Ethics in Photography

When the world saw the very first photographs, the idea of being able to capture the world as we
see it took off rapidly. In a relatively short period of time, film photography evolved from black
and white to color photography. From there, it made motion pictures possible, allowing us to see
the world from our couches at home. When the first digital camera was invented, little did the
inventors know that it would later revolutionize the world of photography and media in general.
Today, billions of images are captured and shared between people and the number of image
recording devices is growing at a rapid, unstoppable rate. There are cameras literally everywhere
– in our mobile phones, homes, computers, cars and even in wearables like eyeglasses and
watches. We trust these devices to give us a glimpse of reality, documented moments of time that
we can go back to and review. And yet with the fast growth, ease of access and use of image and
video manipulation tools, we have been seeing more footage that can twist reality: whether we
are looking at popular magazine covers, Internet sites or news media, the imagery we see is
getting harder and harder to trust, since it is being altered, faked or staged. Media turned out to
be a powerful tool to influence and manipulate people, which brings up the question and the
importance of ethics in photography. Should photography only be allowed to display reality, or is
it acceptable to alter images for presentation purposes? And if manipulation is acceptable, what
are its limits, if any? These are very hard questions to answer, but with some common sense, we
can create a set of ethical rules and guidelines that should help photographers in determining
what’s acceptable and what’s not.

In this article, I do not want to get into the depth of the discussion of ethics in media, since it is a
huge topic on its own and does not belong to a photography site. Instead, I will focus on specific
types of photography and the practices we should follow. Please keep in mind that most of the
thoughts in this article are based on my opinion and experience. If you disagree with any of
them, please state your thoughts in the comments section below in a kind matter, so that we can
have a friendly discussion that benefits everyone.

Table of Contents

 Image Theft
 Photo Plagiarism
 Photo Manipulation
o Documentary, News and Reportage
o Portrait and Fashion Photography
o Nature Photography
o Travel Photography
o Drone Photography
 The Ethics of Photography Competitions
 The Ethics of Feeding Wildlife

1) Image Theft
With billions of photographs being available so widely all over the Internet, it is not uncommon
to see not only individuals, but also companies using other people’s work for their own benefit.
In some cases, theft is loud and clear, with images being used without any permission; and in
other cases, images are “borrowed” to be altered and manipulated to create something different.
No matter how it is done, theft is still theft and it should not be ever welcomed in any shape or
form. How would you feel if someone stole your images that you post in common social media
platform like Instagram, printed them out and sold them for thousands of dollars without sharing
any of the money with you? If you have never heard of Richard Prince, check out his website
and his gallery:

Richard Prince’s Gallery, comprised of Instagram images that were taken, printed and sold
without permission

Yup, he does exactly that: steals other people’s work, prints them and sells as his own “artwork”.
One could argue that he “repurposes” some of the images and that may be true in some cases
where he significantly transforms an image to something completely different. But even then, he
should be requesting permission from the original source first and even after receiving
permission, he should clearly state in his artwork that his work was based on someone else’s idea
or images. The worst part is, some people (including himself), believe that he is a true artist and
he has every right to do what he does. In my books, this guy is nothing more than a thief!

2) Photo Plagiarism

What about situations, where a photographer borrows another photographer’s idea and
perspective to get a very similar, if not identical shot? Now this one is a topic of endless debates,
one capable of sparking huge arguments on both sides of the game. As photographers, we often
have our own knowledge, skills and experiences to create something unique that has never been
done before, at least to our knowledge. It could be finding a particular subject, angle,
composition, subject placement, or perhaps specific use of colors and tones to create something
original. Is it acceptable to re-capture such images, taking inspiration from the original author?
And if it is acceptable, should permissions be asked and credit provided? I think the answer
depends on a number of factors. If an image is copied exactly one-to-one, using the same angle,
perspective, composition, subject and colors, making it look identical to the source, then it is a
clear sign of plagiarism and it should never be welcomed.

