Image of Wounded Canadian Soldier

[Good2Golf]

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]

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]

Good follow-up, Blackadder!

 

[Blackadder1916]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.