French Photojournalist faces criminal charges over image of Paris attack victim

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

paris_eiffel_tower

Photojournalist Maya Vidon-White is facing criminal charges over her photo of a man who was killed during the November terror attacks in Paris after the man’s family filed charges against the Paris based photographer.

Stating that the publication of the image caused the family emotional damage, press freedom advocates argue that Vidon-White has been wrongfully targeted using an “obscure” French law.

Buzzfeed reports that Vidon-White was working as a freelancer for United Press International (UPI) during the November 13th attacks. She rushed to the scene as the attacks started and documented the event. One of the many photos she took was the photo at the center of this law suit. It is a photo of emergency workers cradling a 30 year old who had been shot in the head. The victim, named by French media as Cédric G, died from his injuries.

This photo was then sent to various agencies and ultimately ended up on the pages of VSD magazine.  When the magazine hit the stands, Cédric G’s family criticised them for publishing the photograph. Two months after the publication, Vidon-White was informed that she was to be prosecuted for violating the “Guigou law” – a controversial French law which bans the publication of photos of victims on the grounds that it violates their rights to human dignity.

The “Guigou law”, named for former Justice Minister Elizabeth Guigou, was passed in 2000 in response to two events: The first was publications of photos covering the bombing attacks in Paris during the mid 90’s. In those photos, number of survivors were shown with their clothes partly blown off from the bombings.  The second event was Princess Diana’s death in 1997.

Jean Sannier, lawyer for Cédric G’s family is reported to have said that both Vidon-White and VSD violated the law by publishing the Bataclan photo on a double page spread and by not blurring out Cédric’s face.  To top that, the article was also accompanied by an interview with another man, also called Cédric. The magazine did not specify that the interview Cédric and the photographed Cédric were different peoples, leading friends to believe that Cédric G had survived the attack.

Last month, both parties appeared in a Paris court and a judge will decide tomorrow whether or not the case will go forward. While the decision is not yet made , is already raising debates over privacy and freedom of the press.

Vidon-White’s lawyer, Vincent Tolédano argues that the case should be thrown out because the law only applies to victims who are still alive. Therefore it does not cover the families of the deceased.  Images must also be “degrading” to the victim, and that simply being a victim, in itself, isn’t sufficient.

If the judge rules in Vidon-White’s favour tomorrow and the case is thrown out, Sannier says that the family will push for legislators to clarify that the Guigou law covers the deceased and their families. Sannier states that a decision against his client “would mean that when you’re alive, you have the right to have your image respected, and when you’re dead, you no longer have the same rights, which would be truly scandalous“.

Cédric G’s family is seeking more than $38,000 in damages from VSD and Vidon-White, as well as around $11,000 in legal fees.  In addition to this, Vidon-White may face a fine of up to approximately $17,000 if the charges stand.

I see the family’s position, and believe the magazine should possibly be held liable for the trouble caused by publishing the image and confusion and stress caused by the accompanying interview, but I don’t see how any of this should be Vidon-White’s problem.

She wasn’t the one who decided how the image was used, or in what context, and there doesn’t seem to have been any derogatory or malicious intent when she created the photographs.  What do you think?  Let us know in the comments.

[via The Verge]


Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

John Aldred

John Aldred

John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 responses to “French Photojournalist faces criminal charges over image of Paris attack victim”

  1. Goot Avatar
    Goot

    if this goes through….is france the european equivalent of north korea?

    sue the magazins who printed without blurring….. but the photographer?

  2. Theuns Verwoerd Avatar
    Theuns Verwoerd

    “I see the family’s position, and believe the magazine should possibly be held liable for the trouble caused by publishing the image and confusion and stress caused by the accompanying interview, but I don’t see how any of this should be Vidon-White’s problem.

    She wasn’t the one who decided how the image was used, or in what context, and there doesn’t seem to have been any derogatory or malicious intent when she created the photographs.”

    Who owned the copyright to these images? You would argue that the owner of the images is not responsible for the uses they authorise of them?

    1. Kaouthia Avatar
      Kaouthia

      Do you know many press photographers who get to pre-approve every article their images will accompany?

    2. John Aldred Avatar

      Do you know many press photographers that get to pre-approve every article their images accompany then? :)

    3. Theuns Verwoerd Avatar
      Theuns Verwoerd

      Does that matter? They pre-approve every image they release.

    4. John Aldred Avatar

      Of course it matters. Context is everything.

  3. David Clunie Avatar
    David Clunie

    frankly this is appealing. I mean, I somewhat understand the position in that yes it was horrible to find out your loved one was no longer with you, but grow a thicker skin. Hate to tell ya everyone is going to die at somepoint. You think lee harvey oswald family sued the photographer who took that iconic photo, or did the Kennedy family sue they guy who took the video of Kennedy getting shot? No. This is history and should be treated as such. People now a days are so quick to try and get money out of others so they don’t have to do jack squat. Its annoying. Celebrate your loved ones life don’t see to gain on their loss. sheesh!. (my two cents btw)

    1. Sean Avatar
      Sean

      you mean appalling, right? LOL. Don’t think the article “appeals” to me. :) sorry…had to say it..

    2. Arthur P. Dent Avatar
      Arthur P. Dent

      The Zapruder film of Kennedy’s assassination is not a video. It’s a film, shot on Super-8 film.

  4. Arthur_P_Dent Avatar
    Arthur_P_Dent

    This case is absolutely frivolous. It sounds like the photo truly illustrated what was happening, plus it also showed that someone was caring for that man in his last moments. If it’s out in public it is legally fair game. For a country associated with the Enlightenment, France’s laws are highly unenlightened.

  5. Sean Avatar
    Sean

    The magazine should NOT have blurred the photo, nor should the photographer OR publication be held on any criminal charges. The family should be more than welcome to sue but making it criminal is ludicrous and goes in the face of freedom of the press. They didn’t even identify the victim by name. If it were my relative I would WANT people to see what the scumbags did to him. He was not a criminal and he should be remembered as a victim. There is no shame it that. But wait..this is France we are talking about and I remember that they have and always will have their heads up there asses about common sense. So as Rosanne Rosanna Danna would say..”Never mind!”.

  6. mike Avatar
    mike

    I thought street photography in France was illegal. Also, isn’t the photo of the tower illegal as well?

  7. Arthur P. Dent Avatar
    Arthur P. Dent

    The update on the story is that the judge, in a fit of common sense, dropped the charges. https://fstoppers.com/legal/charges-dropped-against-french-photographer-131899