Ethics & Morality in Photography

[Rattus79]

and you could still find yourself in trouble greg....

dont froget to watch out for electric fences

e) pee on fence --- penis still attached?? No, Jump away.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I still have trouble with the legal= moral concept
mostly yes, often not and vice versa

[kiwi]

What about charging more as you'd client arrives in a new mercedes ?

How about taking a picture of princess diana in the car ?

[Xenedis]

A very interesting discussion, and one that highlights the fact that the issue of ethics in photography contains many shades of grey (un-processed, un-over-saturated grey).

Yes, "un-over-saturated" isn't a word, but for the point of this post, I declare it to be a word.

My view on the subject of depicting reality in images is that, the context of why and how those images are being used is the primary guideline as to what's right and what's wrong.

For example, in reportage, documentary or real estate photography, I do not believe it is fair to alter the perceived reality of what was captured, after the fact.

If there are ugly power lines outside that wonderful mansion, cloning them out is deceptive and plain wrong.

However, it's not always quite so simple. I wouldn't have an issue, in the context of real estate photography, with the cloning out of a bin or piece of rubbish which would not ordinarily be there, and otherwise has no bearing on the depiction of the subject which should be presented in a truthful manner.

Arguably in such a scenario it would have been more sensible to remove those elements from the scene first, but I'm using this example to illustrate my point.

Ethics is a very broad field, but to address Kiwi's questions:

is it ethical to use an iphone bird call application to call in birds in the wild

I don't see an issue with that.

It is ethical to bait animals to get a shot ?

As long as there is no cruelty or deprivation of the animal's liberties, I see no issue with that.

The exception would be nature-themed photographic competitions which have stringent rules on the subject being in its natural environment without human interference.

Is it ethical to photograph someone without their consent ?

My viewpoint mirrors Kym's on this one.

Should you jump someone's farm fence to get a nice landscape shot ?

That would constitute trespass unless permission was granted.

Any other "can of worms" ?

Photography of people being injured, killed or already dead would come to mind.

[Tannin]

The problem of recorded bird callers is in fact a big issue amongst people who have an understanding of avian biology and conservation. Birds, by and large, are unable to tell the difference between a recorded call and a the real thing. Most birds are highly social creatures, and know exactly who all their neighbours are. They have usually struggled and worked for years to establish a patch of their own where they can breed and raise a family. They know exactly who the others are around them. Then you march in with a completely strange call, often much louder than the real thing. Wild birds don't just turn up right in the middle of a territory and start shouting abuse either, they approach from the edges. Imagine sitting in your lounge room and suddenly having a couple of 9 foot tall Hell's Angels walk straight through the walls and break in there shouting at you and waving their knives around in your face. That's what you are doing when you play a recorded call - you are creating shock, horror, and trauma. Quite often, the trauma is sufficiently severe to cause nasty effects, including nest desertion and the consequent slow starvation of the nestlings.

This isn't just guesswork; there are well-documented consequences from recorded bird calls. A few of the once common but now rare and endangered Eastern Bristlebird, for example, were known to be living in a New South Wales National Park. Ill-educated birdwatchers and photographers played recorded calls at them to entice them out of the shrubbery and, over time, drove them crazy with frustration. Now the birds no longer call at all. Recorded call playback has wrecked their ability to breed. Before too long, the species will probably be extinct at that location, and there are only a handful of other locations left now.

If you can't get close enough to the bird using your own skill, you should accept that you need more skill, not just cheat.

[Xenedis]

The problem of recorded bird callers is in fact a big issue amongst people who have an understanding of avian biology and conservation.

Thanks for that explanation.

Not knowing much about birds, your post was quite an eye-opener.

Given the use of bird calls can have damaging effects, I've changed my position.

[kiwi]

Thanks for that explanation.

Not knowing much about birds, your post was quite an eye-opener.

Given the use of bird calls can have damaging effects, I've changed my position.

The same

[Scotty72]

I am really troubled by the concept of what is moral.

Ethics are easier - as these are generally codified within a profession, group, religion so, if you don't want to accept the standards = don't join.

However, morals are usually not codified and are simply value judgements: what I believe is right Vs what you believe is right.

Context is also important: what is appropriate is one circumstance may not be in another.

