Road accident

Question to the OP.

Why do you want to put them on Flickr?

Legally you could, in the case I mentioned the trouble was of a "bad PR" nature. Nobody wants graphic photos of the aftermath of an accident that killed a relative to be shown to complete strangers without their prior knowledge (as opposed to cases where they agree for them to be used in road safety films, for example).

You say that you took the photographs whilst sitting in your car, so presumably they concentrate on the injured person, rather than overall views of the site (from which any useful evidence might be obtained)? Unless your pictures show things that may later be called into question, such as skid or tyre marks on the road surface, the juxtaposition of one vehicle to another, etc., they won't help with the investigation anyway.

I've no problem with the fact that you took the pictures, but if you had to ask you already know that publishing them would be in very poor taste. If they don't show anything evidential, then keeping them to yourself seems the most respectful course of action.

Ray

Do you really need us to advise you in this matter ?

Why intrude into something which is obviously distressing to the cyclist and his family ?

As others have rightly said - unless there is some information on the photos which will assist the police - wipe the card and get on with enjoying photography for its purest reasons - anything else is voyeurism and gratuitous and very distasteful.

What was the point of your OP?

You uploaded them to Flickr yesterday and, despite the response here, they're still there.

Shame on you sir !!

Why waste our time asking ??

Hope you get a kick out of the sorry episode - remember what goes around comes around.

So let me get this straight:

1). Your wife didn't like the fact that you'd taken them (if your partner condemns you it generally means you're in the wrong).
2). You tentatively ask here whether it would be wrong to put them on Flickr (if you have to ask it's probably wrong).
3). The general consensus is the same as your wife (that many people can't be wrong).
4). You post them on Flickr anyway.

Well done you.

The thing that gets me is, you never even said why you wanted to post them on Flickr. As a result, it just comes across like you wanted to get some morbid kick out of it.

I hope I'm wrong.

Just does not bode well does it? I have seen some things durring my travels that I raised the camera to yet never pressed the shutter. I cannot speak for you but I and others here find it difficult to see why you posted the images.

You did and the deed is done. For some things, there is no going back.

You may need to do the needful here and remove the images and accept the situation of not bieng a popular chap for a while.

But he's not been here since he started the thread !!

Not logged in, but may have read the thread?

Regards

A difficult one. Whilst I too have found that my wife can be relied on for a common sense response, and I know that she would have not been at all happy had I taken pictures in that situation.
But, as we know, questions of taste and decency are applied rather flexibly if an image is considered 'important' or 'artistic'. Should not the publish/not publish debate here be equally concerned with the quality of the pictures?

But this is something which happens a lot, we see images from accidents in the news.
I would never post them, but "professional" news photographers seem to have no trouble with it.

If you have a strong stomach click on the following link to a article in "The Sun" on the tragedy in Apeldoorn, The Netherlands on "Queensday".

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2404808.ece

I would add that despite being in a public place when you took these you may find under the law that if you published them you would end up in court. There have been similar cases in the past where prosecutions have been sucessful under the banner of Breach of the Peace or Outraging Public Decency.

You would have to prove that you were publishing for the greater good or for artistic merit, which you may struggle with.

On top of which you might have a privacy issue which could result in a civil suit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

Well thank you guys for all your thoughts and comments on the subject - I have managed to find out that the guy was in fact a pedestrian that got hit by a push-bike. Turns out he's ok and only suffered some minor cuts etc.
I can understand that people can be passionate in their views on the subject and it has been interesting reading through the posts. I suppose what some people see as distastefull photography can also be seen as otherwise. I look at the Sunday times supplement and some of the pictures are not always technical but can still be haunting and verging on the side of bad taste.
The photographs I took are not that technical - I usually leve the camera on "green point and shoot" for situations were I might need to just "click" That said - There are concerned faces, busy police and the very things that might make a photograph interesting.
Many thanks,
Duncan.

I would have acted like that one photog who was covering queens day celebration 30th of april 2009 in The Netherlands. When the attack on the Royals took place. A car drove right through the audience (9 killed) with the intent to hit the Royal bus. One press photog threw down his equipment and started to help out, giving cpr to the injured on the pavement.
But.....that's just me