Wrong or Not: People selling pictures of 9/11 and other tragedies?

[SpyderEdgeForever]

What do you all think of this? I was told that there are people offering actual pictures of the destruction of the World Trader Center Towers from September 11th, 2001, mostly foreign nationals and others who are trying to make a quick buck from it. Do you all consider this to be wrong, or, just another sale of historical images? Is it also wrong for people to sell images of car wrecks, train wrecks, and other forms of carnage?

Personally, it does sicken me that someone would do this. I do believe it is ethical to sell and display such images IF the motive is to educate people, expose evil attacks, and try to prevent such things in the future.

This is my opinion, and you are all welcome to your own.

[Blerv]

I guess there is a market for sociopaths but I doubt it's a profitable one.

[Sequimite]

I find the photos of the Pearl Harbor attack to be very interesting because I'm a history nut. At some point in the future the 9/11, indeed all photos of tragic events will outlive the emotions of those who were alive at the time.

At this point in time I'm less likely to bash some entrepreneurial clown then I am almost any TV news program, because the latter feign public interest motivation while milking the public taste for the tragic and tawdry for every last dime.

[Evil D]

There are two perspectives here.

1. Making money off a horrible event. Of course, this is wrong no matter how you look at it. I think selling anything related should at least have a large percentage of the profit donated to some worthy charity.

and

2. Being a photographer and making money off your trade. Love it or hate it, history needs photographers and events like this need to be well documented for the sake of history. But again, there's making a living through making photographic records of an event, and then there's selling mass produced prints just to appeal to peoples' soft side and cashing in.

Either way, karma never sleeps.

[Blerv]

The news breeds drama and fear reporting a VERY bias perspective on life. On that token they are no better and perhaps even worse because they claim to be an advocate for truth.

[D1omedes]

There are two perspectives here.

1. Making money off a horrible event. Of course, this is wrong no matter how you look at it. I think selling anything related should at least have a large percentage of the profit donated to some worthy charity.

and

2. Being a photographer and making money off your trade. Love it or hate it, history needs photographers and events like this need to be well documented for the sake of history. But again, there's making a living through making photographic records of an event, and then there's selling mass produced prints just to appeal to peoples' soft side and cashing in.

Either way, karma never sleeps.

Evil sums it up nicely. I am a historian and understand the need for such images to survive. 9/11 is no exception. Having been born and raised in NY and having connections to some who perished that day, I can also understand the raw emotions still tied to those events and the sense of profiteering that surrounds the sale of such images. It's a tightrope that will continue to be crossed.

Just a side comment - why do we not ask the same question to pictures of violence in the Congo, in Gaza, in Afghanistan, in Sudan, etc.? I'm sure those individuals don't fully appreciate seeing images of their neighbors or relatives possibly captured and sold without any permission or compensation.

[The Deacon]

To me, it would depend on whether the party selling the photo has a legitimate right to them. If they do, then I see nothing wrong with it. If they don't then it's theft of intellectual property, invasion of privacy, or both, and thus wrong. OTOH, I'd question the mental state of anyone purchasing some of those items.

[tonydahose]

If i saw someone wearing a shirt with the twin towers in flames ( i have seem pics of them) i would probably try to knock them out.

[Bladekeeper]

Evil sums it up nicely. I am a historian and understand the need for such images to survive. 9/11 is no exception. Having been born and raised in NY and having connections to some who perished that day, I can also understand the raw emotions still tied to those events and the sense of profiteering that surrounds the sale of such images. It's a tightrope that will continue to be crossed.

Just a side comment - why do we not ask the same question to pictures of violence in the Congo, in Gaza, in Afghanistan, in Sudan, etc.? I'm sure those individuals don't fully appreciate seeing images of their neighbors or relatives possibly captured and sold without any permission or compensation.

That is right one innocent mans suffering is as tragic as the next I haven't and won't look but if anything other than a journalist whom is paid to report makes $ it should go to victims.
I was on a train going through France and found a folder full of pictures of genocide in Africa in the 90s I left them on the train .
It often crosses my mind I should of handed them in although I was just shocked by what I saw and just left them and got off at my station.
I since learned hardly any pictures from this got out and wondered what the person went through to do so a bit ot but IMO there's a line which shouldn't be crossed.
Edit : in terms of history out living the emotion of the event eg pearl harbour.
I regularly watch documentaries on ww2.
And am not ashamed to say I shed a tear for the tales the old soldiers tell.
My grandfather died in a Japanese pow camp in Burma nearly escaped too.

[jzmtl]

It's no different from the many other historical events you can buy photos of in the grand scheme of things.

But do you have any actual examples of this by "mostly foreign nationals", or is this one of those "I heard from my friend's brother's uncle's dog" kind of thing?