The link below has been up for a while and normally I'm sceptical of any attempt to collect names and signatures but in the case below I am assured by a good friend that it is genuinely not an underhand attempt to populate an email list. (hence why I have signed it)
Ethics have been discussed a lot in the past on NPN and UKNP so maybe this is the time take that a new years resolution about your wildlife photography?
Wildphotos - lead by Mark Carwardine - have created an ethics statement for 'responsible photographers of wildlife'.
There are four main parts to the declaration and instead of repeating them here I will simply point you to the website which can can be found here - Wildphotos Ethics Declaration .
Good to see this subject getting an airing on UKNP Tom.
John, I’m sure that being thrown to the lions contravenes some or other piece of health and safety legislation.
I’m not a great fan of legislation and regulation that doesn’t have a proven or sound reason to exist, that’s why part of me really wanted to go out to the sand bar at Donna Nook this winter despite the appeal not to. I wasn’t particularly fussed about making more images of seals but I was concerned that someone wanted to deprive me access to a piece of my natural heritage. I gave the situation the benefit of the doubt because the study into infant seal mortality needs time to gather evidence.
As a signee of the Wildphotos Ethics Declaration document I applied a similar logic to the Donna Nook situation – if we (nature photographers) support such initiatives there is less likelihood others will want to force legislation/regulation upon us. Naive? Possibly, but I’d rather adhere to a voluntary code than be forced into something part of me would feel obliged to revolt against. I don’t feel morally elevated as a result of adding my name, just happy that I’m contributing to something which, from my perspective, is a positive step forward. Signing the document offers no tangible benefit moral or otherwise, except perhaps, publically declaring that we, as a group, are intelligent enough to recognise the importance of acting responsibly as we pursue nature photographs.
Interestingly, I’m surprised how few photographers have signed it!
Cheers,
Chris
PS. Do you think this document would have come into existance had it not been for the 'Fair-tale wolf' shot?
Posted by John Robinson on January 10, 2011 at 6:47 AM
Interestingly, it refers to live mice for owls, but,no mention of mealworms, live fish for Kingfishers, or taddies for Dragonfly larvae.
I know I have raised this before, but where does it start and stop.
JohnR
". . . but where does it start and stop."
As Doug Allen eloquently said (during the debate at Wildphotos) it is the individual's call; what would you be willing to stand up and admit to in public? Anything you wouldn't admit to is probably a step too far.
Cheers,
Chris
Posted by John Robinson on January 10, 2011 at 8:24 AM
One way of looking at it Chris.
I notice by the way that cropping was not mentioned
JohnR
Posted by Oscar Dewhurst on January 10, 2011 at 10:47 AM
I agree there John - so if I ever plan to use live mealworms, am I not allowed to sign it?
As well as that, does the fourth bit about PP mean that there is to be no minor cloning (say, a branch that does not even cross the bird), even if you declare it?
Posted by Steve Fletcher on January 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM
A very good initiative........................but.
It is one thing for someone to append their name to a list to appear ethical and above board by readers of the said list, and a completely different matter to adhere to the rules and maintain expected standards. A very quick perusal of the list revealed to me a photographer who has signed up to the ethics, who sells "wild" images via a well known "agency", when the said images are of birds in captivity. This is not heresay or anecdotal, as i was present as the images were being photographed, along with other witnesses, and vividly recall saying to the witnesses, "those images will be in the birding magazines next week as wild birds", and lo and behold, they were, as well as being on the "agency" website.
So, when a web page is entitled "Photographic deceit - How far is a step too far?", and has one of the rules stating "•We will always be honest in declaring the circumstances under which a photograph has been taken", Joe Public will look at this and assume that if someones name is not on the list that they are automatically flouting all thoughts of ethics and common sense, instead of the whole list being devisive and counterproductive, not to mention dishonest.
The Royal Photographic Society already has a list of rules and code of ethics ( http://www.rpsnaturegroup.com/page7.htm ), far more widereaching and in depth than Mr Cawardines effort so i cannot understand why he didnt merely point people in their direction, rather than formulate his own abbreviated version with no method of ascertaining the validity, honesty and integrity of signatories.
Posted by Phil Shaw on January 10, 2011 at 1:38 PM
Another of these self-styled "ethical" photographers blagged his way onto a site I have managed for over 20 years and availed himself of the opportunities that it had taken me a very long time to set up. How ethical is that? In the process the actions of this individual caused a vixen to desert her cubs which died as a result. He then brought in and set up all sort of props which completely misrepresented the animals he was photographing as well as their environment. I will not be signing up to anything that people like that are a party to and potentially, sitting in judgement on.
I suppose the question we all have to reconcile is do we decry the idea due to the individuals signed up or do you look past the individuals to the idea. That said I understand the point about the RPS's code of conduct as NPN has it's base ethics as stated here - NPN ethics page - and they are akin in spirit to the Wildphotos ones - but formulated and published well before them.
I do strongly agree, it is one thing signing it - and another thing abiding by it and you will get those that will argue their actions away as 'a special case' :eek. That said it strikes me that anybody signing - and then subsequently getting up to the acts you indicate above - is potentially on a sticky-public-wicket through their own actions and public stated intention.