However, there are certain exceptions. For example, in landscape photography (covered in detail
below), there are situations when one photographer can find and popularize a unique spot where
certain angles and shapes work very well. Throughout history, there have been many such
images – for example, Ansel Adams made the Snake River overlook very popular at the Grand
Teton National Park:

Ansel Adams – The Tetons and the Snake River

Copyright Ansel Adams, Image Source: Wikipedia

And since then, countless images have been taken with a very similar perspective and angle by
other photographers. Does it mean that they should be crediting the source every single time?
This is a hard question when it comes to ethics, because landscapes change all the time and if
one photographer does manage to capture an image one way, chances of capturing another image
with exactly the same light, cloud formation, vegetation and color are fairly slim, even if exactly
the same composition is used. In the case of the above photo from Ansel Adams, since he has
captured the shot at the Grand Tetons, many trees have grown and fallen and even the snake river
most likely slightly changed its shape and looks a bit different today. Does it mean that other
photographers should not be taking the shot with a similar composition? I don’t think so – I
believe it is perfectly acceptable for others to capture images of popular spots, provided they are
not deliberately trying to make an exact replica of the shot of the original author, with the intent
to copy it. Now if someone edited the trees to look exactly like the ones in Ansel Adams’
original shot, turned it into black and white with the same aspect ratio, similar shades and cloud
formations, then it could be considered as deliberate plagiarism.

However, landscape photography almost feels like a different beast when it comes to plagiarism.
While using the same subject, perspective and composition are often acceptable in landscapes,
attempting to do the same thing in other types of photography, such as portraiture and fashion
photography, is an inevitable path to plagiarism. For example, if we look at the work of Tyler
Shields, we can see many of his images were borrowed ideas from other existing works. Take a
look at some of the examples:

Left: Tyler Shields, 2015, Right: Irving Penn, 1986

Image Source: Vice.com

In this image, we can clearly see that Tyler Shields attempted to copy the work of Irving Penn,
by making a very similar image. The idea is the same, the crop is the same. However, he did
change a few patterns, adjusted colors and made a slightly different image. Does it mean that his
work is original? Of course not – it was clearly based on someone else’s work. There is nothing
original about this piece. And yet Tyler Shields never credited Irving Penn for inspiration in
creating this photograph. Let’s take a look at a different image of Tyler Shields:
Left: Tyler Shields, 2015, Right: Henry Leutwyler, 2012
Image Source: Vice.com

We can clearly see the pattern of a copy-cat. Again, the same idea of bruised legs of a ballerina
standing straight up and only showing the affected area. One side has a shoe, the other does not.
He attempted to make his work appear different and original by swapping the shoe, having
different bandages and bruises, but nevertheless, it is still not an original idea by any means. In
this case, if Tyler Shields used Henry Leutwyler’s work for inspiration, he should have given
him proper credit.

In some cases, images can indeed look very similar by coincidence. And when it does happen, it
would be truly a “one-off” case. However, if you look at the many works of Tyler Shields, you
will see that the above are not cases of coincidence or sheer luck. He deliberately borrowed other
people’s ideas and executed them in a similar fashion to make a name for himself.

Sadly, in the world of social media, plagiarism is almost inevitable. Photographers steal ideas
from other photographers all the time and some do a very good job at it too, often succeeding
more than the original author, as in the case of people like Tyler Shields and Richard Prince.
There is nothing ethical about what they do and I would discourage all of our readers from
repeating the same mistakes…

3) Photo Manipulation

Let’s now expand the topic of ethics in photography to photo manipulation. How much
manipulation should be allowed and what are the limits? Photography purists will argue that
photographs should never be altered in any way – that they should retain their originality. Some
even argue that cropping should be a prohibited practice. On the other side of the extreme, we’ve
got people who take no shame in severely manipulating images, sometimes in order to influence
people’s minds, alter their perceptions or their opinions. Is there a sweet middle that satisfies
photography ethics? I believe there is, but it is not an easy answer by any means – we need to
look at each photography genre in detail, as it is a very complex topic.

