« Eric Baudelaire | Main | 4 Years, 4 Months »

Tuesday, 04 September 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e54eebb6bd8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Take Pictures?:

Comments

As Stan Sterns said, "The main rule of Journalism 101 is check your source—no one did that."

I am amused. Sloppy work all around. Apparently, The Times checked nothing and everyone else used The Times as the source. Have corrections been made as of yet?

Quite a story...and quite a character!

I'd say that this guy had the last laugh on many organizations. Sadly, I doubt that very many people give a rat's hams about who took these "Joe O'Donnell" images, or any photos at all. Now thanks to Marianne Fulton the handful that read this story are much more likely to remember Joe O'Donnell's name than Stan Stearns or Frank Gatteri.

Some stories are more constructively conveyed silently. This is one.

The guy had balls, you gotta appreciate that ;)

Its pretty sad to think this could happen in a visual world where photographers, artists, news-gatherers, editors etc etc are supposed to be aware of news and historical moments. The assumption is the media is not so hot as it likes to think and is obviously sadly lacking on research and establishing the truth as we would like to know it.

And if 'lifting' goes on at this level what chance for those posting on the web!

Fulton mentions the bottom of "O'Donnell's" John Jr. salute photo has been strangely cropped. Try as I might, I can't reconcile the two photos as cropped. Take a look at the relationship between John Jr.'s shoes and the left shoe of Jackie. Draw a line on the Stearns photo where the O'Donnell photo as been cropped. You should see the same portion of her left shoe.

Anyway, just curious.

Analogue Skullduggery Rocks!!!

Sorry John, but the photos look the same to me. I cropped the Stearns photo in photoshop and you can see the same portion of her shoe.

Lasse - yup, you're right. Shows the value of using the right tools. Thanks for the follow up.

Ken Tanaka seems to miss the point. As a photographer himself, he ought to understand the pride we all have in our work even though, working for UPI, we were anonymous. But while some of our well-known images made decades ago may appear without our names under them -- until the early 1990s," UPI" and after that, just "Bettman/Corbis" they are still OUR PICTURES. We get testy when we see photos we took with someone else's name under them not because the publication made an error, but because a THIEF is trying to take credit for taking photographs made by someone else. Those people are THIEVES. In O'Donnell's case, he even copyrighted the photos he didn't make.

hello this is my favourite photo I didn't know there where two photographer who took that photo I have the same taken from two angles and I haven't notice the position of the feet but a very good shoot

The comments to this entry are closed.