My sentiments exactly (except for the last paragraph)
> For me, it's the fact that they were offered in a
> public auction format and
> for such an exorbitant price.
>
> It has a BLATANT APPEARANCE of trying to profit in a
> big way from the death
> of another. It's not like he had the only pic
Aircompute wrote:
>I agree to an extent... hopefully we all make judgements and then have the
savvy of whether it's necessary to make them public or not.
However, I would say that the idea that it's somehow wrong to make
judgements is in part responsible for the lack of general morals and
vic
You really think so. Pictures with no blood and guts taken at a public event and
all! I'm rather surprised!
Otis Wright
Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> Also, auctioning them to a private party is not the same as
> "in the public need to know". I think that offering them in
> that venue is actionable
Hi,
Friday, April 27, 2001, 10:15:31 PM, you wrote:
[...]
> And are you getting ready to snap some photos
> of London during the May Day riots?
> Regards, Bob S.
not this year. It'll all be happening on Tuesday, so I'll be at work
all day. The theme this year is 'Monopoly', and the people who
ul?
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: Re[8]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Hi,
>
> so it's immoral not because it's exploita
John Francis wrote:
>
> William Robb wrote:
> ...I'd assume he tried to sell them to the media,
> but had no success. It's old news, after all - not worth anything.
So is this thread, Very tired, repetitive and getting silly -- not to
mention OT.
Bob Harris
-
This message is from the Penta
Hi,
so it's immoral not because it's exploitation, but because the
exploitation is blatant?
I've pursued this about as far as I want to now. If anybody's interested,
when I saw the pictures (and I'd never heard of Dale Earnhardt before he
died) I thought it was in rather poor taste, but I couldn
PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Questionable argument, as most wives wouldn't allow you to survive long
> enough to decide its relative morality one way or another :)
>
> >
> > If I started a bidding
again, so what... This is a nonissue for me.
Jerry in Houston
-Original Message-
From: aimcompute [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 11:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[6]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
For me, it's the fact that they were offered i
William Robb wrote:
>
> For me, it still comes back to auctioning off images of a
> persons death to the highest bidder for no other reason than
> avarice. Since he has taken the eBay route to sell his pictures,
> I can only presume that he has eschewed the news media because
> he thinks he can d
ld have more ethical and moral value than this guy's auction.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:02 AM
Subject: Re[6]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
No way. That is really sick. They might as well show
pics of him in the morgue afterwards. That is the kind
of sick people they are.
> Am I the only one that thinks there is something
> really sick
> about that auction?
> William Robb
__
Do You Ya
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Doug Franklin wrote:
> I couldn't prove it without research, and maybe not then, but I could
> be persuaded to argue that societal inclinations towards voyeurism are
> inversely proportional to the amount of actual "going out and sensing
> first-hand" the society enjoys. And,
Sent: April 27, 2001 12:02 AM
Subject: Re[6]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Hi,
>
> it isn't _about_ journalism. Journalism comes into it because
that's
> the main situation where photographers (try to) make money out
of
> misfortune*.
>
> So when people cond
As a journalist, I can tell you that's nicer than most things people say.
You should have heard what a sweet, little old lady called me a couple of
weeks ago. :) And there I was thinking I had my horns and tail well-hidden
...
Seriously, I do hear this a lot. People expect us to put anything and
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, aimcompute wrote:
> and not wanting to make anyone upset...
>
> Sterotypically speaking I consider journalism, bad-taste, and unethical to
> be synonymous terms.
*L* I think I'll stay out the way of this thread. Let me know when the
carnage is over.
:)
chris
-
This mess
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Whatever, Bob.
> Without wanting to come across like Mafud:
> 1) At what point did this thread become about journalism? Your
> argument is
ginal Message -
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: April 26, 2001 1:57 AM
Subject: Re[4]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Hi,
>
> my purpose in using these examples is that they too are no
longer
> journ
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: April 25, 2001 12:45 PM
Subject: RE: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> THOSE PHOTOS ARE NEWSWORTHY AND I DONT FEEL EBAY SHOULD HAVE
PULLED IT.
> JCO
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> So, could someone please tell me why it's any sicker to offer this
> on eBay than to Motor racing News, Sports Illustrated, or USA Today,
> or why it's sicker than the above photos.
