Journal News Using Firefighter Photos

[x635 4,066]

I noticed that twice this week, The Journal News used front page photos from fire scenes, taken by firefighters at the scene.

The first was the fire in the gazebo in Chappaqua that was on a private gated estate, only Chappaqua firefighters were allowed on the property.

The second was the double fatal in New Rochelle. They used a page one photo taken by a New Rochelle firefighter inside the house (which I assume was a crime scene since it was a fatal). Now, this firefighter is also a professional photographer and has taken numerous excellent photos for NRFD, but the question is if the photos should appear in the Journal News?

One firefighter even gave the Journal News the photos for free via their citizen journalist thing, or whatever they call it. They were also used on LoHud in special galleries.

I'm not sure if these firefighters were on duty, but my question is, do you think firefighters should be giving the media photos from scenes where the media is not allowed ? Is there a liability issue here? Were the proper procedures followed in the release of the photos? Should the media be allowed the same access?

Also, are these photos that are being submitted for free, to a FOR PROFIT enterprise, taking away work-and pay- from the photojournalists at The Journal News?

We complain about the media not covering us, but then we circumvent them........does owning a digital camera make someone a " citizen photojournalist"? Is the media taking advantage of this for profit? And, are those who are photojournalists for a living being shortchanged? Is the line between hobby and profession being blurred?

[FFD941 20]

My personal opinion on this issue is that the news should not be receiving photos that have been taken unless the media can see them themselves. (ie... From the street or form the air) There is a reson why the press isn't aloud inside in the fire-line.

This is one of the bigest reasons why I am hesitant to take photos at auto accidents and such as it's more of a personal scene rather than a public one. Granted the accident did happen in the public's eye, but taking a photo of an accident scene and then posting it in a new paper where victims faces can be seen is a little more personal than I'm willing to go

[lad12derff 283]

The Brother from New Rochelle was not on duty for the job. He often takes pictures and contributes to the media. He takes alot of pictures for New Rochelle and I do not find any reason why he should not be able to contribute.

My personal opinion on this issue is that the news should not be receiving photos that have been taken unless the media can see them themselves. (ie... From the street or form the air) There is a reson why the press isn't aloud inside in the fire-line.

This is one of the bigest reasons why I am hesitant to take photos at auto accidents and such as it's more of a personal scene rather than a public one. Granted the accident did happen in the public's eye, but taking a photo of an accident scene and then posting it in a new paper where victims faces can be seen is a little more personal than I'm willing to go

You shouldn't be taking pictures of victims at accident scenes and posting them. I think it is great that firefighters take the pictures and contribute for the simple fact they can self edit the ones they want the media to get and leave out the ones that should not have been taken in the first place.

Also, are these photos that are being submitted for free, to a FOR PROFIT enterprise, taking away work-and pay- from the photojournalists at The Journal News?

I am not sure if I should start the paid vs volly thing with a statement like that.

[x635 4,066]

The Brother from New Rochelle was not on duty for the job. He often takes pictures and contributes to the media. He takes alot of pictures for New Rochelle and I do not find any reason why he should not be able to contribute.

And his work is outstanding and very professional, especially in the right channels. What those "right channels" are is what I'm trying to gauge.

My issue isn't so much with him, it's that they used his photo for the front page...meanwhile, the photographer for The Journal News who was on scene and got many outstanding shots lost a "Page One" photo, which means loss of $$$ for someone who earns their living that way. I mean, it's not the NRFD members fault, but still, especially if he was compensated or was allowed acess to where the media wasn't......

For example, if volunteers came to New Rochelle primary to fight the fire, and the NRFD guys weren't allowed access, I'm sure NRFD members would be upset....... Respect one another's PROFESSIONS.

[lad12derff 283]

For example, if volunteers came to New Rochelle primary to fight the fire, and the NRFD guys weren't allowed access, I'm sure NRFD members would be upset............it's a similar deal here. Respect one another's PROFESSIONS.

Ya think?

[Guest MVFD334]

I have seen in the papers and on the news, pictures or videos of accident scenes with victims. I think without the patients consent, photos/videos should NOT be taken to post for the public to see.. Its bad enough when you goto a ems call and everyone around the patient (the public that is)has there cell phones out taking pictures and video and posting them on youtube and you as a provider can only hold up a sheet or hope someone can do crowd control.. Isnt it enough the patient is hurt but now they have to worry about being seen at there worse possible moment?

