|
Forums >
General Industry >
How easy would it be to ruin a photographer?
This really applies to any profession.. I just got done reading a story about a photographer in Las Vegas who has been arrested on child porn charges. I'm not going to link the story, but it's fresh as of a day or so ago. Anyways, I was reading the story and watched the video and it got me to thinking. This guy has just been accused and arrested. Not convicted. However, the report splashes his face all over the net, the address to his studio, his business name, etc, etc, etc.. No matter the outcome, innocent or guilty, this guy's ruined. Questions: If you were in this guy's shoes, and you were exonerated what would you do? Would you pretty much be forced to give up photography? Would you continue photography, having to explain to every potential client that you didn't do it. Would they believe you? Would they think you just got off on a technicality? Would they just move onto the next photographer who doesn't have all the baggage? Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence. Jan 06 13 10:39 pm Link The risk is present in many fields. Dentists don't work on sedated patients without a nurse present. I enjoy children and could be very happy wiring in a day care center, but the potential liability outweighs the enjoyable job. We are a frightened and paranoid society. Take reasonable precautions. I shoot no one under 18 without parent or legal guardian in the room. I worked with a high school photography club on the condition that a teacher be present whenever students were in the room. Life isn't fair and I feel for the photographer. Be reasonable, and keep your fingers crossed. Jan 06 13 11:09 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: sounds right. Jan 06 13 11:23 pm Link If he is innocent they print a retraction on page 34 so everything will be ok. Jan 06 13 11:33 pm Link Change your company name. And, provided you're not in some little bumfuck town where you're the only guy with a camera...eventually people forget. I've heard the story a billion times but I can't for the life of me remember the name of the guy in DC that scammed the fuck out of a ton of models , and he's still doing it despite it being public. Jan 06 13 11:35 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: I pretty much agree with you, the media shouldn't be allowed to publish any traceable details until there is a conviction. I often see stories on the news and wonder if they are right or wrong. Jan 07 13 12:09 am Link Here's the thing. As a journalist, I've had to report on a bunch of these cases. Warrants filed against people are public documents. That way we can't be charged with secret stuff. It's to curb the police more than to humiliate those charged. Prosecutors hardly ever go after somebody on child porn charges unless it's a slam dunk. Even in this case, they're asking for other parents to come forward if they suspect anything happened to their kids. Assuming the guy skates, he can sue for wrongful prosecution. If the DA was really sloppy, that might give the guy a certain amount of justification in the public eye. There have been a number of child porn cases involving people who used to be on MM and omp. In each of them, authorities watched and waited a long time because initial suspicions just weren't enough. So, once the matter is released by the cops or prosecutor's office, it's public information. Do what you will with it. You won't face any legal repercussions, unless you live somewhere that requires you to print the results of the trial and you don't. Not sure if any of those laws are still around. Jan 07 13 12:34 am Link As the father of a 7 year old daughter, I'll argue the flip side. If there's no publicity and this guy gets out on bond, other children are at risk. Same is true if he gets off on a technicality. The other issue to think about - is this the first/only time he's done this? There may be other victims too scared to tell their parents what happened. If this guy is exonerated, he can sue the cops and the prosecutors involved. I know this does little, if anything, to restore his reputation - but there's not much you can do to get that back. Sometimes you have to face the reality that life's not always fair. Jan 07 13 12:55 am Link John Jebbia wrote: Because we the public love other people's dirty laundry. As for ruining his rep, how few ever knew of Jock Sturges before he was arrested on similar charges? He not only survived it but got famous off the notoriety. A certain Miss America was de throned for "nude lesbian" photos. She went on to become more famous than ever. Jan 07 13 01:18 am Link Is he on MM? Jan 07 13 01:23 am Link R Michael Walker wrote: And yet today...by his own words...he is still not the same as before. Jan 07 13 01:26 am Link So....let me see if I understand this. Nicole simpson gets killed and the media can report on it. But under Jebbia's rule, when OJ gets arrested there is no news report. When he gets