So, how can one person possibly impose their moral judgement on someone else especially without knowledge of context.

For example.

A vegetarian may think eating a hamburger is immoral as an animal has been killed (and as 4 Corners showed us - it may have suffered terribly). Does this make it immoral?

What about judging someone who traps a bird by putting glue on a branch? You might judge that an immoral act. But, what if there was a very good reason?

Society is far too quick to judge others on moral grounds... which is unfair.

Belonging to an profession, club etc., you join up on condition you abide by ethics (where applicable).

As members of the public, our morals should not attempt to limit the behaviour of others - ONLY laws should do that.

Scotty

[Tannin]

Cheers John. I shouldn't suggest that they always do unacceptable damage, only that, as with nest photography, you need to think long and hard before using a caller. As a general rule, using a caller is an admission of incompetence or that you don't have the sticktoitiveness to be a nature photographer, but I don't think there is anything too wrong with careful, strictly limited use. If you are doing it more than a few times a year, you need to have a good, hard look at yourself and your ethics.

[Xenedis]

Thanks T.

I guess it comes down to the environment and situation as to whether the use of some tactic or another is unethical, immoral or otherwise damaging.

I can certainly understand that good bird photography is a difficult art.

[Tannin]

As members of the public, our morals should not attempt to limit the behaviour of others - ONLY laws should do that.

What you are suggesting is the complete abolition of society. Formal laws are a very small factor in our daily lives and in the many moral decisions we all make every day. All human societies are based on a shared set of ethical beliefs. That's what a society is! - a set of people with some shared values and beliefs and customs. It is not just OK to share your thoughts on what is right and what is wrong with other people, it is your civic duty. (As with all such things, moderation is recommended.)

[kiwi]

What you are suggesting is the complete abolition of society. Formal laws are a very small factor in our daily lives and in the many moral decisions we all make every day. All human societies are based on a shared set of ethical beliefs. That's what a society is! - a set of people with some shared values and beliefs and customs. It is not just OK to share your thoughts on what is right and what is wrong with other people, it is your civic duty. (As with all such things, moderation is recommended.)

Quite.

Is it illegal to cheat ?

[Scotty72]

What you are suggesting is the complete abolition of society. Formal laws are a very small factor in our daily lives and in the many moral decisions we all make every day. All human societies are based on a shared set of ethical beliefs. That's what a society is! - a set of people with some shared values and beliefs and customs. It is not just OK to share your thoughts on what is right and what is wrong with other people, it is your civic duty. (As with all such things, moderation is recommended.)

No, not an abolition of society at all.

I have a moral code I follow (and alter). I will not trap or interfere with a bird for example - even one in distress as I think it is immoral to interfere with nature's great plan. However, if you chose to not follow my code, what right do I have to tell you must do as I say?

However, societal 'norms' that are so widely shared are often adopted as law. We don't steal because most of us have a shared belief that it is wrong AND will do significant harm to society. Homosexuality is a case in point. It is no longer a crime despite the fact that it is FAR from the norm. Relatively few people practise it or would even consider it (often suggested at about 5-10% - but, who knows). Plenty of people want it banned but, it is not (IMO correctly) because even those (most of us) who will never do it recognise that it does NO HARM.

So, why should someone's morality stop people from having a relationship?
By allowing it, I don't believe society has ceased to exist. Has it?

[Art Vandelay]

Interesting discussion.

My soft spot is birds in flight. If I find a bird peacefully sitting on a branch, I throw rocks at it to make it fly. I'm guessing that's wrong ?


Stop ! Don't shoot. I don't do that at all.

Interesting comments on the bird calls, Thanks Tony. - Never used them anyway. Have sometimes used a soft whistle, or click of the fingers to turn a birds head in my direction.

Also guilty of putting out stale bread crumbs or bird seed on a fence post out the back yard to feed my backyard mates & create a photo opportunity.

[Mark L]

....
Is it moral or ethical to take pictures of someones life scattered across a half mile of forest?
Is it any more moral or ethical if you show up and ask permission to take the same pictures?
Is it any more moral or ethical if you volunteer to assist these people with rebuilding their lives and then ask permission to take the pictures?....