3.1) Documentary, News and Reportage

Today, news outlets rely more than they ever have on images and footage provided by the public.
Although the most popular media outlets try to have their own staff provide media, it is not
always possible, particularly in areas of conflict and inaccessible war zones. When the public
sees such footage, there is an immediate level of trust in what they see. As a result, such content
can play a huge role in shaping up public opinion, potentially even influencing their future
decisions. Because of the importance and the potential influence of such documentary footage, it
is only ethical when such imagery is provided without ANY manipulation whatsoever.

This includes documentary photography, news and reportage of any kind, which in my opinion
also includes street photography. When we see images of people, affected or unaffected, we want
to believe in what we see. Such images become historical records and we cannot allow them to
be manipulated. Take a look at some of the altered images that have appeared in media in the
past:

Left: altered image showing four missiles in the air. Right: The original image that shows only
three missiles in the air

At the time the image was taken, it was probably unacceptable for the Iranian state media to
present only three missiles in the air, with one looking like it failed to launch, so the image was
altered in Photoshop to make it look like all four rockets took off. In addition, a smaller car seen
behind the rocket launching vehicle was also removed from the image to remove the unnecessary
distractions.

Here is another image by Brian Walski, which was heavily altered to make a single composite
from two different images:
Top Two Images: Original images, as shot by Brian Walski. Bottom Image: Digitally
manipulated composite by Brian Walski

Sadly, Brian Walski thought that it would be a good idea to make a composite image from the
two images to “improve composition” and thought it was acceptable for him to make such heavy
edits. In some cases, people that practice such manipulations should be persecuted in court,
especially if a photograph is used as any form of propaganda to lie about the actual facts.

We can see many examples like the above two all over the world. If you want to see some of the
best examples of altered images in history, check out this website by the Bronx Documentary
Center – you will find some shocking examples of altered images, some of which were used to
manipulate the public.

It is clear that such documentary photography and footage should never be allowed to be
manipulated. The good news is, those who get caught often get fired and potentially even jailed
for doing it, but I bet there are far more cases where things go by unseen. If photographers
destroyed their original images and only left the original footage, they would leave it up to public
to decide whether their work is authentic or not. It is very uncomfortable to think that people
would do such things, but sadly, it does happen.

What about cropping images? I believe that cropping should only be allowed, if the cropped out
area does not represent area of interest to the viewer and does not change the meaning of the
photograph after the fact. This can be tricky to determine, so if there is even a slight doubt that
cropping would change the message in any way, then it should be avoided at all costs.

3.2) Portrait and Fashion Photography

Portrait photography, and specifically fashion photography, is without a doubt one of the most
Photoshop-influenced genres of photography today. Practically every image you look at today on
the cover of every magazine is digitally altered. In some cases, changes are very subtle, but in
most cases, people go through complete transformations, making them look drastically different
compared to the reality. Such retouching changes are so common today, that they are now widely
accepted as a “normal” practice to make the model or celebrity look flawless. So where is the
fine line between what should be considered ethical and what should not? That’s another tough
one to answer, because there will be people defending both sides heavily.

Personally, I believe that retouching should be acceptable, but with certain restrictions. While
adjusting colors & contrast, fixing skin blemishes, removing excessive hair and taking care of
wardrobe mishaps should be allowed, altering someone’s physique and general appearance
should be prohibited. Consider the following photograph of Angelina Jolie:

Left: Image as Captured by the camera, Right: After retouching in Photoshop

To me, this is the borderline of what should be allowed. The retoucher removed all skin
blemishes from her face and made the skin of the actress look flawlessly smooth, which as we
know, is almost never the case. However, facial features do not seem to be drastically altered, as
in the below image of Kelly Clarkson:
Left: Image as captured by the camera, Right: Heavily manipulated image, showing drastic
changes in body appearance of Kelly Clarkson

Here, the retoucher went to the extreme – eyebrows and eyes changed, face shape altered, body
shape altered, especially towards the lower body. This is an example of heavy retouching that
should not be allowed. This kind of imagery takes us away from the reality, making our youth
believe that people can look as perfect as they do in the magazine covers. These are not the
ideals to pursue and this kind of “fake” beauty should not be welcomed by the public.