arraigned....no news report. The trial...no news. He gets found not guilty, no news. So no one ever finds out that OJ was on trial for killing his wife? That's the Jebbia plan? Jan 07 13 01:41 am Link John Jebbia wrote: How many innocent people would decay in jail if not for the media which covered a case from the beginning? How many guilty people would have got away by corrupting prosecuters and judges or by threatening witnesses? Jan 07 13 02:59 am Link Faces2Die4 Photography wrote: It might be interesting to see if this opinion would change if your own ass was in the hot seat. Jan 07 13 03:09 am Link The fundamental problem is that the media is granted entirely too much freedom to speculate, editorialize and report unsubstantiated "facts". The public, in its lust for salacious "news", encourages the behavior. Even when they're wrong, you will never see/hear a retraction. Jan 07 13 03:12 am Link Yes the media blows. They should be sued for running this story. They probably shouldn't run stories on people until they are actually convicted as everyone in America (supposedly) is considered innocent until proven guilty. Though it seems in the eyes of the government and law enforcement we are all guilty until proven innocent and the media contributes to this. Photographing an underage nude isn't child porn unless the images are sexual in nature as I am sure many of you know from the story of Jock Sturges. I haven't seen this LV photographer's work to be able to judge but whenever you photograph an underage person nude, you always open yourself to the potential wrath of parents, the Christian right, Feds and a general mob mentality which is very much exacerbated by the media. Jan 07 13 03:16 am Link Patchouli Nyx wrote: I'm not advocating eliminating this information from public records. Michael McGowan brought up a good point about that. But there should be some restraints on the media when it comes to reporting this information. Ever notice they don't report the names or publish the photos of minors when something happens, unless they're deceased? Jan 07 13 03:45 am Link Coyote Creations NW wrote: Wasn't there an article about that in Wired magazine? Jan 07 13 04:03 am Link John Jebbia wrote: Darren Brade wrote: All that matters is the hype. Jan 07 13 04:20 am Link Depending on the state, most times if you are falsely convicted/arrested you can not sue. The prosecutor is not held accountable and there are no monetary damages. If you can it will not be easy. Most of the time you have to prove damages by imprisonment or malicious prosecution. Good luck, if you don't have tons of money for a civil rights attorney. There are thousands of people in prison because the media and politics demand that someone be punished. The Central Park Jogger case, ten years old. The kids didn't do it, someone else did. Did you hear about it? Was it as big a deal on the news after the fact? No. Was the prosecutor or police punished for not doing a full investigation? No. They had evidence that proved the kids were not "wilding" as they invented...To top it off the real rapist went on to kill one more person and rape another woman. The kids were coaxed into confessions and it goes on and on. Moral of the story, something has to change. We need a better way as a society to learn from these mistakes. No one wants a child molester on the street any more than a rapist but this hanging by the media and prosecutors without any checks and balances is really not working!!! Jan 07 13 04:34 am Link Paul Ferris wrote: Even better, relink the orginal article in the correction for SEO purposes so it is still the first thing that pops up when the guy's name is put ino google. Bonus points: don't edit the orginal either. Jan 07 13 04:38 am Link Yes, all governmental actions should remain secret until their effect is felt by the general public. NOT Your assertion that the press should not report crime until the verdict is so against the nature of our country's tradition of checks and balances that it is downright irresponsible. If you have specific problems about media coverage point them out and rally against them, but to suggest that media does not have a right and responsibility to question and report about alleged crime, corruption and debate is certainly counter to the constitution and, in my view, wholly uninformed. History, practice and statistics are against your view. But then again, I work in media and have a journalism degree...what do I know. Jan 07 13 05:16 am Link Its guilty until proven innocent. I have personally been bashed by the media, and untrue facts were printed. No retraction was ever printed. Jan 07 13 06:02 am Link John Jebbia wrote: maybe the question should be: How easy is it to ruin anybody? Jan 07 13 06:09 am Link Faces2Die4 Photography wrote: as a father of two daughters and a son i understand and respect your point of view. Jan 07 13 06:20 am Link liddellphoto wrote: Paul Ferris wrote: Even better, relink the orginal article in the correction