I myself have taken pictures at fire/piaa calls but only after patient has been removed and my job is done. As far as fires I would hope that a on duty firefighter (volly or paid) would be playing the firefighter role rather than the journalist. (Thats only if it actually happens which I have never seen)

Pictures and vid's for training purposes are a different story. I still think patients consent should be obtained. Just my opinion.

[Guest Photounit]

Seth, Don't take this personally........ These are strictly MY opinions.......

"I noticed that twice this week, The Journal News used front page photos from fire scenes, taken by firefighters at the scene.

The first was the fire in the gazebo in Chappaqua that was on a private gated estate, only Chappaqua firefighters were allowed on the property.

"The second was the double fatal in New Rochelle. They used a page one photo taken by a New Rochelle firefighter inside the house (which I assume was a crime scene since it was a fatal). Now, this firefighter is also a professional photographer and has taken numerous excellent photos for NRFD, but the question is if the photos should appear in the Journal News? "

- Why not? As long as it doesn't show any more than the fire itself and doesn't give away any info or show the vicitims... Me personally, I would check with the investigators prior to showing interior photo's....... Outside photo's I don't see a problem with.....

"One firefighter even gave the Journal News the photos for free via their citizen journalist thing, or whatever they call it. They were also used on LoHud in special galleries."

- Yeah, He GAVE them his images for free and they made money from them...... OUR photo's sell THEIR newspapers...... The newspapers love the digital camera age...... Everybody has a digital camera nowadays and that means that when something happens, there is a good chance that there is somebody there with a digital camera to photograph it and they want to get their photo and name in the paper...... I was told by a local newspaper photo editor that they no longer pay for outside submissions...... Why? Because they get so many photo's submitted by people that just want to get their name and photo in the paper that they don't have to pay anymore ....... Sounds like a good deal to me!

"I'm not sure if these firefighters were on duty, but my question is, do you think firefighters should be giving the media photos from scenes where the media is not allowed?"

- If the person taking the photo is "on the job" the technically the photo's belong to the department..... If the department approves of the photo submissions, then I see no problems with it..... The newspapers want info and photo's for a story..... Why not give them photo's that tell the story accrurately and make a positive statement rather than have them find/take a photo that may not be in the best interest of the department? What about the liability of letting the media into the scene?

"Is there a liability issue here?"

- Unless you violate someones privacy, I'd say no....... Such as showing the deceased.......

"Were the proper procedures followed in the release of the photos? Should the media be allowed the same access?"

- I don't know what procedures they have in place but when I shoot a fire, anything outside within "public view" is fair game..... Photo's inside under certain circumstances may be questionable and I generally check before I post them but if I have to think about asking, then they generally don't get posted/circulated.

As far as having access goes, Why should they have the same access? What about the liability of letting them in being that they are untrained and unfamiliar with fireground/emergency scene operations. I had a local photog complain to me that it wasn't fair that I had complete access to the fire scene and he didn't........ My response was that I earned my access by paying my dues for the last 30 years and that if he wants similar access, then become a firefighter....... No, the media generally should not have complete access..... When I was a Chief, I would allow them escourted into the scene so they could get some "good" shots which I think is the proper thing to do.... Have a media relations officer to handle this.....

"Also, are these photos that are being submitted for free, to a FOR PROFIT enterprise, taking away work-and pay- from the photojournalists at The Journal News?"

- Oh PLEASE........... If these people want these photo's, they are there for the taking...... They just have to work for them like I do - And I don't get paid and I don't give them my work either ....... If they don't go to incidents, then they are not going to get the shots........ In most case, they don't need special access to get decent shots for their paper. What they need to do is be there to get them.......

"We complain about the media not covering us, but then we circumvent them........

- The media is often a very difficult organization to work with........ In my area, there has been a rift between the media and fire service for as long as I have been a firefighter. Both sides have said in the past that they want to change that and any attempts that I saw failed........ It is my experience that the media wants to tell one story and that is theirs........ When I was Chief, we had a House fire where the smoke detectors alerted the family to the fire and they were able to escape unharmed. When the local paper called and asked about the fire, all they wanted to know was if some was hurt or died in the fire..... When I told them no and that the smoke detectors had clearly saved the families lives, and that this would be a good story to highlight the importance of having and maintaining smoke detectors in the home, they couldn't be bothered....... I don't think anybody tries to circumvent them intentionally but if they won't listen to what you have to say, then why bother talking to them.....It has to be a two-way street.......