Having assisted my wife in photographing weddings, I have come across a number of brides,
bridesmaids and other people, who made special requests to make them look thinner in
photographs via Photoshop. Although my wife certainly did experiment with such capabilities
and knew very well how to use specific tools such as “Liquify”, she found it quite frustrating to
agree to such requests. Not only because it is a lot of work, but also because it is just not right –
people should not assume that such practices should be commonly acceptable. Overtime, she
learned how to position the subjects better and capture them at particular angles that made them
look slimmer, but she completely stopped heavy digital manipulations that made the person look
different than they were in reality.

3.3) Nature Photography

Humans are drawn by the sheer beauty of wild and mysterious nature. Having witnessed it in real
life, we know that nature can present itself in vibrant and beautiful colors especially during those
peak golden hours, and at the same time can really impact our moods with those gloomy, cloudy
days. So when we immerse ourselves in a photograph with a stunning landscape, we always
make the assumption that we see the reality: we want to believe that the photographer was there
at that right moment of time to capture the natural beauty. While we can make assumptions about
the fake nature of photographs of celebrities in magazines, we practically never make such
assumptions on images of nature. Why is that? I have been pondering about this question for a
while and I think the answer to the question is quite simple – we want to believe in nature being
as beautiful as it is presented to us. We look at nature as something raw, innocent, something that
has not been corrupted by the humanity.

The moment we are introduced to a nature photograph that clearly looks unrealistic, or worse
yet, when we discover that a photograph that we perceived as real was in fact not, it leaves us
with a feeling of distrust towards the photographer. We feel cheated and faked.

Take a look at the two images below, one straight out of my camera, and one after I slaughtered
the hell out of it in Photoshop:

Five years ago I thought that my edit looked “cool and dramatic”, although I knew upfront that it
looked very fake. Without moisture or cloud formations in the air, the sky could have never be
that colorful! And yet at the time, I thought it was a cool effect to use on an image, giving it
more of an “artistic” feel. I often make fun of myself with this particular photograph in my
workshops, because I want others to see that we all go through the stages of experimentation and
it is perfectly OK to try out things. I would never make this image as part of my portfolio and
would never present it in a gallery, because it skews reality and presents nature in its most
unrealistic form.

Here is another image that really upset some of our readers when I posted it:

Total Lunar Eclipse Composite

Although it is pretty clear that the image is a composite, people got really upset that I copy-
pasted the different phases of the moon to a completely different scene. For this composite, I
photographed the moon on its own, then moved to another location after the eclipse was over in
order to capture a more attractive foreground, which I later used as a backdrop panorama for the
arcing moon. I wrote about what I did to the image in detail in my “how was this picture made”
article, where I explained the process in detail, for the purpose of education. The above image is
not something I would ever claim as real – in fact, I purposefully made it look fake (the moon
never arcs like shown in the image), so that it was clear from the image itself. This is another
image that I would never display at a nature gallery, because nothing about it represents the
reality. Sure, the moon phases are real, the landscape is real, but the two never took place
together as shown in the image.