for SEO purposes so it is still the first thing that pops up when the guy's name is put ino google. Bonus points: don't edit the orginal either. When it comes to witch hunts the Brits do it better. Jan 07 13 06:58 am Link studio36uk wrote: They should just close that comic called "The Daily Mail" down and put everyone out of their misery. Jan 07 13 07:02 am Link Michael McGowan wrote: It isn't paranoid to assume that there are many police investigators posing as photographers and models on MM, watching and waiting. Jan 07 13 07:04 am Link intense_puppy wrote: studio36uk wrote: They should just close that comic called "The Daily Mail" down and put everyone out of their misery. In a turn of the phrase - Jan 07 13 07:05 am Link I vote "yes" because most of the cases cited here are pre - social media. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that someone with a big enough grudge could do a lot of damage by having a media story, justified or not, go viral on the web. Jan 07 13 03:22 pm Link Brings to mind a fellow by the name of Richard Jewell. Jan 07 13 03:28 pm Link As bad as child porn and pedophiles are, I believe that the "witch hunt" may be harming and intimidating more people than either of those offenses, and sometimes I wonder how often such material found on people's computers was planted somehow. Jan 07 13 05:06 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: Agreed, and not only for this crime but many other similar types. Jan 07 13 05:24 pm Link It's not the end of the World if you are innocent. Look at what happened to Jock Sturges for example. The FBI raided his studio and home, but the grand Jury would not go forward with charges. He then moved out of the country, but continues to shoot. Then there is the owner of TTB's website, Jimmy was arrrested, brought to trial and aquitted. He continues to run a successful business online. He still photographs teens in bikinis. so ... I think that teachers would have more to lose in a case where charges are brought against them. It's funny, but to Catch a Predator never seemed to have caught photographers, but they did catch plenty of clergy, off duty police, teachers, and even a District Attorney ... who blew his brains out before being arrested. That's when the show lost popularity. There have been many cases of convictions of innocent people ... in worst cases ... of murder. When those cases are over thrown, then person falsely accused is usually given a settlement. One man who spent 25 years in Texas prison for murder has gotten 2 million dollars for a settlement. No amount of money will bring his wife back or replace the 25 years he lost. He had three words of advise; Never Give Up! Jan 07 13 05:56 pm Link How easy would it be to ruin a photographer? Pretty easy. It seems that photographers are more suspect than most other occupations. Jan 07 13 06:10 pm Link I think it would depend on how well the person does their online branding and watches their name. If someone does things right they could easily bury any bad news like this, after a while, on the 2nd or 3rd search page. If they don't pay attention and have no online presence, it may take a while and the stigma may last longer. Andrew Thomas Evans www.andrewthomasevans.com Jan 07 13 08:07 pm Link Mark Salo wrote: It may seem that way because this is your career or hobby and you're more involved with this than others. I think any professional would be subject to review sites, blogs, lists, and other ratings that go around online. Jan 07 13 08:10 pm Link John Jebbia wrote: And unfortunately you can't sue them for liable and defamation if you're found innocent, which would be justice. They settle for millions in damages so that you can at least try and make a life after the ordeal is over. It would also make them think twice about slandering you all over the place BEFORE a verdict is handed down. Jan 07 13 08:13 pm Link Something about this reminds me of the Michael Jackson train wreck. The only way to remain immune from this nonsense is to keep that 10 foot pole handy. In other words: Stay away from it. ;-) Jan 07 13 08:17 pm Link Do you remember the name Richard Jewell? He was the one who found the suspicious knapsack and within moments he was being tried in the media for the Atlanta Olympic Park bombings in '96. Months and months of this guy's face on the front of every newspaper and media outlet, digging into his personal life on the news, ruining his job and personal life. Even though he was later exonerated (with much less fanfare) the damage was already done. He ended up suing several media outlets and, ironically, became a police officer. He also died a few years ago (diabetes, I think). The sad thing is, I still remember his name 16 years later but couldn't tell you the name of the actual guilty person. Or an even worse case was the McMartin Preschool molestation case. Their entire family was ruined. If it was me, it would be lawsuits galore and I'd move to Fiji. Jan 07 13 08:18 pm Link |