"does owning a digital camera make someone a " citizen photojournalist"? "

- Yes, owning a digital camera in todays day and age does make you a "citizen photojournalist". If you're there, have a camera, and get the shot, you're in..... and

"Is the media taking advantage of this for profit?"

-Yes, absolutely they are taking advantage of it for profit...... These photo's they get for free sell their papers.......

"And, are those who are photojournalists for a living being shortchanged?"

- I doubt it....... Many of the "citizen photojournalist" photo's get published because one of their staff photographer wasn't there to get the shot (Probably on assignment to cover an Easter Egg Hunt or photograph Big Al) so in most cases, they are not competing with the "pro" or "staff" photographers.

"Is the line between hobby and profession being blurred?"

- The line between hobby and profession is in perfect focus to me....... If you want to get the shot you have to work at it and if these paper photographers want to get the shot, they have develop a rapport and earn the respect and trust of the fire service instead of showing up and demanding access to the scene because the are "The Press"....There is a guy who posts his images here that is the icon in my book for working for the shot and getting it..... Frank Becerra........ I don't know him but look at all the excellent photo's he has taken over the years...... If your a newspaper photographer and want to cover the fire service, follow his lead.... He's the man in my book.....

Sorry, But that's how I see it.......Bill Johnson/FDPhotoUnit

[DaRock98 76]

The Brother from New Rochelle was not on duty for the job. He often takes pictures and contributes to the media. He takes alot of pictures for New Rochelle and I do not find any reason why he should not be able to contribute.

You shouldn't be taking pictures of victims at accident scenes and posting them. I think it is great that firefighters take the pictures and contribute for the simple fact they can self edit the ones they want the media to get and leave out the ones that should not have been taken in the first place.

I am not sure if I should start the paid vs volly thing with a statement like that.

I don't know how this can become a paid vs vollie thing but NO I don't think you should start anything like that, I'm tired of that topic on this site and I feel it has been discussed plenty of times here so I think you should keep those comments to yourself. Thank you.

[RocklandFires 44]

The Journal News has not paid for "Stringer" photos for some time now. The expect us to give them our photos for free by uploading them to their website. I have asked all my buffs in Rockland who go to fire scenes as a courtesy NOT to submit photos to them in protest of this new B.S. policy. If I get up at 3 AM to go and shoot a fire and spend my hard earned money on gas and lose a few hours sleep, I shouldn't be compensated by a newspaper that makes $ ? Unreal !

The problem with some photographers is that they live to see their photos published so they will give their photos for free to anyone who will publish them. I could give two ***** about being published. Sure, it's nice, but you see the same Photographers photos in Firehouse type magazines all year, and they aren't the greatest photographers either.

[BFD2553 75]

Wow! I'm just gonna bite my tongue here and see where this goes...

[Guest Photounit]

The Journal News has not paid for "Stringer" photos for some time now. The expect us to give them our photos for free by uploading them to their website. I have asked all my buffs in Rockland who go to fire scenes as a courtesy NOT to submit photos to them in protest of this new B.S. policy. If I get up at 3 AM to go and shoot a fire and spend my hard earned money on gas and lose a few hours sleep, I shouldn't be compensated by a newspaper that makes $ ? Unreal !

The problem with some photographers is that they live to see their photos published so they will give their photos for free to anyone who will publish them. I could give two S**** about being published. Sure, it's nice, but you see the same Photographers photos in Firehouse type magazines all year, and they aren't the greatest photographers either.

AMEN Brian !

[FFD941 20]

AMEN Brian !

Your Photo Your Time Your Profit

[SageVigiles 1,194]

If the Chief/PIO/whoever has the authority gives the FF in question permission to sell or publish the photos, then that is acceptable. But most agencies have a policy against sharing information with the media without proper authorization. Whether or not that is right is another issue altogether, but them's the rules.