So what kind of editing is ethically acceptable in nature photography? That’s the million dollar
question and the can of worms to open! In landscape photography, I consider it acceptable to
adjust exposure, colors, shadows, tones and contrast, to perform selective boosting / dodging and
burning, to crop images for better composition and to perform other adjustments, as long as they
don’t make the image appear too unrealistic and fake. I am not against HDR photography either
– in fact, it can be a great technique to use in order to recover data that cannot be otherwise
captured by modern camera sensors, as long as it looks natural at the end (no Grunge HDR
please!). I am not against blending techniques to bring out details from different parts of the
scene either, as long as they are not overdone. Lastly, I also find it acceptable to remove
distracting objects from the scene. Basically, I don’t mind most types of editing!

Here is an example of the type of editing that I find acceptable:

Left: RAW image without any editing, Right: Edited image using Lightroom and Photoshop

In the above case, I cropped the image to get closer to the rock, adjusted white balance of both
the foreground and the sky, added some more color to the clouds and added a bit more structure
to the clouds to make them stand out a bit more. After I was done with the basic edits, I realized
that some of the footsteps on the playa left by other photographers looked rather distracting. I
used Photoshop’s clone stamp tool to remove some of the obvious spots, to keep the scene
looking cleaner and not as distracting.

Here is another set of images from Wadi Rum that I captured last year to illustrate the point of
what I consider to be acceptable in terms of post-processing:

The changes in the “after” image are a bit more aggressive than in the previous case. Aside from
the standard editing steps like boosting contrast and colors, I removed both cars and their tracks
from the scene, since they looked too distracting. While I did not make too many changes to the
foreground, I did remove a couple of distracting elements there – take a look at the white stone in
the foreground, to the bottom left side of the frame. When I was shooting at that particular
location, I was literally jumping between rocks in order not to leave any footsteps and really
struggled to find an area that provided me a clear composition. As I was taking this photo, I
already knew that the stone on the lower left had to go, because it was incomplete and it was
pushing too far to the bottom frame. I was able to fit the dark rock on the left, but the white one
was too big to fit (you only see a portion of it in the shot). As I went through the image, I also
removed some white dots and other imperfections in the sand, since they looked a bit distracting.

Now that you have seen the type of editing I personally consider acceptable, let’s talk about the
editing practices that I would not recommend. Basically, any kind of composite imagery,
especially ones where multiple unrelated images are put together to create a dramatic scene that
never actually existed or took place, is something I consider unacceptable. Those photographs, or
rather “artworks” do not belong in nature photography or fine art galleries – they have a place of
their own. Nothing wrong with such creative photography / composites, as long as it is made
obvious by the photographer, either through the image itself, or as part of its description. Again,
the idea is not to mislead people in believing in something that does not exist.

Another big factor in ethics in our involvement, influence and impact on nature as we document
it. We have written quite a bit about this topic in the past, but sadly, it is something that
continues to happen. When I was at the Death Valley National Park just a few weeks back, I saw
an interesting scene – a young couple took their car way into the Devil’s Cornfield for one stupid
reason – to take a selfie. Sadly, people do these kinds of idiotic things all the time, thinking that
they are doing something cool, when in fact, they are destroying the landscape for others to see
and enjoy in the future. I have personally witnessed people camping at the Race Track playa at
Death Valley, and I have seen rocks removed from the playa, with the selfish intent of having
unique images that nobody else could have. We have seen Michael Fatali burn up Delicate Arch
and a few other spots in Arches and Canyonlands National Parks to capture unique photos at
night and not only for himself, but also for the workshop groups that he was teaching at the time.
And there are many cases like this that we see over and over again, with photographers doing all
kinds of damage to landscapes, all with the goal of doing something unique that was not done
before. Such acts of vandalism and selfishness are huge problems of our time, since we are
failing to learn how to share the beauty around us with the current and future generations.
For more information about ethics in nature photography, I would recommend to visit NANPA’s
website. You will find a wealth of information in regards to ethical practices when shooting in
the field.

