Due to recent, well-publicised events BBC Wildlife magazine are preparing a feature on the ethics of wildlife photography. This will look at a number of subjects including digital manipulation, working with captive subjects/wildlife models, live baiting and camera trapping.
This request has been forwarded to myself and all of the professionals working in the UK but so far has been met with an unsurprising, though disappointing wall of silence.
Specific image requests include jess removal of captive subjects (before and after images), subject duplication within an image (birds repeated to increase flock size etc), anything to do with live baiting (boxes of mice waiting to be thrown alive to snowy owls, images of owls hunting on the ice- perhaps showing the mouse running then another with the mouse cloned out etc).
If anyone has, or is prepared to create via photoshop any of these techniques then this would represent an excellent opportunity to have images published in Europes' leading wildlife/environment magazine and all submissions should be sent to Wanda at wandasowry@bbcmagazines.com
It is important to note that BBC Wildlife will mention where relevant that an image has been created for this purpose only and does not necessarily represent the photographers working practices.
It would be interesting to learn of anyones' opinion regarding the ethics of live baiting whilst this thread is open!
Tom W - I tried to call you to see if this was ok but you didn't answer your phone! No issues here-The Mods
Posted by Liam Pauling on February 17, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Andrew,
If you head over to a certain american website you can find a few baited owl images some with the mice still in it!
But I can't see that anyone is going to want their name next to an image that goes against everything us wildlife photographers stand for...
liam
Posted by John Robinson on February 17, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Baiting with mealworms OK !!! ????
JR
Posted by Jorne de Bruin on February 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM
I have some images of Birds of Prey with and without jesses, but nothing with live baiting(don't want to have those either )
Posted by CLICKMAN38 on February 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Ok John, that's opened up a can of mealworms! Sorry, I couldn't resist it.
This topic might lead to some very interesting ethical discussions about digital cloning and manipulation. From time to time on this very forum I see people suggesting that an offending light spot or blade of grass be cloned out. I had this dilemma myself recently when submitting a print for the local camera club competition. I decided to print"as shot" and was criticised for leaving a shadow across the body of a red-legged partridge - It was caused by a low winter sun and a bare stalk of bracken. The picture also contained four partidges - not three as the judge would have preferred! The competition was won by someone who had photoshopped a vignette round the head of a Barcelona zoo antelope!
You have to laugh, don't you.....
I have read and reread this and, as someone who is keen to begin the long and difficult process of establishing a position of (hopefully) high regard for myself, I still cannot decide if this is an opportunity to do just that or if in fact it is a poison chalice...
Hi all and thanks to all those who have taken the time to respond though I must admit to being a little surprised that it is not quite the emotive subject that I had imagined it would be. I understand that it is not necessarily something that a lot of people have direct experience but then surely you don't have to see/experience something to have an opinion on it. I don't need to see a photographer grabbing a grey seal pup by its arse and spinning it around to face the light to decide whether I think it is appropriate behaviour or not.
John R- you touched on the traditional response of the mealworm analogy and whether it is the same thing or not and from my own point of view I don't really consider them to be in the same ball park. Whilst I am in no position to comment on the sentience of a mealworm there can be no doubt that a mouse/vole/lemming that has had it's front legs broken before being thrown onto exposed snow would be experiencing both pain and fear, it is ultimately suffering. Likewise if it is placed on a small piece of carpet on exposed snow, where it runs around frantically in circles desperately looking for cover, but unwilling to venture on to the exposed snow, it too will probably be experiencing some considerable distress.
I do not consider myself an expert on such matters, far from it, but given the outcry regarding the behaviour of Mr Rodriguez (who ultimately did what hundreds of pro's do every day by passing off an image of a captive subject as wild) and the vitriol that was spouted about him I find it peculiar that live baiting doesn't stimulate anything like that level of interest. Seems that all that really matters at the end of the day is whether it is a pretty picture or not!
Posted by Mike Smith on February 18, 2010 at 6:02 AM
I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that Pros pass off images as being wild, per the WPOTY issue. There is a world of difference supplying images for stock and entering competitions
Lets face it the Agencies, newspapers and glossy wildlife magazines want images that will sell their product, in putting an image with an article the publisher wants the best image available. It is the publishing magazine etc that is passing off the image as being wild, not the photographer.
Surely the photographer is merely meeting the current demand for a product. A pro has to balance time spent in the field against teh income being generated for the stock images - time = money. Do you spend 2 weeks stalking wild deer in the Glens of Scotland, or nip down to a certain London Royal park (with the requisite license of course) to generate images for stock. Do you spend several months baiting out carcasses in Scotland to attract Golden Eagles, or do you nip over the Scandinavia and use pay for hire hides where the work is done for you and spend more time on images of subjects that cannot be easily habituated....
When and if the magazines etc insist on an image being of a wild unhabituated animal, the position will change. But to date I am not aware that they are that fussy if and when they do the quality of image will deteriorate considerably.
