by Rebecca Ambrose
Photojournalism is one of the most important branches of storytelling. Its ability to portray the truth and provide clear context to stories means that this area of news journalism can make a story more tangible and provide further depth for those consuming the media. At its heart, photojournalism should provide a raw, honest and impartial account of whatever the subject is – this is the basic ethical premise of being a photojournalist. However, while a journalist should not edit the reality or shy away from the truth, deliberately sharing certain types of images in the public sphere is unethical. The main issue we will be looking at today revolves around the commodification of sexual assault and the clear identification of victims of sexual assault (especially children), contrary to Unicef’s guidelines on the ethical reporting about children.
The articles listed below highlight this important issue. Further details can be found in the link(s) underneath each summary.
How Souvid Datta’s unethical behaviour is exposing photojournalism’s lack of ethics
The Nihilsentimentalgia photography blog by Sofia Silva featured this article in 2017 with the crux being the summary and commentary on Souvid Datta’s photographing of an apparent child sex slave. It makes for startling reading; not only did he capture a photograph of what appears to be a young teen being raped by an older man, but also the image composition clearly allows for identification of the abused child, yet the man’s privacy is maintained. As Silva states: “not only is the girl being exploited in real life, now she’s also exploited through the photographer’s gaze and, as a consequence, through everyone else’s gaze.”
Alarmingly, this photo was then used to promote a photo-contest by Magnum Photos and LensCulture; Facebook users following those social media pages and others who received targeted ads for the competition saw this image as the one advertising the Magnum Photography Awards – One of the best opportunities for photographers around the world to get recognition for their work. Don’t miss out! – and then the clear image of “[redacted], 16, with a drunken client” underneath.
The image was eventually removed after an outcry, with the companies involved appearing to absolve themselves of responsibility in their initial statements.
Silva’s post also contains references to some of the below articles.
How Souvid Datta’s unethical behaviour is exposing photojournalism’s lack of ethics:
https://nihilsentimentalgia.com/2017/05/07/how-souvid-dattas-unethical-behavior-is-exposing-photojournalisms-lack-of-ethics/
Outcry Over Photo Showing The Face Of A Girl Allegedly Being Raped: https://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/05/09/outcry-over-photo-showing-the-face-of-a-girl
Photographer Souvid Datta Appears to Have Plagiarised Mary Ellen Mark
Datta came in for further admonition when it was revealed he had plagiarised work by photojournalist and documentary photographer Mary Ellen Mark. U.S. photographer Mark spent time in the ‘70s photographing prostitutes in India’s red-light districts.
Shreya Bhat, a social worker in Bangalore, India, thought there was an unusual similarity between one of the images from Datta’s series titled “In the Shadows of Kolkata”, documenting the cycle of sexual violence among prostituted adults and children in Sonagachi, Kolkata, India — Sonagachi is one of the largest red light districts in South Asia – and Mark’s image titled “Transvestites getting dressed in a courtyard. Falkland Road, Bombay, India”. Bhat e-mailed PetaPixel who then broke the story. Datta initially declined to comment.
Datta’s image was of a young female getting ready (in what appears to be a brothel) with the blurb detailing a ‘veteran sex worker’ getting ready in the background. However, the person in the background was clearly cut from Mark’s decades old photo – there is no doubt when the images are put side-by-side. Datta eventually did comment (to TIME magazine), saying that the actual girl’s mentor had not wanted to be identified, admitting that he had then included the superimposed image in their place. He continued by saying that his blurb had not stated that all aspects of the work were his own. However, he had not made this explicitly clear either.
This revelation of Bhat’s led another photographer to come forward, also claiming that Datta had shared this person’s work as his own; Daniele Volpe accused Datta of sharing two images on his Facebook page, with the blurbs misrepresenting both the context of the photos and the actual photographer.
Datta’s admission to TIME has him acknowledging that he did in fact infringe on other photographers’ work, and doctored images, but it is unclear how many other instances of this may have happened.
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/03/photographer-souvid-datta-appears-plagiarized-mary-ellen-mark/
And the award for World Press Photo predator goes to…
Benjamin Chesterton has been an important voice in highlighting a variety of instances of unethical behaviour in photojournalism. In this post he focused on Italian photographer Marco Gualazzini.
Multi-award winner Gualazzani was a finalist for a further accolade when Chesterton wrote his piece, bringing attention to the fact that the series Gualazzini had entered into the WPP contest included images of “fully identifiable Indian women and children who [Gualazzini] claimed had been raped. In India (as in the UK) it is illegal to take and publish photos of a child survivor of sexual abuse.” In certain parts of India being identified as a survivor of sexual abuse has resulted in women and children being murdered.
One of the images was of a ten year old girl who had allegedly been raped repeatedly by her father. A ten year old who clearly could not give informed consent on being included (and easily identifiable) in this photo series. Nevertheless, Gualazzini published the series anyway.
