First and foremost, a photo editor could not make any changes to a photographer's images without consult with the news writers (Paula and Jenny, 1999). The question of copyright and ownership may raise into the editing control (Paula and Jenny, 1999) when a photo editor changes the image without any negotiation or notification. Looking back to the issue, it has the similar case where Barack Obama, Orthodox Jewish newspaper deleted an image of US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton. By deleting the image without negotiate with the news writers or any related person, it is considered as an unethical act where it takes away the ownership of the company. By doing this, the company may sue the editor for not revealing the truth of the image.
Besides that, Daniel R. Bersak 2006 stated that each publication has it sets of rules and it must be consider as a truthful image to the public (Daniel R. Bersak, 2006). I agree with Daniel where every images have to be genuine with no adjustment or editing as to provide the real information to the public. Apart from that, editing should maintain the rightness of the context and content of the image and in this case it might mislead the reader to the wrong subject (Daniel R. Bersak 2006). However, editing in an original image will always mislead the readers to the wrong information and therefore causes the readers to create rumors in what they have seen.
In editing, the photo editor has to always bear in mind that the meaning and message of the image has to always retain in order to remain the original message to the readers. In fact, by deleting or editing the image without any permissions may lead to a penalty or punishment from the government itself. Different countries may have different punishment to the editor on how serious they did.
The edited version (Source: http://gragenews.com/46/jewish-newspaper-cuts-photo-hillary-clinton.html)
The original version (Source: http://gragenews.com/46/jewish-newspaper-cuts-photo-hillary-clinton.html)
References
Paula Roberts & Jenny Webber, Visual Truth In The Digital Age: Towards A Protocol For Image Ethics, Australian Institute of Computer Ethics Conference, July, 1999, Lilydale, ,viewed 10 November 2011.
Daniel R. Bersak, Ethics in Photojournalism: Past, Present, and Future, SEPTEMBER, 2006, viewed 10 November 2011.
Besides that, Daniel R. Bersak 2006 stated that each publication has it sets of rules and it must be consider as a truthful image to the public (Daniel R. Bersak, 2006). I agree with Daniel where every images have to be genuine with no adjustment or editing as to provide the real information to the public. Apart from that, editing should maintain the rightness of the context and content of the image and in this case it might mislead the reader to the wrong subject (Daniel R. Bersak 2006). However, editing in an original image will always mislead the readers to the wrong information and therefore causes the readers to create rumors in what they have seen.
In editing, the photo editor has to always bear in mind that the meaning and message of the image has to always retain in order to remain the original message to the readers. In fact, by deleting or editing the image without any permissions may lead to a penalty or punishment from the government itself. Different countries may have different punishment to the editor on how serious they did.
The edited version (Source: http://gragenews.com/46/jewish-newspaper-cuts-photo-hillary-clinton.html) The original version (Source: http://gragenews.com/46/jewish-newspaper-cuts-photo-hillary-clinton.html)References
Paula Roberts & Jenny Webber, Visual Truth In The Digital Age: Towards A Protocol For Image Ethics, Australian Institute of Computer Ethics Conference, July, 1999, Lilydale, ,viewed 10 November 2011.
Daniel R. Bersak, Ethics in Photojournalism: Past, Present, and Future, SEPTEMBER, 2006, viewed 10 November 2011.
0 comments:
Post a Comment