Do snappers have a responsibility?
For photographers who sell microstock, or who sell a photo every once in a blue moon, getting serious pay-outs for a single photo may sound as a dream. For those of us who deal in licenced photography, however, serious levels of payment aren’t unheard of. Personally, my best-selling set of photos have netted me a fair sum of cash: They’re very specific, and get sold again and again.
Today, I stumbled across the work of Thomas E. Witte, in a brilliant article over on Sports Shooter. Witte managed to snap a couple of photos that turned out to be pure gold dust: A high school football player who doesn’t have any feet. The photos netted him $12K.
What makes me wonder, though: Could it be argued that the photographers have an obligation to their subjects directly? Should Witte give the football player some of the money he earned in this case? Or does the opposite apply — like for photographers who cover conflict zones — that if you get involved, you are immediately unable to do your job properly?
It could be argued, of course, that the photos of Bobby Martin – the football player in the photos – are exploitative. After all, the only thing he is doing is what he loves: To play Football. In the grand scheme of things, Martin is probably unlikely to make any money of his passion: The big bucks are in the NFL, but a legless NFL player is probably not going to happen in our time. The alternative is the Paralympics, which is at least partially sponsorship-driven, and has made stars of a few games (like Wheelchair Rugby, as shown in the highly recommended film Murderball).
So, as fellow photographers, how should we feel? Personally, I am torn. On one hand, I want to say “Good work, Witte, for creating a motivational icon of Bobby Martin”, I mean, hell – there aren’t a lot of people who would have the guts to face the big burly opponents on the football pitch if you’re half their size, and especially if you lack legs. Without Witte’s work, chances of anyone finding out about Martin are slim. By showing his strength to the world, Witte’s photos could be a motivation to a generation of less-abled people.
On the other hand, I’m tempted to say “jeez, Witte, this is just a bit harsh. You’ve made a lot more money out of these photos than you expected. How about you split the cash with Martin? Keep $6K for yourself, and give $6K to him. It’s only polite.”
And finally, the cynic and paparazzi photographer in me goes, “Sod it, it’s a white-hot photo, and you deserve every penny you can get. What happens to a photo after you’ve taken it isn’t your problem, congrats on making a nice pile of cash out of it”.
How do you feel about these photos? Do photographers have a responsibility to their subject? Vote above, and let me know your opinions in the comments, below!
The photo in this article is a thumbnail taken from the Sports Shooter website, used under UK Fair Dealing law. The photograph is © Thomas E. Witte. To see the full version and more photos by the same photographer, please check out the source article
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
I think this even more of a concern in the seemingly prominent phenomenon of photographing homeless people!
Although I voted “No, Never”, I did so because I think that society tries to impose moral obligations on people, but I think society doesn’t have the right to do so. A person is free to do what they please . On the other hand, I think it would be, morally, the right thing if the photographer gave the subject some of the proceeds earned from the photograph. But who am I to judge? (Nobody, that’s who)
Allen makes good points. I also disagree with enforced morality in a lot of situations, but what it comes down to is what the photographer feels. I don’t feel obligated to compensate my subjects if I take a photo of them doing something they were already doing.
Charles’ comment about it being a larger concern with regards to photographing homeless raises a very old can of worms. Odds are strong on them spending the money on drink or drugs. Is it still moral to pay them, knowing what they’ll do with it?
All of this being said, I voted ‘Not Sure’ because this is something I haven’t really had to deal with yet.
I voted “depends on the situations” and it does. I am not sure how it works in sports photography but wouldn’t…or shouldn’t the photographer have a model release if the photos are specific of one player? If he doesn’t then yeah maybe some sort of compensation is respectable?
But what about another situation that was mentioned, the homeless. When a photographer goes out and shoots the homeless does the homeless individual deserve some sort of compensation? In a war torn area does the villagers deserve some sort of pay?
i’m just curious what the legless wonder can do. how do you do anything if you need your arms for running? as for the photography angle, he’s news, a page 5 freakshow, but don’t blame the photographer, blame the idiots who put him in the game (publicity stunt?)
i just had a thought.
photographers need to keep how much they make on a photo (or set) to themselves, because otherwise, you are asking for a lawsuit from people looking to take a cut of the action (and subjects like a guy with no legs make great points with a jury, while the photog will be seen as some sort of money grubbing pervert) even if the case has no legal merit, you will end up settling in order to salvage what’s left of your reputation
I think a lot of photography is about being an opportunist and a little bit of a vulture, really — two things I sometimes do in photography but would never dream of doing outside of photography in my everyday life. I’ve never had the intention of making money from photography, but sometimes people come out of the blue to make you offers you can’t resist. But that starts some moral dilemmas for me.
