Do you use the video or not?

[MDrnbrgr]

It's the uncomfortable scenario all of us have either been in, or will be in: whether or not to use video that you just shot on private property, and THEN were told by the owner to "get the @#$% off my property"

A woman left her 11 month old son in her car during the noon hours for about two hours before someone saw the kid and called 911. The baby had died. The woman said she forgot about the kid.(?!)We went to her house where there was a photo of the boy taped to the front door, and three cars in the driveway. We rang the doorbell and knocked, but no answer. I shot the photo. On our way out the owners pulled up and angrily told us to leave. I said "No problem. We're out." In the clarity of hindsight I realized I didn't ask for permission to air the photo. (probably because I felt like a schmuck for even being there)

At our station the answers on whether to air the video were mixed. What purpose would it serve the viewers to show this child versus the anguish felt by the family and the added emotion of having the child's image broadcast? We decided not to air the video. MY reasoning was that while it may have been legally fine to air the video, in the grand scheme of things, the cumbersome weight of a family's emotions of sorrow are not fair trade.

[Terry E. Toller]

Good for you for caring!

As for the legality; The picture was taped to the door for the public to see. Rule: If it is in public view, it can be used. BUT, if they can prove that the picture couldn't be seen from the street or sidewalk, you will have a problem.

Good luck.

[photogguy]

We just had a schyster, er, lawyer, speak at the station about issues we face, and this was one of them.

If you're on private property, not posted for "No Trespassing", and shoot something, THEN get told to leave, you have some legal standing for airing the video.

That said, I think you made the correct decision, for the correct reasons, in not airing the picture. I like to tell people that I'm a human first, photographer second.

[shootcam]

You should have used the picture as well as shooting the family when they arrived. This is our job. I assume you walked up to the door to speak with someone. Not trespassing, unless there are NO TRESPASSING signs, or if you are asked to leave and do not, only then could there possibly be repercussions to the station.
The baby paid the ultimate price for someone in the family who was very irresponsible. I feel the baby's picture should have been the first shot in the pkg. Perhaps this family's story may jolt some other person into the reality, that leaving an 11 month old baby, alone in a vehicle for any reason, is totally stupid, and irresponsible.
Personally I would have had my own feelings about the idiot who left the baby in the car. But of course, as a professional, it would never impair my judgement on doing the job I am paid to do. If it walks flys or draws flies, it is my job to shoot first and ask questions later....Just my opinion

[texshooter]

Generally, you can use anything you shoot on private property up to the point you are told to leave (unless it is posted "No Tresspassing"). After that, anything you can see from a public street is fair game.

To use the video or not, that is an editorial decision for the guy in the corner office to make.

I like the quote from the above post..."If it walks flys or draws flies, it is my job to shoot first and ask questions later".

[<At the Scene>]

I totaly disagree with CHANCE. I Agree its my job and my profession and it is also my decision to shoot what is appropriate pertaining to the story. Shooting the owners of the home screaming for you to leave then airing is just TABLOID TV.

Think about your decisions or the consequences, what if you went to the wrong house that happened to have a picture of a baby that they left for Grandma to pick up. Sounds silly but could happen!
But no, we have to get the story and air it first beat the competetion then check the facts later.
Photogs like CHANCE give us all a bad name. No wonder very few people trust us. Shoot, but think about how it will tell your story. I agree with MWDKLV you went back made a decision a stuck with it. Good for you.

[vegasshooter]

The picture should have been the first and last shots in that package...We are all human but we also have a job to do...people see scene video of the car and the people around it in just about every story and they become numb to it...when you show the babys photo it makes people take notice.It puts a human face to that tragic death...Maybe it bares a resemblance to their own child and then proves a cationary tale so we dont have to cover it again.
As for being on private property you shoot until you are asked to leave...then turn the camera off..and walk away. As long as it is in plain sight it is legal... Good job for standing by your decision

[MDrnbrgr]

My conscience is clear about how we handled the situation. There were no "NO TRESPASSING" signs posted anywhere. And sure, with my camera being endowed with an extender, I may have been able to get the image from the front door. BUT, as our Texshooter reminds us, if there are no signs, and no angry shotgun wielding property owners telling you to run or they'll shoot...well, I'm gonna shoot.

[Beef]

In your case I'd say don't show the video...God for you to have the forethought for the family. but in other cases, I might say the video is yours to show.

[NoWay]

Congratulations on being a human being first and a photographer second. The former is far more improtant and long lasting than the latter.

[<Minnesotan>]

To quote Mark Anderson, "Shoot from the heart."

[Jax]

We have been getting about 1 of these a week here in Las Vegas. I can only think of 1 where the kid died, but many near misses.

I disagree with not showing the kids pic for several reasons.

First, I don't believe that the family who yelled at you is going to be waiting with baited breath for your story.

Second, I think a pic of a kid who died might send a message to those lazy parents who can't take their kids out of a carseat.

And third, it puts a face to the story, not just wallpaper scene video.

I have always thought that Las Vegas is much more liberal with what we can and can't show, so this is taken from that perspective.