Eventually, he took down the photos of the children, but kept some up – one even made him a finalist in the KL Photo awards. His blurb stated “Talat Khan is an 18-year old Muslim girl who was married off at the age of 13 to settle her father’s gambling debts. The marriage soon degenerated into continual abuse and domestic rape on the part of her husband…” It later became know that it was all apparently untrue.
At some point, Talat’s mother was shown the picture on an Instagram post which she commented:
“What he’s written about Talat is wrong. The rape is not true. He should not have written it. It’s very wrong. If he comes in front of me I’ll put him to sleep (teach him a lesson). He is making fun of us.”
Talat’s mother was upset, angry and ashamed. Gualazzini’s actions could have got Talat killed.
https://www.duckrabbit.info/blog/2019/04/and-the-award-for-world-press-photo-predator-goes-to/
Olivia Arthur – now can we talk about Magnum Photos and child abuse?
Chesterton followed up on the Magnum Photos issues (from the first summary) by writing an open letter to photographer Olivia Arthur (then President of the company).
He claimed that he had brought up the issue that Magnum Photos were profiting from images of child sexual abuse (again) months before, but many such images were still for sale on their online store. He also wrote about how disgusting it was that the countless images in question featured captions about underage girls ‘working’ as prostitutes, as if rape is work, and a genuine choice by these children.
After the intense fallout from the Datta debacle a few years before, significant questions arose about why the photojournalism community felt that such images were still appropriate:
“Even a cursory look at photographic work produced over the last five years will turn up at least half a dozen examples of work where children have arguably been exploited, put at risk, and/or child protection laws may have been broken. Where is the clear, unequivocal and guiding response from leaders in the industry, both condemning such images and providing leadership in fostering change? Can we say with confidence that we even know how to spot photos that are problematic and require further inquiry?” Robert Godden – Witness (World Press Photo)
At that time (the photo contest issue happened in 2017) Magnum Photos were one of the few companies to respond, stating: “The protection of vulnerable and abused children is of paramount importance to Magnum Photos…”, yet in 2021 they still had pictures of child sexual abuse for sale on their site. Andy Day, photographer and writer, wrote on Fstoppers: “The archive of Magnum Photos features numerous photographs of child sex workers, many of whom were photographed without their knowledge. Several of these photographs are sexually explicit, featuring nudity and encounters with clients. These images may constitute acts of child sexual abuse.”
The Duckrabbit Twitter account also pointed out that: “the archive has a huge number of identifiable children forced into sexual abuse. Some with hands up trying to hide their identity. All in the developing world. No US. No UK pics. In the UK (sic) if you did this you would be arrested.”
Magnum Photos maintained that they were investigating the claims, and took them ‘very seriously’. However, images related to the issue continued to be available online (on Magnum’s and partner sites) for a notable time afterwards.
Médecins Sans Frontières condemned for ‘profiting from exploitative images’
When for-profit organisations use exploitative images, it is horrendous, but when an international medical charity makes this decision, it is mind boggling. Those tasked with protecting and helping the vulnerable end up being the ones putting lives in danger by sharing such images.
An open letter sent to the international president and MSF board by almost 50 signatories, including current and former staff, alleges that the aid organisation has commissioned, published and allowed the sale of photographs that endanger and exploit vulnerable black people, including children. MSF removed one image of a young clearly identifiable girl from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who had allegedly been gang-raped. The issues brought up in the letter were not only the fact that children’s identities were not being protected but the signatories were also concerned about MSF’s “disproportionate use of black and brown children in photographs in order to do fundraising”.
An MSF spokesman said its work with photographers was done to raise awareness of under-reported crises: “MSF does not profit from those stock image sales. In most agreements we have with photographers, there is an understanding that they will keep the copyright and will be able to publish or sell their stories and images. The aim is to highlight neglected crises as widely as possible – along with the stories of those involved, where they consent.”
Magnum photographer defends images of a teenage gang rape victim after humanitarian organisation removes them from its website
The photographer of the aforementioned photo of the girl from the Democratic Republic of the Congo defended her choice of subject and composition, plus its use on the MSF website.
Iranian photojournalist Newsha Tavakolian travelled to the DRC on a four week assignment for the medical charity in 2021. Once aAgain, it was queried how could these children possibly have wilfully and knowledgeably consented to how these images would be used. Photographer Jason Tanner, a human rights photographer and teacher who has previously worked for MSF, said to The Art Newspaper: “These images will exist, in perpetuity, on the web, identifying them as child survivors of rape. How does a child, in Ituri [DRC], fully understand that? Does MSF not believe these stories can be told without resorting to images of fully identifiable child survivors of rape?”
However, Tavakolian herself claims the images were made in full collaboration with the girl. The 16 year old apparently has no parents and is the guardian for her younger siblings. There was no one to ask permission from, Tavakolian says. She does admit though that she worried about the ethics behind the picture: “For me, this is more about empathy. Should I tell her to walk back home without having told her story because she had no parents to give her consent? No. By my judgment she was powerful and strong and wanted to speak out and tell her story.”