There is a huge history of passing off controlled situations as taken in the wild especially in wildlife documentary series, as it is the only way to generate the images now demanded or expected.
A good example was in the Lif of Birds series a few years back with the sequence of a Goshawk running through the forest to chase down a rabbit. The sequence is impossible to film in the wild, they used a captive Goshawk for the sequence, but it was passed off as happening in a Scandinavian forest
I'm purely an amateur photog by the way.......
Posted by Brian Davis on February 18, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Hi all,
My humble opinion is that the world of photography is riddled with dodgy photographic practices,
I may be being a little soft here but the thought that live and deliberately injured mice are used as bait turns my stomach. Not so much the live bit but the deliberately injured!!! surely not???
Is it a fact of life that some people will go to any lengths to get the shot they want???
I had my eyes opened when i took up digital photography to some of what goes on, and unfortunately it gets worse.
We will all get tarred with the same brush if we dont stand up against these practices. Just my point of view, no offence intended to anyone.
Posted by David Sewell on February 18, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Andrew, I want to pick up on your comment that 'live baiting doesn't stimulate anything like that level of interest'. I don't do live baiting with small mammals,and I suspect that is true of the vast majority of photographers on the UK part of this website. Having said that, when I feed captive amphibians I feed them live (invertebrate) food because that is all they will eat, but I do it for the amphibians needs, not because I want a photo.
The presumed falsification of the wolf picture, or any other digital image, will provoke debate because some will consider it OK while others are strongly against it. That is the picture itself, I don't think anyone would approve of passing off something captive as wild in a competition.
Whilst I know that live baiting with mammals, or other relatively sentient creatures, goes on, I suspect that very few do it (at least in UK), and they keep quiet because they know they will be howled down by the rest of us. That is especially true if the prey animals are deliberately injured first.
Hi and thanks again for taking the time to contribute.
Mike - All of the major agencies stipulate clearly in their contracts that all captive subjects be marked with a C or Captive. The vast majority of captive images on these websites are not marked as such, this is the responsibility of the photographer not the agency. If the photographer puts captive in his/her caption then that will be detailed on the caption on the agency website. Similarly with magazines such as BBC Wildlife, if they are informed that a subject is captive then this will be included next to the photographers credit. The deception in these cases is the photographers and the photographers alone based usually on an economic decision that an image will sell better if it's not marked as captive.
I don't think persoanlly that you can call the golden eagles in Scandinavia captive. We have wild blue tits coming to our feeders, they have white-tailed sea eagles.
I echo your sentiments about the fim making, indeed a large part of why I have never worked with captive subjects is the disappointment that I felt when I learn't that some footage I had seen of a wild golden eagle hunting was staged. I have no great moral objection to working with captive subjects as long as the welfare of the bird/mammal is paramount and the photographer demonstrates the moral integrity to be open and honest about it.
Brian - I echo your sentiments entirely.
David - Re: invertebrate food - I guess this is another case for the sentience of the creature. Is the invertebrate aware? probably not. Is it scared of what's about to happen? probably not and so I guess it is less likely to be suffering. As for the howling down? I posted a polite request for info regarding a snowy owl image posted on this forum as I suspected that it was live baited. I was ticked off by the mods and of the 450+ views, 15 comments there wasn't so much as a squeak about ethics. Still, it was a very pretty picture!
As someone who has over the last ten years supported numerous 'guests' to obtain up close and personal images of captive species - mainly raptors (but not exclusively so) I think I can give some informed comment. I'm not speaking on behalf of my colleagues, nor representing the 'company', this is purely personal opinion.
I consider that I work to a demonstrably strong ethical standard, and have ensured that the (only) company I have worked with over those ten years (and who were arguably pioneers in this field in the UK) have worked to a similarly high ethical standard. If they did not I would have parted company with them years ago, and they likewise would have got rid of me if my standards slipped beyond what we deem as reasonable and ethical.
We use captive raptors with a highly skilled handler. The birds welfare is paramount and no behaviour that would distress the bird is tolerated. We generally use road kill for 'bait' and the situations we photograph in are chosen to give the best possible and most realistic habitats appropriate for the species.
We consider that part of our role is educative so guests will also be given lots of info on the species and its ecological niche. I suppose we could argue that every guest who photographs a golden eagle with us is one less person who might be tempted in their ignorance to tramp up a remote glen and disturb an eagle near the nest, all very well-intentioned perhaps in many cases, but still potentially destructive. But some may view that argument as a tad disingenuous.
The economic argument is also an important and valid one - we live in a rural area and this activity allows a falconer to earn a good day rate, our guests eat local food from the surrounding farms and suppliers so that helps support the local farming economy, and I too am a part of that local economy and gain some income, and view this as a reaonable and sustainable activity which has considerable benefits for all concerned.