The week after the Black Saturday fires in Victoria my wife went down to run one of the biggest logistics units happening. She had the opportunity to take many images of peoples lives devastated, she didn't take many of those opportunities because she thought it ethically wrong to take photographs just for her to remember what she'd seen.
Part of her job is community safety, and so in the end she felt obliged to take some photos to demonstrate to others some of the things you can and can't do to protect property (to also demonstrate to some that it doesn't matter what you do, you sometimes cant protect it).
So on one hand she felt ethically obliged not to photograph, and on the other hand she felt obliged to photograph because she saw some use for greater good (what ever that is).
And that doesn't even touch on the social documentary aspect that some used to photograph everything they saw!
What's ethical and /or moral? Might be a personal/end use type of thing thing.
But before you take a position you should possibly make yourself aware of the consequents to others of your position.(see Tannins post on bird calls)

[bricat]

Is it ethical for duck shooters to call in birds? Is it ethical to access someone's voicemail? Is it ethical to photograph someone in an emotioally upset state? Is it ethical for drug dealers to shoot and kill each other?

It is not trespass until you are told to leave by the owner or police.(anti logging campaigners are warned by police over a megaphone and then if they don't leave are arrested and not before yet they are still trespassing)

Are these things illegal? Well innocent until proven guilty and many people get off on technicalities. And many many people are not bound by ethics or/and the law. (thieves,robbers,burglars and speeding motorists)

Is it ethical to use a speed camera? Whoops now thats' done it I'm outa here

[Scotty72]

Is it ethical for duck shooters to call in birds? Is it ethical to access someone's voicemail? Is it ethical to photograph someone in an emotioally upset state? Is it ethical for drug dealers to shoot and kill each other?

It is not trespass until you are told to leave by the owner or police.(anti logging campaigners are warned by police over a megaphone and then if they don't leave are arrested and not before yet they are still trespassing)

Are these things illegal? Well innocent until proven guilty and many people get off on technicalities. And many many people are not bound by ethics or/and the law. (thieves,robbers,burglars and speeding motorists)

Is it ethical to use a speed camera? Whoops now thats' done it I'm outa here

It probably is ethical for duck hunters to call ducks to their deaths - but, (IMHO) very immoral (in most circumstances). I assume that a duck hunter has a licence to shoot ducks and as part of that licence, they would have to agree to a set of rules etc. If these rules allow it, then, I guess it is ethical.

Journo's accesses voicemail's I am sure that the journo's code of ethics would say something about this. If a private citizen does it, then there is likely no breach of ethics but, almost certainly a breach of law.

Photographing an upset person. Well, if they are pros, then, if they are members of unions, associations etc then, these groups decide the ethics. If it is a private person then, they prob have no code to follow.

And drug dealers... well I doubt they have codified rules.

Ethics are defined by groups. Morals are personal values. They should never be confused.

I would find it morally wrong to photograph a person whose mother had just been shot - but it is probably perfectly ethical to do so.

And the thieves, motorists etc are not bound by ethics. They are bound by their own moral codes (most of us see no moral danger in speeding / risking lives) but, above that, we are bound by a set of laws in case we loosen our morals.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

Is it ethical to use a speed camera? Whoops now thats' done it I'm outa here

Is it ethical to NOT use speed cameras?

If the govt knows most people speed every-day (endangering lives), is it ethical for them to allow the dangerous circumstances to continue?

[Tannin]

Ethics are defined by groups. Morals are personal values. They should never be confused.

^ Absolute, complete nonsense.

According to the Shorter Oxford, "Ethic" has three senses, (1) "relating to morals", (2) "treating of moral questions", and (3) "characterised by 'ethos' - which is defined as "the prevalent tone or sentiment of a people or community". It has, in other words, three meanings, all of them essentially the same as 'moral".

"Ethics" (plural) has further definitions, but we don't need to explore them here, they are similar and we have already blown this phoney distinction between "ethics" and "morals" completely out of the water.

[James T]

Semantics bore me.

As for photography, if you cause no harm, or the good outweighs the harm, then go ahead. That is provided you aren't fabricating images and presenting them as truthful documentary.

So far I've never found myself photographing in a situation where I've felt I shouldn't be. That doesn't necessarily mean other people at the time didn't disagree.