When you start to go down the road of compensation for subjects, it’s a very slippery path. Where do you begin and where do you end? Are you compelled to give money to Bobby Martin because you made any money off of him at all, or are you compelled because you feel sorry that he has no legs? If you got $12,000 for a shot of the next high school phenom to quarterback at Notre Dame, would you want to share just as much with him too? I think if you were to get a great shot of the Notre Dame-bound kid, you’d say to yourself, “Hell of a shot,” and you’d take the money. In both instances you’re capitalizing on the particular attraction to the kid, but you’re conscience kicks in more with Bobby because you feel you’re taking advantage of his birth defect. Maybe you feel sorry for him. But you have to wonder if Bobby wants anyone to feel sorry for him. Most individuals in his case don’t want special treatment. So if you want to give half the loot to Bobby, fine. But make sure you give half your profit to the other kid too.
But where does it end? What if you stop roadside to take an award winning shot of another man’s barn at sunset? Would you drive back to the place and compensate the property owner for what you made off of their property? Would you send Coldplay a check for the money you made off a pic you took at one of their concerts? Do you pay the venue you took it at? Maybe you feel the cover price to get into the show was enough.
When it boils down to it, you have to have some morals, you have to have some compassion, and you have to have some consistency. I don’t do the whole homeless portrait thing. If I did, I’d give them $5-10 before I would ever take their shots. You’re capitalizing on their unfortunate situation.
Like I said, I don’t do photography for money. I do it out of pure passion. I’m too nervous of the consequences of making a beautiful hobby into a business. So when I go to a concert of a favorite band, and take shots for my own personal satisfaction, and those shots get discovered and money is thrown my way, what do I do? Money will pay for new equipment, travel for more photo opps, etc. But I never intended to make money off of that band at the show. Will my conscience let me? What do I do?
More importantly -what do you do?
This is why it’s important to include a press release with your photo..
A press release with an interview is FAR more interesting than just our view on the occasion. So why not take the photo, and then try and meet/interview the guy, at which point, his own feelings on the issue will become apparant. Maybe he will be delighted to tell his story and have it sent to the press, who then can arrange paid interviews with him for their own follow up story if he likes..
Or, if he refuses to be interviewed, and explains that he really doesnt want any attention at all, especially from the media, well, then its up to you what you want to do… but I think the photo really isnt worth that much anyway if no-one can interview him, and its kinder to just let that one go..
I completely agree with you, hilary, but most photographers are snappers – and snappers only. In fact, there are quite few great photographers that can put together a good press release: They are very different skillsets, and I don’t think that photographers can be expected to do this, just like writers can’t be expected to take good photos.
True! There will be photographers who won’t/can’t do a press release, but it does make your photo more marketable.. and in a lot of cases, you can get someone else to write the press release for you.
For example, in the travel company I work in, we gave away a holiday as a prize on our national tv station, a photographer announced he would be at the airport to take photos, and that we could make a press release if we wished to accompany the photo, which he would then send onto the major newspapers, we did that, and it worked out in both of our favours! So there are different ways of apporaching that kind of photo, and making it more marketable!
Hello,
I wonder if everybody who has seen the photo of T. Witte have really understood it, what makes this photo so valuable or if they consider it art.
Me, I see it as art. It is not selling anything, it is not pushing me in certain direction. But it moves me, psychologically.
And this pictures tells a beautiful story. We do not see very often people who are pushing themselves to the limit. Or people who are searching the boundaries of their life. But I think that we have a clear case here.
And both of them have gain my deepest respect. The one for fighting to do what he likes and the other for presenting it clearly and respectfully.
I think that photographers have a certain responsibility. In every case. But it is not a financial responsibility. For me it is a moral responsibility, that should always be there.
There is a thin line between fine art and „pornography“.
A paparazzi is a photographer? Can the output of a paparazzi be considered art?
Can the photo from abowe be considered as art?
Just my two cents.
Christian
Witte is news. There’s no obligation to a news subject. There’s also no obligation to someone performing a true “publicly sanctioned” activity, from the football player to the football fan. It’s in a public forum, it’s public information. That’s long decided by the existence of the paparazzi. Most “slice of life” photos fall under this category. But taking candid shots of people in their backyard isn’t public (though it can argued that the front yard is fair game).
On the other hand, where the value of the image is in the attractiveness of the subject and not in the activity (like women at the beach), there is an obligation to the subject. Essentially, if you would ask someone to sign a release to pose for similar pictures, then you can’t claim candid shots are any different. Especially if you sell them the same way you would posed pictures. If you expect a real demand for the photo, you can always ask the person to sign a release after the fact, and the decision of whether to pay them anything is then a matter of personal ethics. If you do well selling the photo (as commercial or artistic) you can always send the subject an “honorarium” that reflects the value you’d pay a model. At the least send them a copy of the picture.
I am also torn on the question. I think it really depends on nity details. For instance if we were to look at this and treat it as something else. Let’s pretend I am a painter, and I need a model, so I pay the Models Fee of $X – I, in turn sell the painting for $XXX,XXX. I don’t feel that the model is due anymore that what I’ve already paid! Also, if you are going to chose one way or another, perhaps your $XXX,XXX photograph or painting was of an animal? Who would get the profit? Would you feel obligated to open up a sanctuary for lets say.. Flamingos? It is definatly a kind gesture to offer the subject something, but I don’t think it’s really needed.
Share your wisdom