However - once those images are made, and get 'out there' via agents we have no control over the manner of their use. I now ALWAYS mark my images as 'controlled' where appropriate, which is not to say that ALL my images floating around in various agency files are so marked, but the point is when I realized that for a lot of reasons its a really important thing to do, I did it. Other people may not be so forthright. And of course there's the not insgnificant matter of what 'controlled' means. For us it means the circumstances as I've described. For others 'controlled' might mean live bait, perhaps as Andy has alluded to, partially disabled to ensure a kill and a photo opportunity. Totally different ethically but both sharing the same 'controlled' tagline.
Ultimately this whole debate is about honesty - honesty on the part of photographers, and honesty on the part of end users when they publish those images - a situation that BBC W has recently addressed in its bylines by declaring the 'wild' or 'captive/controlled' status.
But its a wee bit more complicated than that - heres a recent example of dishonesty on the part of an agent - a situation from only two weeks ago - the agent took a bird from one contributors image and added it to a background from another contributors image in order to meet an overwhelming demand for that particular species in snow.
It was noticed by my sharp-eyed photog pal who was certain this shot was 'his' background but wondered where the bird had come from. A wee bit of sleuthing by me using the agents own online database revealed the photographer whose bird it was. Our first thought was that this other photographer had done the image theft and composite, but it turned put he was unaware of it's existence.
Confronted with this the agent profusely apologised citing a mistake, forgot to tell you, was going to tell you etc etc. However, the implications for both photogs can be guessed at if that particular image had been used to illustrate something really important ethically and it was revealed to be a fake image. The photographer would have been well and truly dropped in the doodoo.
Trust at all stages in this game is of paramount importance. And photographers can just easily drop their agent or publisher in the crap if they lie about the provenance of images and the subjects welfare therein.
Recent events in the BBC photo comp should tell you ALL you need to know about the chances of being found out, and the consequences that will follow from that. But whats sad is that the damage that has been done to our Spanish colleague's reputation also casts doubt on our integrity too. The more astonishing the images we produce as a consequence of the incredible technology we have available, the more doubt there is on the part of many viewers as to its veracity. And a fantastic truly wild image that sells will stimulate a flurry of demand that might only be satisfied with less ethically sound images quickly 'arranged' at whatever animal welfare cost by unscrupulous suppliers.
Ethics in all of this?
Question - whats more ethical - to remove an 'offending' branch in Photoshop that hangs across a nest and spoils your shot, or wait untl the bird leaves the nest, sneak over and chop the branch back?
Aye you're right. The third option is the ethical one, requiring a cup of tea, a bun and the Radio Times in your armchair.
Anyway, ramble over.
Its good to see that this issue is being given a public airing in the BBC W and I am equally surprised that there has been as Andy describes it "a disappointing wall of silence" from the numerous professional photogs in the UK who have been asked to contribute. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about surely, but not to imply that if you dont contribute you're suspect! Many might be too busy or just cant be bothered getting embroiled in something like this, or any number of other reasons.
I think I'd be comfortable enough with my images before/after being used in the illustration of this, however I would reserve the right to gve final approval to go to print only after seeing the finished text to satisfy myself that its content and tenor meets MY ethical standards, which is a reasonable request to make in these particular circumstances I'd imagine!
Like Andy I'd welcome some informed discussion on this topic, which might be difficult here as the forum owners really dont want too much controversy, for no other reason than it can all to easily spill over into the realms of the slanderous and libellous, and the moderators have to use their judgment to maintain a degree of impartiality and I suppose also legality.
A typically eloquent, well considered and informed response so thank you for taking the time. Having been in contact with BBC W today I feel compelled to mention that the response for images has improved, the wall of silence crumbled slightly so it will be interesting to see what shape the article takes.
For those interested I have pasted in some links below to video clips showing live baiting in action. They also offer an insight into just how easy it would be to take stunning images under such circumstances.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_KZiC2z71I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvbt_mEFM8I
Thanks again
Andy
Posted by Peter Cairns on February 18, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Personally I believe these issues merit constructive discussion and regular revisiting so thanks to Andy for bringing it up. Some good points made by all.
Events in recent months - aside from the Fairytale Wolf - have forced me to look at not only how I go about my photography, but about how I conduct my business. Times are changing in this industry and I believe we all have to change with them. Against that background, one word keeps coming to the forefront of my thinking: INTEGRITY - honesty and adherence to a set of mopral principles. Like John, I cannot claim that since I picked up a camera, every image has been comprehensively captioned to include either captive, controlled or managed situations, but I do it now because the sensitivity of the audience has changed. And so has mine.
Perhaps it's time we stopped bickering about who did what and how (primarily a consequence of cash rich - time poor photographers) and adopted a universal set of ethical standards. This needn't mean an end to photographing captive subjects, rather a beginning to photography (and relationships) built on integrity.
Whilst I know that live baiting with mammals, or other relatively sentient creatures, goes on, I suspect that very few do it (at least in UK), and they keep quiet because they know they will be howled down by the rest of us. That is especially true if the prey animals are deliberately injured first.
