scrambling to go find the authorities.
What would I do personally if I did indeed take the photos? I'd present them as evidence to the Park Service for what this guy did. The I'd delete them so this ego-driven freak wouldn't gain an ounce of personal notoreity for his selfish act.
The story I heard was it was not at all illegal. But after the picture was posted and the media ruckus, the park service immediately did what should have been done long ago and that is to officially legally clearly ban it. No one wants people climbing on such a rock as it could chip or become damaged. Also people expect others to take their turn taking images of the arch without other people in the shot and obviously have no interest in waiting for someone to get done climbing to the top. Just to be fair they might allow climbing it while completely naked, 10am to 11am on Wednesdays once a month haha. Probably not the only natural icon that lots of the public views that ought to be in that category. I'm betting someone is looking through a list of possible such things to ban climbing on. Imagine finding someone in a Homer Simpson costume sitting atop Balanced Rock at sunset! Likely they will also post a no-climbing sign where the trail up the sandstone ledge first enters the amphitheatre.
As for the photos let em be. It was legal. There won't be any more.
Discussion
3 repliesIn the news article the photo used says underneath, "photo courtesy Dean Potter." This makes me think that whoever took the photos probably just gave them to Dean.
Should Dean Potter be allowed to market photos of himself climbing the arch?
Or, if someone else owns the copyright to the photos and was aware that the illegal climb was going to happen beforehand, should he/she be allowed to make income from the photos?
Here's something else that would muddy the waters more concerning ethics: Lets say I just happened to be at the Delicate Arch that Sunday morning to shoot some stock photos. I was unaware of the climb until I got there (but happily clicked away
Should I be able to market the photos anywhere I please? How about advertising, should I license the use of the photos to a company to illustrate concepts like independence or freedom, when on one hand I may be helping perpetuate an illusion that people should be able to go anywhere they please (rules be dammed).
What do you think? And what would you do personally if you took the photos? Randy
As for your scenario in paragraphs five and six: SURE! As long as you got a model release you can market the image however you please. Whether you'd feel right about doing so (say in the case of a "rules be damned" usage) is for you to decide.
What would I do personally if I did indeed take the photos? I'd present them as evidence to the Park Service for what this guy did. The I'd delete them so this ego-driven freak wouldn't gain an ounce of personal notoreity for his selfish act.
As for the photos let em be. It was legal. There won't be any more.