3.4) Travel Photography

There are many ethical concerns when it comes to travel photography. Unfortunately, there are
no set rules or guidelines that apply to all countries, or cultures, tribes, groups and individuals
within them. I believe that we as photographers should do prior research about the cultures,
religions and other social norms before making decisions on who or what to photograph. Not
abiding to very specific rules provided by government authorities in countries like North Korea
could easily land you in jail there, and if you were to photograph people in particular areas of
Mexico where they perceive photographs as something that steals their souls, you could easily
get in trouble. Local laws, rules and norms should always be respected and we as photographers
hold responsibility in properly representing all other photographers. If some of us sneak in and
break the rules, it will surely affect the rest of us.

Take the recent case of a German teenager, who climbed the Great Pyramid of Giza, completely
ignoring the Egyptian law that specifically prohibits it. Climbing ancient structures in Egypt is
prohibited for a number of reasons. First, it is very unsafe. Over the course of many years, the
stone blocks have been eroding and collapsing, and many tourists have died or injured
themselves while attempting to climb in the past. Second, those sandstone blocks are not as
strong as they seem to be from a distance – imagine what will happen to those pyramids if
everyone continues to climb them. There will be nothing left for future generations to see and
enjoy.
Andrej Ciesielski illegally climbed the Great Pyramid of Giza, despite local laws that prohibit
climbing on ancient structures. The practice of photographing dangling feet with the scenery is
commonly practiced among rooftoppers, giving scale and making it seem like the photographer
is in danger.

People have been vandalizing ancient structures like this for many years and we can clearly see
the evidence today. Even on top of Giza, you will find carvings in different languages from
people who wanted to leave their own traces of history. What a selfish bunch! I personally have
little respect to daredevils like this, who break the law to promote themselves. The same goes for
rooftoppers, who only do what they do for the act of self-promotion, status and social media
“likes”. Most of them have zero respect for laws, regulations, private property or privacy – they
are known to break locks and walk into closed areas.

Aside from the above cases, there are many other ethical factors we have to consider when doing
travel photography. Is it permissible to photograph people for money? You have probably seen
pictures of fishermen with cormorants in boats, with lamps in their hands and beautiful distant
mountains in the background. Practically every single one of those photos is staged. In fact, there
is now a whole army of these fishermen, ready to model in exchange for money. That area of
China where the photographs are taken, practically has no fish left due to over-fishing and
pollution, so the traditional culture of cormorant fishing only exists today for photographic
reasons. So is it ethical for us to employ such practices? I cannot answer this question, but one
must think about both pros and cons of such actions and how they affect people. It has become
common in many parts of the world to pay people in exchange for taking their pictures. In some
popular tourist hotspots, people can be offended and even get aggressive, if you snap their photos
and forget or refuse to pay them.

What about asking for a permission before taking pictures? This applies to all kinds of portrait
photography, especially street photography. Is it acceptable to take pictures of people without
asking their permission, especially if the goal is to profit from sale of such images?

If one explores the inner world of travel photography, there are a lot of dark stories to tell and
hear. I once heard a horror story of photographers paying children to pose naked in front of a
camera (picture young monks showing their private parts), again, for the sole purpose of
capturing something unique nobody has previously photographed. I felt disgusted and saddened
to hear of such stories.

3.5) Drone Photography

In the past few years, drone photography has been really taking off. Photographers and
videographers are using drones to capture unique footage from angles and distances that are
impossible to capture otherwise. While the idea of drone photography (see our detailed tutorial)
sounds appealing to many, it does bring up a few, rather serious concerns.

Photo Copyright Spencer Cox

Drone photography is something very new and largely unregulated. Although after a number of
cases of drones posing threat to passenger and government aircraft, falling into protected areas
(remember the guy who crashed a drone into the Grand Prismatic Spring in Yellowstone?) or
crashing into buildings, the Federal Aviation Administration of the USA made it mandatory to
register drones. Aside from basic guidelines, there are still no specific laws or rules in regards to
how drones should be operated. This has been creating a huge problem for everyone, because
people are making all kinds of assumptions about what they can and cannot do. Nothing is said
about flying over private property, privacy concerns and recording footage of people or their
property. Things are getting even more complex overseas, where governments and people never
had concerns of aircraft flying over their heads and now they find themselves in dire need of
protecting their landmarks and secure zones from tourists operating drones.