Perhaps because it would also be illegal under UK animal welfare laws?
Andrew & John, we always try to allow discussion, especially when it is in a mature form... however, as with so many things that get people worked up, we have to make a judgement call as to what is and isn't appropriate, or when something steps over the bounds of what the forum is about - Nature Photography. So long as the discussions remain on target, and polite (and non-libellous/slanderous) then we try to leave them open, as is the case here.
"However - once those images are made, and get 'out there' via agents we have no control over the manner of their use."
I think this is the crux of future problems but I can cannot agree that you have no control, let me explain.
Lately a agency have asked all its contributers, via a contract, to state whether animal is controlled or wild; how many contributors stipulated, via said contract, that said agency had make sure, via contract, that a publisher label it so in use. - not many, if any, I would image; yet at the end of the day it is published with the photographers credit along side.
I suggest, that since a contract is a two way thing, that the photographer can exert control if they so wish, but it is a cold (and hungry) place to be if all do not do it.
Their is talk of Integrity, and I believe a good number of wildlife photographers do have that, but one of the foundations upon which integrity is build not to be seen to deliberately deceive/ There are a number of wildlife photographers who consistently crash and burn at the first hurdle due to their various vices.
"... there can be no doubt that a mouse/vole/lemming that has had it's front legs broken before being thrown onto exposed snow would be experiencing both pain and fear,.."
Is this common practice? Live-baiting is bad enough but this is totally abhorrent.
I had to read this twice to make sure that I had read it correctly. I agree it is totally unacceptable.
I can only say this, whilst in the UK live baiting is a slightly grey area under the Cruelty to Animals Act, what isn't is the other offenses that are captured under this act and this practice would definately warrant investigation by the RSPCA if found within the UK.
T
Posted by Danny Green on February 18, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Hello Tom
This has not been happening in the UK, it has been going on in Canada for Snowy Owls.
Tom - I understand the point you're making, but with respect its really not quite that simple, and in my experience the 'contracts' I've seen are rarely two-way, rather more biased towards the needs of the agencies.
But I've had the experience - slightly different I'll grant you in subject matter, but the same in principle - where I've been granted unique access via a community or business to something quite special and those images have been labeled as being 'courtesy of so and so', with the clear proviso in the captions that use of them MUST include an attribution to the generosity of the people who made the images possible, both to thank them but to also raise their profile. And they've been used without the attribution as requested. It makes me look bad because I made a promise that credit would be given and its not been, and to chase the end user for any reparation is generally a waste of time and energy because it might make me feel better but it does nothing for the folks who have been offended.
However that said, to pick up on Pete's comment, the market is changing in all sorts of ways and for all kinds of reasons, and I think such 'ethical' caption use as you describe WILL find its way into the vocabulary of many agencies. When the market is becoming saturated with 'quality' work there needs to be ways that specific agencies or individuals work can stand above the crowd, and 'ethical imagery' is one way to do that.
Just try a google on ethical images and see what you get!
You'll get this at some point: http://www.ethicalimages.com/
But it still comes down to having a strong ethical, moral, honest way of working. You could lie and get your pics into an ethical agency. And some folks might be happy to do that.
In the end it all comes down to integrity, as you and PC have already pointed out.
Posted by Paul Hobson on February 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Andy
Fascinating thread. I wrote an article about live baiting in Birds Illustrated last year and aired a number of these issues within it. It possibly depends on the evolutionary level of the live bait, cold blooded V warm blooded, invert v vertebrate, the defining level at which an individual photographer will use live bait is dependant on their own ethics, their sociological/cultural background, the legal status of the operation and how desperate they are to get that 'winning shot' I debated and researched this issue in Finland this summer with a number of photographers, both amateur and professional and their opinions varied but were consistently different to those expressed in the UK.
WPOY has raised this issue and the one of captive subjects; it’s become a bit of a bandwagon and one that does not really touch the lives of the vast majority of UK wildlife photographers. We have a code of conduct; it’s not always stuck to, and never will be. Pressure to get that winning shot/sell that image is greater now than ever, competition more fierce, corners will always get cut. We can only reiterate the code, ask that all abide by it, expose offenders? introduce public flogging again, the birch and the cane solved a lot of my boyhood problems!
We do though, in all seriousness, must not let the tail wag the dog, blacken our pastime too much, we could create irrevocable damage and destroy a lot of confidence in what we do, which the vast majority of is legitimate, beneficial and healthy.
A good thread with a general level of consensus.
Agencies are now taking the issue seriously. I suspect we will see not only, is it captive? is it controlled? is it baited? but in some 'too true to be true' examples, how was it done?
Posted by Chris O'Reilly on February 18, 2010 at 9:01 PM
The range of topics debated here is very welcome, interesting but . . . . . well . . . predictable. We 'holier than thou' UK photographers have integrity. Don't we? So how many of us are going to submit our 'dirty secrets' to BBC Wildlife magazine to help with their articles on being an 'ethical' wildlife photographer? Intellectually, it is the obvious and correct thing to do - right? After all, the magazine is trying to promote good practice isn't it? So isn't this our chance to show how honest and up-standing we are?
I could very easily supply them with 'before and after' shots of captive golden eagle, barn owl, tawny owl, etc. These images have been retouched to perfection and are labelled 'CAPTIVE' (not 'controlled') and 'DIGITALLY MANIPULATED'. So why is it I'm an intellectual coward? Why will I not be sending my images in?
Some possible reasons:
Perhaps I take the moral high-ground while harbouring fears that my 'wicked deeds' might come back to bite me in the ass; e.g. my future picture sales are harmed as a result of my participation?
Then there’s the paranoia – “Maybe because I re-touch images, folks will assume I have no morals at all and will employ any method to get a shot, including live-baiting” etc, etc, etc.
And finally there is the back-biting among my peers (or perhaps that is just more paranoia because that doesn’t happen, does it?). “Oh, look at Joe Bloggs with another captive shot in print – not much of a photographer, is he? - Can’t he get close to real wildlife?” etc, etc, etc.
Come on chaps, lets stop p*ssing around here. Let’s just admit we haven't got the balls to send our stuff in because we are afraid of the potential consequences. If we had real integrity wouldn’t we publish and be damned?
Chris's point brings to mind the delightful scenario now unfolding as we all scramble to get our pictures in print in this article and being really hacked off because we're NOT selected.....oh the anguish....are my retouching skills not good enough? ......were the circumstances too dubious and I'm now blacklisted? .....was I not picked because I'm not famous enough? .......should I have listened to that recent thread and swapped my Canon Mk4 for a Nikon D3s? Oh the trials of being a nature phototgrpaher in the new millennium! :-)
Discussion
23 repliesDue to recent, well-publicised events BBC Wildlife magazine are preparing a feature on the ethics of wildlife photography. This will look at a number of subjects including digital manipulation, working with captive subjects/wildlife models, live baiting and camera trapping.
This request has been forwarded to myself and all of the professionals working in the UK but so far has been met with an unsurprising, though disappointing wall of silence.
Specific image requests include jess removal of captive subjects (before and after images), subject duplication within an image (birds repeated to increase flock size etc), anything to do with live baiting (boxes of mice waiting to be thrown alive to snowy owls, images of owls hunting on the ice- perhaps showing the mouse running then another with the mouse cloned out etc).
If anyone has, or is prepared to create via photoshop any of these techniques then this would represent an excellent opportunity to have images published in Europes' leading wildlife/environment magazine and all submissions should be sent to Wanda at wandasowry@bbcmagazines.com
It is important to note that BBC Wildlife will mention where relevant that an image has been created for this purpose only and does not necessarily represent the photographers working practices.
It would be interesting to learn of anyones' opinion regarding the ethics of live baiting whilst this thread is open!
Tom W - I tried to call you to see if this was ok but you didn't answer your phone! No issues here-The Mods
If you head over to a certain american website you can find a few baited owl images some with the mice still in it!
But I can't see that anyone is going to want their name next to an image that goes against everything us wildlife photographers stand for...
liam
JR
This topic might lead to some very interesting ethical discussions about digital cloning and manipulation. From time to time on this very forum I see people suggesting that an offending light spot or blade of grass be cloned out. I had this dilemma myself recently when submitting a print for the local camera club competition. I decided to print"as shot" and was criticised for leaving a shadow across the body of a red-legged partridge - It was caused by a low winter sun and a bare stalk of bracken. The picture also contained four partidges - not three as the judge would have preferred! The competition was won by someone who had photoshopped a vignette round the head of a Barcelona zoo antelope!
You have to laugh, don't you.....
John R- you touched on the traditional response of the mealworm analogy and whether it is the same thing or not and from my own point of view I don't really consider them to be in the same ball park. Whilst I am in no position to comment on the sentience of a mealworm there can be no doubt that a mouse/vole/lemming that has had it's front legs broken before being thrown onto exposed snow would be experiencing both pain and fear, it is ultimately suffering. Likewise if it is placed on a small piece of carpet on exposed snow, where it runs around frantically in circles desperately looking for cover, but unwilling to venture on to the exposed snow, it too will probably be experiencing some considerable distress.
I do not consider myself an expert on such matters, far from it, but given the outcry regarding the behaviour of Mr Rodriguez (who ultimately did what hundreds of pro's do every day by passing off an image of a captive subject as wild) and the vitriol that was spouted about him I find it peculiar that live baiting doesn't stimulate anything like that level of interest. Seems that all that really matters at the end of the day is whether it is a pretty picture or not!
Lets face it the Agencies, newspapers and glossy wildlife magazines want images that will sell their product, in putting an image with an article the publisher wants the best image available. It is the publishing magazine etc that is passing off the image as being wild, not the photographer.
