Florida Crash Photos Could Cost Chief Job

[Scaramedic]

If photos are sold for profit and the faces are recognizable, then a model release form may be needed from the person or next of kin.

Not true, if it is a public event, i.e. an incident scene, county fair, bank robbery hostage situation, or you are in public and a public figure then a release is not needed. I have a minor in Journalism as I have mentioned before on this site. My photos have ran in a major urban newspaper as a freelancer. Not great money at the time, $35 for front page above the fold, $25 for anything else. If your are in public and it is part of a story then your picture can be printed without release or renumeration. Why do you think we have all the paparazzi photos line the checkout lines? Do you really think the stars sign release forms?

Photographers can and do take photos you would not believe, of course they never make it to the page. I have seen more up skirt cheerleader panty shots from professional photographers then any porn site. Kersey goes for a layup, panties, panties, dribble, panties. You get the idea. You should see some of the graphic shots that appear on the AP Photo Wire that is available only to news agencies.

Back on topic, if a photo appears in a text book that was a publicly available shot, then the photographer gets paid. There is no release needed, if it is a posed shot then a release is needed and the model gets paid.

As far as Dr's taking photos in the hospital there is a sense of privacy there that does not exist on the streets. A photographer cannot go into a hospital and shoot photos, it is a private place just like the back of the unit is off limits. A car crash on the other hand is a public event and can be shot. HIPAA and patient privacy do not apply to public events and are open to being published. Unless of course you are trying to photograph a bridge or dam, but that is a whole different rant of mine.

[VentMedic]

It all depends on how you are going to use the photos. There must be reasonable effort to get consent from people whose photos will be used in books or sold for your profit. News events for newspapers are very different. Reporting the news is their intent. If that same photo is used in a book or print for sale, that changes things.

Follow the links I posted earlier. It will explain the rules and regs of photography including the "Brittany" stuff. The link also includes the new California regs on publicity photography.

This is not a HIPAA issue and yes photographs are taken in the hospital regularly for documentation and education.

And, if you search through the Pulitzer Prize photos, you will see that most of the people who are in clear view are identified by name.

http://www.pulitzer.org/cgi-bin/catquery.c...utton5=Retrieve

[Scaramedic]

Yes if it to be printed in a book only then it is different. If it first appears in print then it belongs to the original photographer not the subject. If any of my photos ever made it into a book (which they never will ) I would get paid not the subjects of the photo.

The California regs are not important in regards to this subject, since the subject was in Florida. Also California is sometimes a little to liberal to use as a tripwire for the rest of the nation.

Finally back on topic, the photos in question were not published in a book or newspaper. They were passed along as educational if this guys motives were good. Re-read the short blurb from the city manager he is damning his own case.

"In passing that information along to others that had nothing to do with the emergency rescue, that becomes to me a moral issue," Irby said. "Distasteful, if you will."

We can't pass information on to other agencies now? Unless the department has a "Morals" clause then he is going to win a suit since the city manager himself said it was a "distasteful" "moral" issue. Hence it is not a legal issue, it is merely the city manager's opinion he violated patient privacy. My point is he violated no law and therefore cannot be punished based on a legal action. In the end I think he will win a fat check from the city.

[whitewolf]

I'm neutral as far as this topic goes, because people do have a right to privacy, and newsies do have a right to report the news. As far as taking pictures at the scene, we are not newsies, and we open ourselves up if we do start taking photos at the scene.Also, I have one question. While I agree that docs can get a better feel for what is going with a patient by seeing scene photo's, if you are busy playing camer man....who is looking after you patient??

[VentMedic]

We can't pass information on to other agencies now? Unless the department has a "Morals" clause then he is going to win a suit since the city manager himself said it was a "distasteful" "moral" issue. Hence it is not a legal issue, it is merely the city manager's opinion he violated patient privacy. My point is he violated no law and therefore cannot be punished based on a legal action. In the end I think he will win a fat check from the city.

He resigned. This little news story even made CNN tonight.

http://www.local6.com/news/14996780/detail.html

Fire Chief Resigns Amid Nude Photo Flap

UMATILLA, Fla. -- A suspended Central Florida fire chief who e-mailed photos from a crash scene that included at least one image of a female victim's exposed breasts resigned on Monday.

[Scaramedic]

So would I, then the next day my attorney would file suit against the city. Don't have to worry about reprisals when your not working there anymore.

[firedoc5]

He resigned. This little news story even made CNN tonight.

http://www.local6.com/news/14996780/detail.html

Fire Chief Resigns Amid Nude Photo Flap

UMATILLA, Fla. -- A suspended Central Florida fire chief who e-mailed photos from a crash scene that included at least one image of a female victim's exposed breasts resigned on Monday.

Guess he didn't figure he had a fighting chance.

[Just Plain Ruff]

let me tell you a story about a picture of me that made it into the local newspaper of a small town.

The accident happened about 200 feet from my apartment. I heard it and went out. It was a rollover accident and on a busy street, the busiest in the small town I lived in.

I was assisting the patient until my on duty crew got there.

I had noticed that the photog from the paper was there about the same time I was. He was snapping pictures left and right.

I didn't have a chance to put a belt on prior to running out to the scene and when I stood up I hiked my pants up a little higher on my waist.

Well you can imagine that the photog(ahole) got that picture.

not one of the other pictures were in the paper but the one with me hiking my pants up made the paper.

Well to make a long story short, I got to treat this photog about 3 months later in the ER and I showed him the picture. I asked him why he chose this particular picture and he said it showed the best view of the wreck.

I then proceeded to start that IV with a 14 guage needle instead of an 18. I know petty and mean of me but hey, he was a jerk.

He asked me why such a large needle for a gi bleed and I told him it was the best iv needle for the job and my picture never made it into the paper again. Coincidence - I think not.

[captainstandup]

It seems as though the Chief violated if not the spirit of HIPAA, then he certainly violated public trust.

Isn't it interesting the Chief would be "grabassing" around with his cameraphone instead of doing his job? This begs the question, was his presence even needed on-scene, since he obviously didn't make any meaningful contribution to the rescue effort?

This is another case demonstrative of the need for very clear agency policies regarding release of information, regardless of the specific manner of release. One must consider whether photos of this woman were considered "personally identifiable health information"

One of the driving forces behind promulgation of the HIPAA standards was the fact that personally identifiable health information was being sold. A variety of companies used this information for the purposes of direct marketing of therapies, medications, devices or services to specific persons based on specific conditions; based on unethically obtained information.

The HIPAA standard is also intended to prevent anyone with access to private medical information to profit from release that information. This takes us back to "Chief Paparazzi", as I asked before, was the information personally identifiable, did through virtue of his position did the chief have specialized access and finally was there any manner he could profit from its release? I doubt the Department of Justice would charge him with a HIPAA violation but I would be willing to wager he and the Fire Department would loose a civil suit brought by the woman’s family. Regardless of the criminal aspect of this case I can assure you there will be a civil action against them and they will try to settle out of court.

Although not related to HIPAA, OJ Simpson got away with killing two people in cold blood, but a civil jury essentially convicted him anyway and awarded the families tens of millions in damages.