Nikon Coolpix A @ 18.5mm, ISO 360, 1/1000, f/2.8

Seyðisfjörður, East Iceland. Photo Copyright Spencer Cox

Sadly, many owners operate their drones without much practice, crashing them into government
and private properties. Since drones cost a lot of money, they often end up breaking into closed
areas and trespassing in order to retrieve them, causing all kinds of aggravation from the public.

There are many ethical concerns with drone photography and I believe that this subject should be
explored in detail, as it will become more important with the growing popularity of drone
photography.

4) The Ethics of Photography Competitions

Photo competitions historically have had rather odd set of rules, often disallowing any kind of
post-processing on images. Some do not allow any retouching, while others allow very slight
changes involving color and contrast adjustments and perhaps some cropping. While I disagree
with “no editing” rules of competitions and believe that some editing to images should be
allowed, I would certainly disagree with rules allowing any kind of editing and photo
manipulations. Once you go into the “free for all” zone, photo competitions can quickly lose
their appeal. There are some real Photoshop wizards out there, who will make stunning-looking
images from images that others would consider below average. A little bit of imagination and
Photoshop drawing skills can really bring something that never existed or took place into life.
That’s not to say that such composites and artwork should not be allowed at all, but those should
be judged separately on their own, away from photography competitions.

Consider the recent case of Chai Yu Wei, a photographer from Singapore, who not only
borrowed another photographer’s idea to capture a ladder leading up to the sky, but also had the
guts to insert an airplane to the center of the image before submitting it to a competition hosted
by Nikon. Sadly, when asked, he even claimed that he was lucky to capture the plane like that. It
did not take much time for other photographers to discover that the photo was a fake:

Digitally manipulated image selected by Nikon Singapore as the winning entry in a photo contest

Nikon ended up removing the photo from its Facebook page and apologizing for selecting the
photo as the winner, and the photographer issued an apology as well. However, this particular
case will serve as another reminder on why photo manipulations like this should not be allowed.
Chai Yu Wei wanted others to believe that he was at the right moment and at the right place to
capture a photo of a plane passing by right through the center of the leading composition,
something that obviously never took place.

The same ethical guidelines apply to wildlife photography competitions as well. We have seen a
case where the photographer José Luis Rodriguez captured a photo of a wolf jumping over a
fence, stating that the image portrayed a real wild wolf that was hunting farmer’s livestock:

José Luis Rodriguez staged a tame wolf to jump over a fence and submitted the image to a
wildlife competition. He won a prestigious award, which was later recalled by judges.

It turned out that the wolf was in fact not wild and the photographer basically staged a tame wolf
to jump over the fence, while he captured it with flash at night. While this particular image was
not a composite and was not edited as the previous image, it has a huge ethical problem – lying
about an animal being wild, when it is not. If photographers are allowed to stage tame animals
for wildlife competitions, then there is no point of photographing wild animals at all: one could
capture stunning images of domesticated and tame animals, with some beautiful backgrounds.
5) The Ethics of Feeding Wildlife

There are cases where some wildlife photographers might get upset with other photographers,
who might not necessarily use a tame or a domesticated animal as in the case above, but might
feed a wild animal in order to capture unique shots. Many wildlife photographers practice such
feeding procedures and take no guilt in doing that – some of them are quite open about it as well.
Whether it is setting up bird feeders in the backyard, or putting mice in fields for those awesome
shots of predators flying towards the camera, the question of whether those acts are ethical or not
come up all the time between wildlife photographers. I will leave this one up for discussion: Do
you think it is acceptable for photographers to feed wildlife to capture unique shots? Are there
cases when such practices should be allowed?