Surely the photographer is merely meeting the current demand for a product. A pro has to balance time spent in the field against teh income being generated for the stock images - time = money. Do you spend 2 weeks stalking wild deer in the Glens of Scotland, or nip down to a certain London Royal park (with the requisite license of course) to generate images for stock. Do you spend several months baiting out carcasses in Scotland to attract Golden Eagles, or do you nip over the Scandinavia and use pay for hire hides where the work is done for you and spend more time on images of subjects that cannot be easily habituated....
When and if the magazines etc insist on an image being of a wild unhabituated animal, the position will change. But to date I am not aware that they are that fussy if and when they do the quality of image will deteriorate considerably.
There is a huge history of passing off controlled situations as taken in the wild especially in wildlife documentary series, as it is the only way to generate the images now demanded or expected.
A good example was in the Lif of Birds series a few years back with the sequence of a Goshawk running through the forest to chase down a rabbit. The sequence is impossible to film in the wild, they used a captive Goshawk for the sequence, but it was passed off as happening in a Scandinavian forest
I'm purely an amateur photog by the way.......
My humble opinion is that the world of photography is riddled with dodgy photographic practices,
I may be being a little soft here but the thought that live and deliberately injured mice are used as bait turns my stomach. Not so much the live bit but the deliberately injured!!! surely not???
Is it a fact of life that some people will go to any lengths to get the shot they want???
I had my eyes opened when i took up digital photography to some of what goes on, and unfortunately it gets worse.
We will all get tarred with the same brush if we dont stand up against these practices. Just my point of view, no offence intended to anyone.
The presumed falsification of the wolf picture, or any other digital image, will provoke debate because some will consider it OK while others are strongly against it. That is the picture itself, I don't think anyone would approve of passing off something captive as wild in a competition.
Whilst I know that live baiting with mammals, or other relatively sentient creatures, goes on, I suspect that very few do it (at least in UK), and they keep quiet because they know they will be howled down by the rest of us. That is especially true if the prey animals are deliberately injured first.
David
David
Mike - All of the major agencies stipulate clearly in their contracts that all captive subjects be marked with a C or Captive. The vast majority of captive images on these websites are not marked as such, this is the responsibility of the photographer not the agency. If the photographer puts captive in his/her caption then that will be detailed on the caption on the agency website. Similarly with magazines such as BBC Wildlife, if they are informed that a subject is captive then this will be included next to the photographers credit. The deception in these cases is the photographers and the photographers alone based usually on an economic decision that an image will sell better if it's not marked as captive.
I don't think persoanlly that you can call the golden eagles in Scandinavia captive. We have wild blue tits coming to our feeders, they have white-tailed sea eagles.
I echo your sentiments about the fim making, indeed a large part of why I have never worked with captive subjects is the disappointment that I felt when I learn't that some footage I had seen of a wild golden eagle hunting was staged. I have no great moral objection to working with captive subjects as long as the welfare of the bird/mammal is paramount and the photographer demonstrates the moral integrity to be open and honest about it.
Brian - I echo your sentiments entirely.
David - Re: invertebrate food - I guess this is another case for the sentience of the creature. Is the invertebrate aware? probably not. Is it scared of what's about to happen? probably not and so I guess it is less likely to be suffering. As for the howling down? I posted a polite request for info regarding a snowy owl image posted on this forum as I suspected that it was live baited. I was ticked off by the mods and of the 450+ views, 15 comments there wasn't so much as a squeak about ethics. Still, it was a very pretty picture!
Cheers
Andy
I consider that I work to a demonstrably strong ethical standard, and have ensured that the (only) company I have worked with over those ten years (and who were arguably pioneers in this field in the UK) have worked to a similarly high ethical standard. If they did not I would have parted company with them years ago, and they likewise would have got rid of me if my standards slipped beyond what we deem as reasonable and ethical.
We use captive raptors with a highly skilled handler. The birds welfare is paramount and no behaviour that would distress the bird is tolerated. We generally use road kill for 'bait' and the situations we photograph in are chosen to give the best possible and most realistic habitats appropriate for the species.
We consider that part of our role is educative so guests will also be given lots of info on the species and its ecological niche. I suppose we could argue that every guest who photographs a golden eagle with us is one less person who might be tempted in their ignorance to tramp up a remote glen and disturb an eagle near the nest, all very well-intentioned perhaps in many cases, but still potentially destructive. But some may view that argument as a tad disingenuous.
The economic argument is also an important and valid one - we live in a rural area and this activity allows a falconer to earn a good day rate, our guests eat local food from the surrounding farms and suppliers so that helps support the local farming economy, and I too am a part of that local economy and gain some income, and view this as a reaonable and sustainable activity which has considerable benefits for all concerned.
However - once those images are made, and get 'out there' via agents we have no control over the manner of their use. I now ALWAYS mark my images as 'controlled' where appropriate, which is not to say that ALL my images floating around in various agency files are so marked, but the point is when I realized that for a lot of reasons its a really important thing to do, I did it. Other people may not be so forthright. And of course there's the not insgnificant matter of what 'controlled' means. For us it means the circumstances as I've described. For others 'controlled' might mean live bait, perhaps as Andy has alluded to, partially disabled to ensure a kill and a photo opportunity. Totally different ethically but both sharing the same 'controlled' tagline.
