Zap medics resond to man down.

[hippocratical]

Put me down as another person who thinks the photos are fine. No really - how on earth do I click the Poll?! :wacko:

On another similar inflammatory photographic note: I'm all for Police wearing always-on head video cameras. That would instantly solve 99% of harassment charges right there - they either did the right thing or not, and could demonstrate to a jury what actually happened.

Would I like to wear one as EMS? Hell no, but if they're used to catch gross misconduct rather than something innane like a potty mouth, then size me up.

 

[looker]

Yes, but not publish it. Why else would TV shows spend thousands of dollars to buy permission to use likenesses, or to digitally blur them out? And what would keep someone from shooting pictures with a long lens for the local paper from their second story window through your bedroom window if you left the blinds open an inch or two?
Freedom of expression does not extend to needless hurt, nor public danger (the classic shouting FIRE in a crowded theater). Even celebrities, when they wanted to, have slapped tabloids for invasions of privacy. It can be assumed a medical patient does not want their picture on the local newspaper.

Let me explain to you how law works so you understand it. TV Shows are for profit as such they either need to get written permission or buy likeness permission. Media is in business to report news and as such have legal right to use the picture/video for free for use with the story they are reporting. There is big difference between taking picture on the street and taking picture through/ in to someone house windows using extended lens. So gain this story is non story as OP and everyone else were outside with no expectation of privacy.

 

[looker]

I disagree a little.

No IDENTIFYING FEATURES, no issues.

If the photo shows unique tattoos, or big red clown shoes, that might make the patient identifiable to those who know him.

Same with photos of cars on MVC scenes - there are many things that can be identifiable to those who know the person.


These photos are in good taste, and I have no issue with photos like this presented in an appropriate context.

Is it the policy of this website that patient identified photos can't be posted?

 

[Jon]

Is it the policy of this website that patient identified photos can't be posted?

Short answer: We've never needed one.

Longer answer: Our members have usually been good about not posting things that might come back and bite them down the road. While we may remove photos, it is often because the content is seen as objectionable, not simply because a patient can be seen.


What I posted was my views - I've been involved in incidents locally where scene photos have ended up online, and then became issues when someone identified the patient from other identifying features.

 

[AlphaButch]

Could be local law says they can't. For example in both LA County and LA City you must call 911 and advice them of situation. They can give you okay if it's critical or they will just send city or contracted ambulance. Now if you got a patient that is coding and you're 2-5 min from nearest hospital ye take off and advice when you're free. Obviously that wasn't the case here.

This is how it works here inside the Houston city limits.

 

[Tigger]

These pictures look similar to anything that would be taken by a newspaper photographer. It's people doing there job, not much more to it. Add to the fact that BBG was taking them from his vehicle (I think?) I cannot for the life of me construe how these may be considered offensive.

 

[hippocratical]

I cannot for the life of me construe how these may be considered offensive.

Some people are easily offended. Those people offend me ^_^

 

[Medic2409]

Pictures of a crew doing their duty (or, going above and beyond, depending on your viewpoint) that show EMS in a good light and protect patient privacy are thoroughly appropriate IMHO.

 

[looker]

Pictures of a crew doing their duty (or, going above and beyond, depending on your viewpoint) that show EMS in a good light and protect patient privacy are thoroughly appropriate IMHO.

Even if patient face was shown was is wrong with that? It's one thing if the crew that working on the patient that took the photos but when it's bystander to me it seems perfectly fine.

 

[Tigger]

Some people are easily offended. Those people offend me ^_^

Well said sir.

 

[mycrofft]

So anything that can be seen from a public viewpoint is open for media capture and distribution? If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?

I am not offended by the photos published by BigBaldGuy (and putting them publicly on a website is publication, it can be protected by copyright), I question the overall legality and advisability of posting/publishing pictures of patient care without the measures established by other publications (medical text publishers, major magazine not sold exclusively by the gum and candy) to protect the patients...and to protect the caregivers because much of what we do is readily taken out of context.

Pictures of war victims, disaster survivors in shock, etc are defended as being news and of educational use for the public at large. What do the public at large, or even most care givers, derive from the majority of the sort of photos an EMT will click during an emergency? Or an uninformed bystander?

I understand.

 

[hippocratical]

If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?

I believe it's not so much where you are standing, but them. If the person is standing on public ground they're fair game, if they're standing in their house not so much. Staring into someone's house is covered under "Peeping Tom" style laws.

Pictures of war victims...

I'm not picking on Mycroft here, but on a similar yet totally different point, isn't it the case that in the States one can show images of local villagers dead in the street, yet not of U.S. soldiers? Unconnected to this conversation, but something I find very interesting. You should see Russian news reports - they show incredibly graphic images that shocked even me!

 

[looker]

So anything that can be seen from a public viewpoint is open for media capture and distribution? If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?

hippocratical is correct. You can be standing a mile away, all that makes a difference is where they are. If they are outside the house they have no expectation of privacy and you are free to take picture of them.

I am not offended by the photos published by BigBaldGuy (and putting them publicly on a website is publication, it can be protected by copyright), I question the overall legality and advisability of posting/publishing pictures of patient care without the measures established by other publications (medical text publishers, major magazine not sold exclusively by the gum and candy) to protect the patients...and to protect the caregivers because much of what we do is readily taken out of context.

Medical text publishers, major magazine etc are free to decide on their own internal policy on what can and can't be published. However if the person is outside you are free to take picture of them and publish it. There is no privacy issue here. Now if you are first responder then it gets complicated. Remember when you are outside you do not have expectation of privacy, just because you are being rendered aid do not change that.

Pictures of war victims, disaster survivors in shock, etc are defended as being news and of educational use for the public at large. What do the public at large, or even most care givers, derive from the majority of the sort of photos an EMT will click during an emergency? Or an uninformed bystander?

I understand.

It makes no difference if you think there is news from posting photo of emt, the fact is it's legal to do so. Again the main issue is expectation of privacy. Lets take this thread picture as example. The person was outside in the view of everyone that was standing there and watching and anyone that was driving by. There was no expectation of privacy being the person was outside in the view of the public.

 

[Aidey]

So anything that can be seen from a public viewpoint is open for media capture and distribution? If I stand in a public parking lot and use a long lens to scan local houses for juicy bits then it is ok to publish?

Generally yes actually. Individual cities/counties/states may have more restrictive laws, but more often than not that would be legal. For two common examples see Google Streetview and private investigators. The short explanation is that courts have found anything visible from public property is fair game, and if you don't want people seeing what is in your house, close your blinds.

 

[mycrofft]

So it is all fair game and legal/adviseable to capture and publish any photos? Or do we blur out victim faces? Or do EMT's start wearing flash masks like SWAT and DEA members do to conceal their identity to forestall recriminations?
I'm not changing my mind, but I'll agree to disagree. If my daughter or wife or son appear in the newspaper they're going to court.

 

[looker]

I'm not changing my mind, but I'll agree to disagree. If my daughter or wife or son appear in the newspaper they're going to court.

I go some bad news for you, you're not going to win.

 

[mycrofft]

Thanks counselor.

 

[mycrofft]

oops lost the emoticon

............

 

[Aidey]

He is right, you would lose. Depending on the circumstances, I bet you would have a hard time even finding a lawyer who would take the case.

 

[Tigger]

He is right, you would lose. Depending on the circumstances, I bet you would have a hard time even finding a lawyer who would take the case.

I'm sure you could find some lawyer that be willing to lighten your wallet in exchange for some half-hearted representation.