[eagle5473 7]

Why would posting pictures to a media outlet any different than this site of 1stresponder or any buff site they are one and the same a media outlet one is in print and one is digital........Do you have aproblem with pictures being posted to this site? if not than I don t see how you can have a problem with pictures posted on a newspaper.. They are infact the same publication of pictures by firefighters.................

[DaRock98 76]

Why would posting pictures to a media outlet any different than this site of 1stresponder or any buff site they are one and the same a media outlet one is in print and one is digital........Do you have aproblem with pictures being posted to this site? if not than I don t see how you can have a problem with pictures posted on a newspaper.. They are infact the same publication of pictures by firefighters.................

The one difference I see is that newspapers SELL the paper where as this site is free to use and view. I think it's mainly because of the whole using the picture to make money aspect of it.

[x635 4,066]

Why would posting pictures to a media outlet any different than this site of 1stresponder or any buff site they are one and the same a media outlet one is in print and one is digital........Do you have aproblem with pictures being posted to this site? if not than I don t see how you can have a problem with pictures posted on a newspaper.. They are infact the same publication of pictures by firefighters.................

Journal News: For-profit CORPORATION with career photojournalists who make their money by going to these scenes and getting photos.

1st Responder is a for profit company. Your photos get people to read the paper, which in turn makes them money.

EMTBravo: Photos shared for exclusive use WITHIN the emergency services community, no profit involved, and you don't have to pay to see the photos. Most incident photos that are posted to this site are by enthusiast photographers, and are posted for shared use such as training, satisfying professional and industry curiousities, and letting other agencies know of one another's capabilities, such as where the in-depth new delivery photos come in.

The feature photo on EMTBravo.com isn't going to take pay away from anyone, the feature photo in the Journal News is. It's also not fair that someone with better access could circumvent this guy. Are we going to do away with the media, and start covering the incidents ourselves? Last I understood it, most news photographers get paid on a scale which includes what position in the paper their photo is used. If someone could fill us in more on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Journal News: For-profit CORPORATION with career photojournalists who make their money by going to these scenes and getting photos.

Seth it sounds like you are against people doing something for free when others do the same thing as a career.

Based on this statement, how can you not defend the argument that SOME career FF's make that volunteers hurt careeer jobs?

[lad12derff 283]

I don't know how this can become a paid vs vollie thing but NO I don't think you should start anything like that, I'm tired of that topic on this site and I feel it has been discussed plenty of times here so I think you should keep those comments to yourself. Thank you.

I was only joking.

[FFD941 20]

Seth it sounds like you are against people doing something for free when others do the same thing as a career.

Based on this statement, how can you not defend the argument that SOME career FF's make that volunteers hurt careeer jobs?

You even lost me on that one

[helicopper 1,050]

Seth it sounds like you are against people doing something for free when others do the same thing as a career.

Based on this statement, how can you not defend the argument that SOME career FF's make that volunteers hurt careeer jobs?

With all due respect and fully understanding why you made this comment given the comments previously, can we please take this to another thread.

[helicopper 1,050]

There is definitely a conflict of interest when "on-duty" (that is not a paid/volunteer distinction) emergency services personnel engage in activities other than their agency mission, such as photography. That's not why we're out there. Does this mean that I've never shot a picture or two at an incident, of course not. But that's more to chronicle my career for me personally than for publication. Sage is absolutely right, technically any picture that I take while on duty is the property of my agency so I can't go publishing them or selling them.

There is also the issue of access. If you're taking pictures from a location where the public and/or media is not permitted, there could be an issue. Are you using FD credentials to get somewhere as a free-lance photographer? What if your published (media or simply internet) photos are used to challenge the official evidentiary photos of the incident? Oops!

If you're on private property do you have the consent of the owner to take photographs? The PD, FD, or EMS is on that property pursuant to an emergency - that's different! It doesn't grant you permission to take pictures/video. A property owner may not want you taking pictures on their property much less publishing them and that is their right.

Is the guy in the jump seat of the apparatus supposed to be monitoring the radios, watching for cross traffic/hazards, etc. or shooting video for YouTube? I firmly believe that many drivers in such situations will drive faster and/or take more chances because of the camera being there.

Finally, what about public perception? How does it look when there are 3-4 guys in turnout gear snapping photos of a raging fire and not fighting it? This is different than an official agency photographer who's gear says "photographer".