Ultimately this whole debate is about honesty - honesty on the part of photographers, and honesty on the part of end users when they publish those images - a situation that BBC W has recently addressed in its bylines by declaring the 'wild' or 'captive/controlled' status.
But its a wee bit more complicated than that - heres a recent example of dishonesty on the part of an agent - a situation from only two weeks ago - the agent took a bird from one contributors image and added it to a background from another contributors image in order to meet an overwhelming demand for that particular species in snow.
It was noticed by my sharp-eyed photog pal who was certain this shot was 'his' background but wondered where the bird had come from. A wee bit of sleuthing by me using the agents own online database revealed the photographer whose bird it was. Our first thought was that this other photographer had done the image theft and composite, but it turned put he was unaware of it's existence.
Confronted with this the agent profusely apologised citing a mistake, forgot to tell you, was going to tell you etc etc. However, the implications for both photogs can be guessed at if that particular image had been used to illustrate something really important ethically and it was revealed to be a fake image. The photographer would have been well and truly dropped in the doodoo.
Trust at all stages in this game is of paramount importance. And photographers can just easily drop their agent or publisher in the crap if they lie about the provenance of images and the subjects welfare therein.
Recent events in the BBC photo comp should tell you ALL you need to know about the chances of being found out, and the consequences that will follow from that. But whats sad is that the damage that has been done to our Spanish colleague's reputation also casts doubt on our integrity too. The more astonishing the images we produce as a consequence of the incredible technology we have available, the more doubt there is on the part of many viewers as to its veracity. And a fantastic truly wild image that sells will stimulate a flurry of demand that might only be satisfied with less ethically sound images quickly 'arranged' at whatever animal welfare cost by unscrupulous suppliers.
Ethics in all of this?
Question - whats more ethical - to remove an 'offending' branch in Photoshop that hangs across a nest and spoils your shot, or wait untl the bird leaves the nest, sneak over and chop the branch back?
Aye you're right. The third option is the ethical one, requiring a cup of tea, a bun and the Radio Times in your armchair.
Anyway, ramble over.
Its good to see that this issue is being given a public airing in the BBC W and I am equally surprised that there has been as Andy describes it "a disappointing wall of silence" from the numerous professional photogs in the UK who have been asked to contribute. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about surely, but not to imply that if you dont contribute you're suspect! Many might be too busy or just cant be bothered getting embroiled in something like this, or any number of other reasons.
I think I'd be comfortable enough with my images before/after being used in the illustration of this, however I would reserve the right to gve final approval to go to print only after seeing the finished text to satisfy myself that its content and tenor meets MY ethical standards, which is a reasonable request to make in these particular circumstances I'd imagine!
Like Andy I'd welcome some informed discussion on this topic, which might be difficult here as the forum owners really dont want too much controversy, for no other reason than it can all to easily spill over into the realms of the slanderous and libellous, and the moderators have to use their judgment to maintain a degree of impartiality and I suppose also legality.
A typically eloquent, well considered and informed response so thank you for taking the time. Having been in contact with BBC W today I feel compelled to mention that the response for images has improved, the wall of silence crumbled slightly so it will be interesting to see what shape the article takes.
For those interested I have pasted in some links below to video clips showing live baiting in action. They also offer an insight into just how easy it would be to take stunning images under such circumstances.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_KZiC2z71I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvbt_mEFM8I
Thanks again
Andy
Events in recent months - aside from the Fairytale Wolf - have forced me to look at not only how I go about my photography, but about how I conduct my business. Times are changing in this industry and I believe we all have to change with them. Against that background, one word keeps coming to the forefront of my thinking: INTEGRITY - honesty and adherence to a set of mopral principles. Like John, I cannot claim that since I picked up a camera, every image has been comprehensively captioned to include either captive, controlled or managed situations, but I do it now because the sensitivity of the audience has changed. And so has mine.
Perhaps it's time we stopped bickering about who did what and how (primarily a consequence of cash rich - time poor photographers) and adopted a universal set of ethical standards. This needn't mean an end to photographing captive subjects, rather a beginning to photography (and relationships) built on integrity.
Pete
Perhaps because it would also be illegal under UK animal welfare laws?
Andrew & John, we always try to allow discussion, especially when it is in a mature form... however, as with so many things that get people worked up, we have to make a judgement call as to what is and isn't appropriate, or when something steps over the bounds of what the forum is about - Nature Photography. So long as the discussions remain on target, and polite (and non-libellous/slanderous) then we try to leave them open, as is the case here.
"However - once those images are made, and get 'out there' via agents we have no control over the manner of their use."
I think this is the crux of future problems but I can cannot agree that you have no control, let me explain.