>
Hi Shel,
I'll have a go at it. It's sick that anyone would think the photos are
wort
is seller.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Sheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Just my opinion, but since the widow & son are still alive and could s
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of William Robb
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> After reading
Of J.
> C. O'Connell
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 1:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
>
>
> THOSE PHOTOS ARE NEWSWORTHY AND I DONT FEEL EBAY
> SHOULD HAVE PULLED IT.
> JCO
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Di
William Robb wrote:
> There is no news worthiness in these photos. It seems to me the
> guy is just trying to cash in on a tragedy. My take on this
> would be quite different if he had been trying to sell them to
> the media the day after the crash. I realize that often, non
> media people come u
body's dollars - but I'm very
interested in hearing how people justify the inconsistencies inherent
in this sort of judgement.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wednesday, April 25, 2001, 6:56:55 PM, you wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lewis, Gerald"
Hi,
in fact, a lot of people do think unhappy news photos are sick - we've
had several discussions on this very list about the ethics of
photojournalism. Strangely enough the people who seem to oppose
photographs of tragedy don't seem to oppose video or film footage of
the same subjects, or writt
- Original Message -
From: "Lewis, Gerald" <
Subject: RE: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Come on, the video version was all over the media for a week
and maybe more.
Fine, it was newsworthy for a week. It's been how long now, a
month? since the crash. This is no l
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > So, could someone please tell me why it's any sicker to offer this
> > on eBay than to Motor racing News, Sports Illustrated, or USA Today,
> > or why it's sicker than the above photos.
I'd assume, from the delay since the incident, that he's tried (and
failed) to s
I agree 100%.
Len
---
> After reading several messages about how "sick" it is to sell these
> negs and pics on eBay, I've come to wonder why that is. If the
> seller had offered these same items to a sports or racing magazine,
> a newspaper or tabloid, I don't think there'd be a question about
ED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
>
>
> << Am I the only one that thinks there is something really sick
> about that auction?
> William Robb >>
>
&
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> After reading several messages about how "sick" it is to sell
these
> negs and pics on eBay, I've come to wonder why that is. If
the
> seller had offered thes
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
I'll take a shot here Shel. I think it's probably because he's trying to
sell it
to ~someone~ vs. a publication (which would seem obviously to many,
unprofessional or opportunist
I'll take a shot here Shel. I think it's probably because he's trying to sell it
to ~someone~ vs. a publication (which would seem obviously to many,
unprofessional or opportunist)? I'm neutral.
Norm
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> After reading several messages about how "sick" it is to sell these
> neg
> "The item you requested (113812065) is invalid or no longer in our
> database. Please check the number and try again. If this message
> persists, the item has expired and is no longer available."
You're missing a digit from the URL. Tack an '8' on the end of it.
I was going to say the same, but brevity prevailed.
Cheers
At 22:24 25/04/01, Shel wrote:
>After reading several messages about how "sick" it is to sell these
>negs and pics on eBay, I've come to wonder why that is. If the
>seller had offered these same items to a sports or racing magazine,
>
After reading several messages about how "sick" it is to sell these
negs and pics on eBay, I've come to wonder why that is. If the
seller had offered these same items to a sports or racing magazine,
a newspaper or tabloid, I don't think there'd be a question about
his "sickness". Rather, I suspe
"Gary L. Murphy" wrote:
>
> Nope. It's still there.
No more -- here is current message from e-bay.
"The item you requested (113812065) is invalid or no longer in our
database. Please check the number and try again. If this message
persists, the item has expired and is no longer available."
That was weird, the auction seemed to have been pulled, then it was up
again. Maybe just an ebay glitch.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Hope" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:05 AM
S
At 20:45 25/04/01, Steve wrote:
>Hi Norm,
> Some sicko was selling negatives of the Dale Earnhart crash. Ebay
>pulled it.
They are still there, the auction runs another 5 days. The URL is
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1138120658
I can't see the problem with what he's t
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, William Robb wrote:
> Am I the only one that thinks there is something really sick
> about that auction?
No, I'm with you on that. But it's just an outcroping of what our culture
(and species?) is all about.
cynical chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis
Am I the only one that thinks there is something really sick
about that auction?
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: April 24, 2001 6:58 PM
Subject: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
&
41 matches
Mail list logo