If agencies don't have and enforce policies on the issue, they should! The digital age has made it possible for anyone to have a camera in their pocket and that will distract some from their primary mission!

As for off-duty personnel - whole different ballgame! As long as they are where they're legally allowed to be and don't misrepresent themselves to gain access to secured areas, I don't care if they take 1000 pictures and publish them all.

[DaRock98 76]

I was only joking.

Ohh sorry I didn't mean to jump on you like that it was a long day and I wasn't thinking straight! No hard feelings.

[X2321 133]

First of all to clear a few things up, Journal News photographers do not get paid per picture. They get a weekly salary. They do get a yearly performance review, and the more breaking news photos that you get or don't get can reflect on your review. I think the main issue here is access. The photographer from the JN said that the house fire was about 3 houses in from an intersection, and that New Rochelle police kept him at the intersection, while directly across the street from the house he could see neighbors and other people walking around, some taking cellphone photos. The police eventually did let the press down the street, well after the fire was out. As a photojournalist I am not looking to go inside the burning house and take photos, but I should be allowed the same access as neighbors and other people just walking around across the street from the scene. The cops can say that there is no media allowed at the scene, but is that fair when the news helicopters are hovering over the house with cameras that can read the numbers on your helmet shields. I have had problems with New Rochelle police at fire scenes in the past. The New Rochelle brother that took the photos that appeared on page 1 and inside the JN is a great photographer and I have known him for a long time. He contributes to Fire Engineer and other trade magazines.

[jayhalsey 6]

Seth it sounds like you are against people doing something for free when others do the same thing as a career.

Based on this statement, how can you not defend the argument that SOME career FF's make that volunteers hurt careeer jobs?

And here we go yet again. Sigh.

Does this never get old?

[DaRock98 76]

Based on this statement, how can you not defend the argument that SOME career FF's make that volunteers hurt careeer jobs?

I don't really understand what your getting at can you explain a little more?

[Bnechis 3,961]

I don't really understand what your getting at can you explain a little more?

Sure, Seth said that its not right for someone to be doing photography for free when there are career photographers.

I just wanted clarrification if he really believes that concept.

A lot of anti volunteer people have used this line (and I dont believe he is).

And I am not trying to make this a vol vs. career thing.

[ny10570 745]

Bnechis, you have a very good point. He kind of painted himself into a corner. However I don't believe you can compare the two. Firefighters are not losing their jobs to volunteers. Paid fighters are taking over where volunteers were.

[DaRock98 76]

Sure, Seth said that its not right for someone to be doing photography for free when there are career photographers.

I just wanted clarrification if he really believes that concept.

A lot of anti volunteer people have used this line (and I dont believe he is).

And I am not trying to make this a vol vs. career thing.

Oh ok thats what I thought but just wanted to make sure. Thank you capt.

Firefighters are not losing their jobs to volunteers. Paid fighters are taking over where volunteers were.

I couldn't agree anymore with this statement. It's sad but people just don't want/have time to volunteer anymore therefore more career guys are taking over. I'm not saying its a bad thing but it's just sad people just don't do it anymore. I know I am young but I remember going down to the firehouse when I was a kid and seeing 3 full trucks go out the door every time the alarm went off and constantly seeing a large number of people at the firehouse at all times of the day and night. It's just not the same anymore.

[MoFire390 118]

I always thought it was ok to take pictures at scenes. as long as there where no pictures of dead bodies, victiums faces, or anything else in that nature. Is it true or have i been miss led?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Bnechis, you have a very good point. He kind of painted himself into a corner. However I don't believe you can compare the two. Firefighters are not losing their jobs to volunteers. Paid fighters are taking over where volunteers were.

On the same note are full time photographers losing their jobs to volunteers? I dont think so. The Jernal news has the same number as they have always had.

I think thats a litle bit of a myth. I know that most VFD's in westchester are having problems with manning (particularly weekdays) How many of these depts in the last 10 years have gone paid or even added paid staff? Out of 58 depts 4 have no vol, 12 are combo and 42 are vol. the 1st 4 and the last 42 have not changed at all and the 12 combo all I can think of is EFD has added a few positions (but they technically no longer have any vol.) and LFD added a chief.

On a different note: the Journal news called the NRFD member in question here, and begged him for his photos.