Steve
and assume that if someones name is not on the list that they are automatically flouting all thoughts of ethics and common sense
- I agree some may jump to that conclusion and it is the danger of these lists- in fact it is the point I removed from the initial thread ( as it put a spin on it - and John was right to point it out) - but that is how this will be used by some who want to decry others in the short term - very sad - but true; but it won't wash in the long term - lists come and go - as to specific ethics.
Oscar - as Chris indicated - ethics are individual and the acid test is being prepared to stand by them whilst being publicly questioned. The issue of live bait is centred about the sentience of the creature and public acceptance or how they are treated; it's a decision we all have to draw a dividing line upon.
Discussion
9 repliesEthics have been discussed a lot in the past on NPN and UKNP so maybe this is the time take that a new years resolution about your wildlife photography?
Wildphotos - lead by Mark Carwardine - have created an ethics statement for 'responsible photographers of wildlife'.
There are four main parts to the declaration and instead of repeating them here I will simply point you to the website which can can be found here - Wildphotos Ethics Declaration .
T
T
John, I’m sure that being thrown to the lions contravenes some or other piece of health and safety legislation.
I’m not a great fan of legislation and regulation that doesn’t have a proven or sound reason to exist, that’s why part of me really wanted to go out to the sand bar at Donna Nook this winter despite the appeal not to. I wasn’t particularly fussed about making more images of seals but I was concerned that someone wanted to deprive me access to a piece of my natural heritage. I gave the situation the benefit of the doubt because the study into infant seal mortality needs time to gather evidence.
As a signee of the Wildphotos Ethics Declaration document I applied a similar logic to the Donna Nook situation – if we (nature photographers) support such initiatives there is less likelihood others will want to force legislation/regulation upon us. Naive? Possibly, but I’d rather adhere to a voluntary code than be forced into something part of me would feel obliged to revolt against. I don’t feel morally elevated as a result of adding my name, just happy that I’m contributing to something which, from my perspective, is a positive step forward. Signing the document offers no tangible benefit moral or otherwise, except perhaps, publically declaring that we, as a group, are intelligent enough to recognise the importance of acting responsibly as we pursue nature photographs.
Interestingly, I’m surprised how few photographers have signed it!
Cheers,
Chris
PS. Do you think this document would have come into existance had it not been for the 'Fair-tale wolf' shot?
I know I have raised this before, but where does it start and stop.
JohnR
". . . but where does it start and stop."
As Doug Allen eloquently said (during the debate at Wildphotos) it is the individual's call; what would you be willing to stand up and admit to in public? Anything you wouldn't admit to is probably a step too far.
Cheers,
Chris
I notice by the way that cropping was not mentioned
JohnR
As well as that, does the fourth bit about PP mean that there is to be no minor cloning (say, a branch that does not even cross the bird), even if you declare it?
It is one thing for someone to append their name to a list to appear ethical and above board by readers of the said list, and a completely different matter to adhere to the rules and maintain expected standards. A very quick perusal of the list revealed to me a photographer who has signed up to the ethics, who sells "wild" images via a well known "agency", when the said images are of birds in captivity. This is not heresay or anecdotal, as i was present as the images were being photographed, along with other witnesses, and vividly recall saying to the witnesses, "those images will be in the birding magazines next week as wild birds", and lo and behold, they were, as well as being on the "agency" website.
So, when a web page is entitled "Photographic deceit - How far is a step too far?", and has one of the rules stating "•We will always be honest in declaring the circumstances under which a photograph has been taken", Joe Public will look at this and assume that if someones name is not on the list that they are automatically flouting all thoughts of ethics and common sense, instead of the whole list being devisive and counterproductive, not to mention dishonest.
The Royal Photographic Society already has a list of rules and code of ethics ( http://www.rpsnaturegroup.com/page7.htm ), far more widereaching and in depth than Mr Cawardines effort so i cannot understand why he didnt merely point people in their direction, rather than formulate his own abbreviated version with no method of ascertaining the validity, honesty and integrity of signatories.
I suppose the question we all have to reconcile is do we decry the idea due to the individuals signed up or do you look past the individuals to the idea. That said I understand the point about the RPS's code of conduct as NPN has it's base ethics as stated here - NPN ethics page - and they are akin in spirit to the Wildphotos ones - but formulated and published well before them.
I do strongly agree, it is one thing signing it - and another thing abiding by it and you will get those that will argue their actions away as 'a special case' :eek. That said it strikes me that anybody signing - and then subsequently getting up to the acts you indicate above - is potentially on a sticky-public-wicket through their own actions and public stated intention.
Steve - I agree some may jump to that conclusion and it is the danger of these lists- in fact it is the point I removed from the initial thread ( as it put a spin on it - and John was right to point it out) - but that is how this will be used by some who want to decry others in the short term - very sad - but true; but it won't wash in the long term - lists come and go - as to specific ethics.
Oscar - as Chris indicated - ethics are individual and the acid test is being prepared to stand by them whilst being publicly questioned. The issue of live bait is centred about the sentience of the creature and public acceptance or how they are treated; it's a decision we all have to draw a dividing line upon.
T