Lately a agency have asked all its contributers, via a contract, to state whether animal is controlled or wild; how many contributors stipulated, via said contract, that said agency had make sure, via contract, that a publisher label it so in use. - not many, if any, I would image; yet at the end of the day it is published with the photographers credit along side.
I suggest, that since a contract is a two way thing, that the photographer can exert control if they so wish, but it is a cold (and hungry) place to be if all do not do it.
Their is talk of Integrity, and I believe a good number of wildlife photographers do have that, but one of the foundations upon which integrity is build not to be seen to deliberately deceive/ There are a number of wildlife photographers who consistently crash and burn at the first hurdle due to their various vices.
T
"... there can be no doubt that a mouse/vole/lemming that has had it's front legs broken before being thrown onto exposed snow would be experiencing both pain and fear,.."
Is this common practice? Live-baiting is bad enough but this is totally abhorrent.
Terry
I had to read this twice to make sure that I had read it correctly. I agree it is totally unacceptable.
I can only say this, whilst in the UK live baiting is a slightly grey area under the Cruelty to Animals Act, what isn't is the other offenses that are captured under this act and this practice would definately warrant investigation by the RSPCA if found within the UK.
T
This has not been happening in the UK, it has been going on in Canada for Snowy Owls.
Danny
But I've had the experience - slightly different I'll grant you in subject matter, but the same in principle - where I've been granted unique access via a community or business to something quite special and those images have been labeled as being 'courtesy of so and so', with the clear proviso in the captions that use of them MUST include an attribution to the generosity of the people who made the images possible, both to thank them but to also raise their profile. And they've been used without the attribution as requested. It makes me look bad because I made a promise that credit would be given and its not been, and to chase the end user for any reparation is generally a waste of time and energy because it might make me feel better but it does nothing for the folks who have been offended.
However that said, to pick up on Pete's comment, the market is changing in all sorts of ways and for all kinds of reasons, and I think such 'ethical' caption use as you describe WILL find its way into the vocabulary of many agencies. When the market is becoming saturated with 'quality' work there needs to be ways that specific agencies or individuals work can stand above the crowd, and 'ethical imagery' is one way to do that.
Just try a google on ethical images and see what you get!
You'll get this at some point: http://www.ethicalimages.com/
But it still comes down to having a strong ethical, moral, honest way of working. You could lie and get your pics into an ethical agency. And some folks might be happy to do that.
In the end it all comes down to integrity, as you and PC have already pointed out.
Fascinating thread. I wrote an article about live baiting in Birds Illustrated last year and aired a number of these issues within it. It possibly depends on the evolutionary level of the live bait, cold blooded V warm blooded, invert v vertebrate, the defining level at which an individual photographer will use live bait is dependant on their own ethics, their sociological/cultural background, the legal status of the operation and how desperate they are to get that 'winning shot' I debated and researched this issue in Finland this summer with a number of photographers, both amateur and professional and their opinions varied but were consistently different to those expressed in the UK.
WPOY has raised this issue and the one of captive subjects; it’s become a bit of a bandwagon and one that does not really touch the lives of the vast majority of UK wildlife photographers. We have a code of conduct; it’s not always stuck to, and never will be. Pressure to get that winning shot/sell that image is greater now than ever, competition more fierce, corners will always get cut. We can only reiterate the code, ask that all abide by it, expose offenders? introduce public flogging again, the birch and the cane solved a lot of my boyhood problems!
We do though, in all seriousness, must not let the tail wag the dog, blacken our pastime too much, we could create irrevocable damage and destroy a lot of confidence in what we do, which the vast majority of is legitimate, beneficial and healthy.
A good thread with a general level of consensus.
Agencies are now taking the issue seriously. I suspect we will see not only, is it captive? is it controlled? is it baited? but in some 'too true to be true' examples, how was it done?
I could very easily supply them with 'before and after' shots of captive golden eagle, barn owl, tawny owl, etc. These images have been retouched to perfection and are labelled 'CAPTIVE' (not 'controlled') and 'DIGITALLY MANIPULATED'. So why is it I'm an intellectual coward? Why will I not be sending my images in?
Some possible reasons:
Perhaps I take the moral high-ground while harbouring fears that my 'wicked deeds' might come back to bite me in the ass; e.g. my future picture sales are harmed as a result of my participation?
Then there’s the paranoia – “Maybe because I re-touch images, folks will assume I have no morals at all and will employ any method to get a shot, including live-baiting” etc, etc, etc.
And finally there is the back-biting among my peers (or perhaps that is just more paranoia because that doesn’t happen, does it?). “Oh, look at Joe Bloggs with another captive shot in print – not much of a photographer, is he? - Can’t he get close to real wildlife?” etc, etc, etc.
Come on chaps, lets stop p*ssing around here. Let’s just admit we haven't got the balls to send our stuff in because we are afraid of the potential consequences. If we had real integrity wouldn’t we publish and be damned?
Cheers,
Chris