Should the Guy Who Shot this Photo Get Fired?
Apparently I wasn't the only one who was amused to see this picture of a skier in Vale, Colorado. It was taken by Marty Odem, a photographer who works for a company that makes shots of skiers at the Vail Mountain ski lifts--those little souvenir shots that everyone loves. Odem caught this poor ski as he slipped and was luckily secured to the lift by his own pants. Less luckily, for him at least, was that his privates were exposed. Odem's photo was a sensation on the internet.
Now Odem fears that he will be fired from his job. The company he works for has already suspended him for invading the privacy of the man in the picture. Odem says he was shooting on his day off and shooting with his own camera.
Does he deserve to be unemployed? --David Schonauer
No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
His boss should chill out a bit!
After all, the Photographer DID put a "Star" in the right place...
In a quality rag, the photographer can sell publishing rights to other rags and make a few $$$s too. Maybe Halmark Cards may want it. ;-)
Posted by: Peter Arbib | January 12, 2009 at 04:49 PM
he should hope he gets fired. so he can then sue them.
Posted by: Anon | January 12, 2009 at 06:00 PM
It's spelled Vail, not Vale, you screeching cunt stane.
Posted by: reverbhook | January 12, 2009 at 06:28 PM
Much To Do About Nothing.
However It Is Always A Very Good Idea To Get Permission When You Expose A Shot Of People, Of Any
Kind To The Public. That Way If Your Boss Complains,You Have Your Bases Covered.And Avoids Law Suites.
A Good Way To Get His Or Her(The subject) Permission ,Is To Offer to Share Part Of The Money That The Image Earns!!
Posted by: Jim Peters | January 12, 2009 at 06:52 PM
I can't see how they can fire him for shooting on his own time. I'm thinking the lawyers are lining up as I type this in the event that they do sack him.
Posted by: Jeff | January 12, 2009 at 09:08 PM
Why?
The people who published it...and especially the people who put it on TV and then went on and on about how inappropriate it was...but left it on for all the viewers to see...those are the ones to get fired>
Posted by: mrsammy7 | January 12, 2009 at 09:43 PM
Should a company be allowed to fire somebody for engaging in damaging activities in their off hours? Absolutely. However, I think that firing him could potentially attract a the type of media storm that could hurt their business. That photo looks like it exposes some safety issues with the ski lift equipment.
Posted by: Eric Hamilton | January 12, 2009 at 09:59 PM
Hell No! He should not be fired! Even if he was working that day. He has every right to take and then display whatever imagery he wishes on that mountain.
Marty better win this one!
-jd-
www.jdittmarphoto.com
Posted by: Jesse Dittmar | January 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Who is that silly looking guy, a hanging from the chair? Looks like the camera chap below, protected him up there. The photog could have shown his face from front, I bet it was a glow. Instead he showed the world enough to save the fella shame. If someone asked me who he was, I'd have to say, don't know. The guy could be most anyone perhaps his name is Joe. A kindly man I'm sure he is, his friends might call him Slick. Forbid at birth his name was chosen, and now they call him Dick.
My curiosity is, who skies without underduds?
Posted by: d m farr | January 14, 2009 at 02:07 AM
You Americans are funny - or maybe crazy? What's the problem with that picture - it's quite funny and very unusual. We all get some kind of genitals, so why bother. You are happy to show people getting their brains blown out by some Hollywood hero - but shitscared of some nudity. Hypocrisy!!
Jan O. Edman
Photographer & Writer
Toulaud, France
Posted by: Jan O. Edman | January 14, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Dear Anon,
Before you cast stones at others for their spelling, perhaps you should break out the dictionary yourself. It is spelled "stain" not "stane".
As far as the photographer getting fired, I say no. Everyone is in a public place therefore there is "no expected right to privacy" making the photograph legal in every aspect. Don't want your willy photographed, wear a better belt or don't go skiing! :)
Posted by: Glass Houses | January 14, 2009 at 07:45 PM
It's cold out there but thats one tiny star...
Posted by: Jandon | January 16, 2009 at 01:48 PM
"...he showed the world enough to save the fella shame."
Those who accept that there is "shame" somehow involved in the exposure, accidental or not, of one's genitals, NEEDS SERIOUS COUNSELLING. (I guess this includes literally millions of Americans who seem permanently stuck in some kind of a PRE-PUBESCENT never-never land.)
It is a clear sign of IMMATURITY to consider any part of the human body, exposed or not, as something to either hide, be ashamed of, or laugh/titter at. PLEASE GROW UP before logging onto the internet and posting childish nonsense. Thank you.
Posted by: R. Earl | January 20, 2009 at 09:10 AM
Yes, I believe he does. He's a professional associated with the resort. Shooting and distributing it showed a lack of personal and professional judgment.
Posted by: Kimberly | January 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM