Here's a link to the US Today story (web version - 03/12/02) on "The Afghan Girl".

http://www.usatoday.com/hear.htm

-- Bob (robljones@attbroadband.com), March 12, 2002

Answers

Thanks for the link.

It is always wonderful to see a follow-up to stories that struck an emotional chord with a large audience; and in this case the subject is thankfully still alive. All too often people are reduced to sound bites (or grab shots) just to capture the moment, never to be heard from again, bylines to history.

They did a story a few years ago on the naked Vietnamese girl running down the road with burning napalm. She's had a life full of plastic surgery to repair the damage.

A few weeks ago the NY Times had an article about cute little Olga Korbut (remember her!), a tragic outcome.

Brings things to a full circle. Sometimes our fantasies are shattered by the current reality.

Thanks again.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 12, 2002.

Thank you Bob. The difference in the face after only 17 year is amazeing. She must have had a hard life. I doubt she knows how many people have looked at her face over the years.

Same planet, different world.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 12, 2002.

So is McCurry, Nat'l Geo, et. al. going to give the girl her fair share of the proceeds that have been made off of her image.

Not bloody likely. They'll make nice for their TV show and maybe even bring her to D.C. for a PR cruise.

But a few million dollars which she certainly deserves? No way.

I don't know or care what the legal issues/rights might be. My only concern is fairness.

And for heaven sakes, can they stop exploiting the girl?

-- Jeff White (emptynest@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

Amazing story and picture.

I'd like to see a full screen size version of the original photo somewhere. Anyone know of a link?

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), March 12, 2002.

From the article: They [McCurry and NG] are also working with the family to see how they might somehow benefit, financially or otherwise, from the global success of her image.

Jeff, I'm curious: How many millions do you think the media owe Monica Lewinsky, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden?

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.

... or Elian Gonzales. BTW, the usatoday link given now points to a baseball player Ruben Rivera, not the Afgan woman. Anyone have a more accurate URL?...

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), March 12, 2002.

Mike: I don't want to argue the merits of commercial vs. news with respect to images (not too many people actually paying for Lewinsky or Bin Laden photos, t-shirts or coffee mugs). But clearly this most famous of photos has been used again and again ad infinitum solely for commercial purposes and without her knowledge or permission (she was only 12 or 13 remember).

Working with the family to help financially or otherwise; come on Geo, be a little more specific. And for once, just once, reach onto those deep pockets. If they were really there to help they would have done this without a camera crew. Just wait and see the TV specials that result from this. Oh, and the magazine articles and the "Making of the how we found her" specials.

To prove my exploitation charge just ask yourself one question; what on earth was Boyd Matson doing at the scene when McCurry met the girl? (The Matson tidbit may have come from info from Nat'l Geo's web site. See, the commercialization has already begun).

I don't have any problems with commercialization per se. But under the guise of "we're just here to help" I find it very hypocritical.

You ask how much. Since I have no knowledge of what has been made on the image I can't answer that. How about 50%?

Or maybe we could use the estates of Elvis and Marilyn Monroe as a guide. What do they make on images of those two?

Where would McCurry be today without that photo? What would Geo use on all their special issues? They've profited in so many ways from her image. It's time to give it up for the one person in the equation that really mattered.

And this is a photo that really has produced income for everyone but the subject. The naked kid in Viet Nam kind of pictures rarely make it onto mugs, rugs, posters, etc.

I saw a Nat'l geo show where McCurry was handing out copies of the magazine with this picture on it to gain access to a Mosque. 17 years later and he still uses this one image to prove his worth.

It's a great image, no question. But let's move on.

I'll predict that now with the mystery solved (curiously and luckily for Nat'l Geo just when the US happens to be involved in a war in Afghanistan) the picture will lose much of it's cache.

-- Jeff (emptynest@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

Let's all pay Big Bin Laden for his troubles of providing us lousy photos in his videotapes. Yeah right. Then we will see your so-called black paint M4 down the tubes.

Forget those who politicize photography too much. Photography ought to be enjoyable, not to be interpreted as a tool of oppression between classes.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

Andrew,

The USA Today article was pretty much a regurgitation of the news snippet on National Geographic's website. Here's the link to that webpage:

National Geographic Article

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), March 12, 2002.

Let's try that again:

National Geographic Article

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), March 12, 2002.

I don't want to argue the merits of commercial vs. news with respect to images (not too many people actually paying for Lewinsky or Bin Laden photos, t-shirts or coffee mugs). But clearly this most famous of photos has been used again and again ad infinitum solely for commercial purposes and without her knowledge or permission (she was only 12 or 13 remember).

Actually, I've seen my share of bin Laden and Hussein t-shirts and posters, and anyone would be hard pressed to argue that the massive saturation of the media with Lewinsky images or stories had anything more than a passing relationship to actual news. I doubt that the infamous figures depicted would have granted their permission for any of those uses. I can see some merit in an argument that the young Afghani girl should benefit from the purely money-making usage of her image, but that same argument would have the media awarding royalties to Lewinsky, Hussein, et al.

Where would McCurry be today without that photo?

He'd probably be a successful photographer, though probably not as famous. I've seen other work that McCurry has done--he's quite talented.

I saw a Nat'l geo show where McCurry was handing out copies of the magazine with this picture on it to gain access to a Mosque. 17 years later and he still uses this one image to prove his worth.

Why shouldn't he? If I could show off a NG cover to gain access and continue making the images I wanted to make, I wouldn't hesitate to do it. In the example you mention, it seems to me that his focus on furthering his photography--that's what it's about! Photography is a tough business; he'd be a fool not to benefit from his past accomplishments.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.

Big difference between Ms Monica, Sad-em, Bin Largo and some poor waif from a war torn bit of hell. Big difference as a matter of fact for any pop,pol,renegade figure and any tossed aside refugee.

The former have control over their own lives to an extent that will produce fruits for them to survive and even thrive, the latter are almost always at the mercy of someone like a Saddem or bin Laden.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), March 12, 2002.

I agree that there are big differences among the people mentioned. But consider this: Monica Lewinsky only became a major pop/political figure because the media focused an inordinate amount of attention on her (when her only crime was poor judgement) for several months. Though she had some control over how she dealt with that attention, she certainly had no control over the absurd coverage she received. Hundreds of images of her were used tens of thousands of times (or more) in ways which would have grave impact on the rest of her life. Contrast that with the Afghani girl whose life has not been at all affected by the popularity of her image. Now, how do you formulate some standard which says the Afghani girl is owed millions but Lewinsky is owed nothing without being completely arbitrary and capricious? And be careful not to conflict with the already-established body of law regarding image usage and compensation. . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

I've got a feeling this post is turning into a "flaming" one yet again.....let's see

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

No fire here. Just people with different viewpoints exploring an issue. I'm challenging their views and they're challenging mine, but no one is being insulted for having an opposing view.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

Hello;

Every time I see that photo, I think of the millions made by the likes of Kate Moss, Claudia Schiffer, Naiomi Campbell "RuPaul(sp?) et al for just showing their face or body which they had little control over forming.

This morning I saw a commercial on BBC world showing Marianne Faithful seductively pitching the luxury of Virgin Airlines Upper Class flights right after a piece on the plight of refugees in Afghanistan. My friend who was there said: "Maybe that is what part of what the Al Queda are fighting against". I could not agree more.

Likely Ms F. will get more for that commercial then "That Afghan Girl" will ever get. I hope I am wrong.

Also, how much will the Brazilain gold miner, resting on what looks like a cross, get from the Salgado book, or the descendants of the migrant farmer's wife from the FSA from the Dorothea Lange photo, or Strand's BLIND woman or the 12 year old girl in the southern knitting mill. The grandson of one of Louis Hine's ironworking natives from Montreal, lunching on the beam of the Empire State Building, is famous in his own community for that picture: how much for him?

Not a new question or an easy one to answer. At least Corda has (had) the rights to the commercial use of the image of CHE.

My solution- If the person can be identified, they would get joint rights to the image with the photographer and equal control over the use of it, as well as a 50:50 split of any commercial revenue. If not, a trust fund would get it just in case. If not claimed within 50 years or something, then the revenue and rights would revert back to the photog or her/his estate. Complicated & fraught with beaurocratic pitfalls? Sure, but who has a better idea?

I certainly hope NG does the right thing and the fund for Afghan girls does not become just another PR sham. If not, I am prepared to "dig deep" to contribute.

This may seem as off-topic as it can get, but it is a very real issue for many of us; many of us who take shots of people with the hope that the image may some day be famous, and we celebrities.

Flame away!!!

Keep smiling! You never know when you will be on Steve's camera!

-- richard ilomaki (richard.ilomaki@fmglobal.com), March 13, 2002.

Certainly not, but I think my point relates to a more moral view and less to do with some aspect of US/Euro/1st world civil law. Lewinsky has certainly benefitted indirectly from all the images of her that the media has strewn about, but as you have noted the afghani girl has(probably...)not been impacted from an image(s) presented en masse.

And Monica wasn't alone in using poor judgement, someone else in high places did as well, hence the importance of the story and resulting images. So her privacy and right to limiting fair use of her image went out the door for the most part.

And I don't feel that NG should heap a load of cash on some poor soul in Afghanistan because they've lined their pockets with proceeds from her image (kinda like giving a starving person a 7 course meal), but they owe something to her and anyone like her whom they've increased their quarterly reports with. And I feel that they do from the work they do in the field though research and reportage and then by bringing to the attention of the world these situations and places.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), March 13, 2002.

From the article, it is not clear if Sharbat Gula (the girl) is particularly well to do. The average Afghan family has an income of $200-300 a year. $10,000 in the bank will produce that much income in perpetuity.

What multiple of $10,000 do you think the special cost to make? What tiny fraction do you think the 'leading lady' benefited from?

Westerners frequently have no idea of the power of their money to improve lives of others in such countries irreversibly, for better or for worse.

By the way, the original picture was made with a Nikon. So why are we discussing it here ;-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 13, 2002.

"Forget those who politicize photography too much. Photography ought to be enjoyable, not to be interpreted as a tool of oppression between classes."

Photography is one of the most political activities there is - I'm not talking about pictures of our pets here, obviously. Representation of entire cultures and ways of life - what is more political than that?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 13, 2002.

My solution- If the person can be identified, they would get joint rights to the image with the photographer and equal control over the use of it, as well as a 50:50 split of any commercial revenue. . . . Complicated & fraught with beaurocratic pitfalls? Sure, but who has a better idea?

So complicated and bloated with beaurocratic overhead that the only people making any money by the system would be the beaurocrats! How many accountants will it take to figure how much revenue is being generated by each image? Will photojournalists be required to get the personal information of everyone they photograph? Will special teams return to the area to track down those in the photograph? Will an army of translators be employed to explain the issues of control over their image to the subjects and to verify that each use of the image is approved? My better idea: In those rare cases where a particular image or set of images of a sympathetic subject are a source of considerable revenue, the primary beneficiary(ies) should make an effort to see that the subject of the photos is in some way compensated (even if it's for no other reason than good PR).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

Yes, this comes up every so often. Nonsense of course. It would result in the death of editorial photography.

I wonder if these concerned people are actually working as photographers at all? I doubt it.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 13, 2002.

Yes Mike, You are 100% correct. That is why I asked for other suggestions.

Like in many areas of human affairs, no law may be the best law, and no bureaucrats are the best ones.

AS I said, I hope NG and others who may administer this do the right thing.

I too would not like to see anything done to hinder the access of photjournalism, as I know what a chill can do. Many Canadian writers have been chilled by a lawsuit by a prominent personage who took umbrage at something in a book and is suing for millions.

We muat wait to see if the stream of litigation starts here as it has in so many other areas of our life- like getting hundreds of thousands because you were too dumb to safely hold a cup of McDonalds hot coffee.

As Shakespeare said in King Henry VI: "First, we kill all the lawyers".

Good comments. Maybe some aplogies to some of the lawyers on the forum

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

McCurry is the one who made that shot. This is an important fact. Photo-journalists don't go around with copies of legal release forms in their pockets, they are there to capture the moment.

The same way, Mike Dixon makes his shots. Put us in the room with his models, and most of us don't have the required skill/talent to come up with equally attractive pictures.

So is it the model or the photographer? McCurry captured the moment, it should be up to him to decide what to do with the financial gain, and not some ambulance-chaser from a New York cubicle lawfirm.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

RE: compensating the subject--what is Mrs. Gula supposed to spend her money on? Even a modest amount, as has been pointed out, will overwhelm the markets where she might spend it.

We all assume that everyone in the world wants money. It seems from the articles that she and her husband have been mildly amused by all the hoopla and now wish just to be left alone. NG has offered to check in on them from time to time, no doubt to see to their material needs if necessary.

NG has also started a fund for Afghan Women. What else are the magazine, MSNBC, and Mr. McCurry supposed to do in order to "do right" by this woman and her family?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 13, 2002.

Nothing but keep bringing attention to their plight.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@cox.net), March 13, 2002.

I have to agree with Jeff. People are going to re-exploit the person, get mileage (read $$$) out of it, throw a few scraps her way, and ruin her secluded but probably contented life. I am absolutely disgusted with both Steve McCurry and National Geographic for exploiting a situation. A better thing to do would have been to keep the whole thing a secret and set up a fund to pay the family a lifeling pension of maybe a paltry $100 a month, rather than parading them around like some bloody freak-show. By the way I am cancelling my subsciption to NG right now ! I am serious.

-- Rana (ranadayal@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

I believe NG subscriptions are plummeting - down 6 million (no typo) over the last few years.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 13, 2002.

Driving in to work this morning I heard an interview with Steve McCurry on National Public Radio. The matter of 'compensation' was brought up, and McCurry stated that he had asked the woman how he could help her family financially. In his words, her priorities were to provide a better future for her children, to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and to return to anonymity as soon as possible. McCurry said NatGeo would be providing for the children's education, and he would make it possible for the woman and her husband to take the pilgrimage next year.

Seen through western eyes, that might not seem very generous. But maybe that is unbelievable wealth for someone who knows nothing but poverty.

That being said, the multimedia blitz of this story speaks volumes about NatGeo's editorial and marketing policies. And where one news organization goes, others are sure to follow. For the woman's sake, I hope that Geraldo Rivera doesn't show up on her doorstep...

-- Stuart Dorman (stuart.dorman@us.pwcglobal.com), March 13, 2002.

First, I wish NG would just leave this poor women alone. They're really milking it for all it's worth, aren't they.

Second, this idea of compensating people and allowing them control over images is stupid when it comes to editorial photography. Jesus, photojournalists wouldn't be able to do their jobs. The costs and bureacracy will kill that type of photography completely. I'd really like to see you get model releases when you're photographing in say, Kosovo or East Timor.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

<< For the woman's sake, I hope that Geraldo Rivera doesn't show up on her doorstep... >>

Or worse still, Johnnie Cochran, Barry Slotnick, and their ilk, descending so that attorneys can get 33.3% of their cut.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

I'm confused a little bit. How is the image of the Afghan girl different from images of O.Bin.L, Sad. H., and other notable figures? What "commericals" did she appear in? How is the image of her commerical? I thought Nat. Geo. was a news/documentary mag. I realize that the photog. has probably made a lot of money from the photo, but it didn't start out being commerical.

-- Tony R. (rowlett@mail.com), March 13, 2002.

yeh, I'm confused too. *scratching head*

-- summicron (summicron_@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Obviously if we weren't at war in Afghanistan we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Cynical? Most likely. I'm not versed in communications law, but to me, making something like this public and providing compensation to the subject establishes a precedent that could undermine the freedom of editorial and journalistic photography.

I seem to be cynical these days...I am hard pressed to believe that NG has Ms. Gula's best interests at heart. She will become another way to sell subscriptions and for CNN to sell ad time.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1870000/18703 82.stm

The BBC also has the story.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

Woops. Delete the blank between the 3 and the 8.

-- VS (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

This story was on C4 news tonight here in the UK. They showed McCurry looking for the girl and finally interviewing and photographing her as she is today.

The original photo is amazing but to see her on "video" is even more amazing, her face is tired and older but those eyes are as fresh and incredible as ever, seemingly frozen in time.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), March 13, 2002.

What makes everyone think that image made millions. I doubt it. It's just another NG cover shot.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 13, 2002.

I don't know if NG made millions off of this picture. But I would have to disagree about it being "just another cover shot". At the local Barnes & Noble they have a point-of-purchase display where you could buy huge posters and other items of this photo. It's been featured and re-used over and over to sell books and other NG-related stuff. The photo definitely struck a cord with people the minute it was published. NG knows it and have thus marketed it as much as they can. They wouldn't have bothered finding this woman 17 later if it was just another forgettable cover. Unfortunately, this photo has been so decontextualized that this woman and her situation at the time have been forgotten. She's an icon. The Girl With Green Eyes™.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

It's ironic, of course, that this woman was all most of the West ever saw of Afghanistan until the bombing started.

There is a poster-size print of her in a hole-in-the-wall Afghan restaurant in the Theater District in NYC, and after 9/11 (and to coincide with NG special issue of the 100 Best Photos), she appeared on banners attached to light poles around Manhattan.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 13, 2002.

"Obviously if we weren't at war in Afghanistan we wouldn't even be having this discussion."

Not necessarily. The famous running naked girl in the shot of the Vietnam napalm attack was found and the US is no longer at war with Vietnam. So was the Peruvian boy (now man I think) with his dead goats featured in an earlier NG story and so on. Not everything is quite as bad as some of you lot point out. Remember the NG is a not for profit society. It might want to make money to further its aims but it is not a dreadful corporation, nor are all NGs readers as white bread reactionary Americans as many seem to suggest. The money they make can be looked on as helping Americans and others in the West to understand other cultures and societies quite apart from their role in furthering scientific research. Is this not valuable, or of some value? In fact one could argue that the interest in the Afghan girl is a very positive image for Afghanistan. It is very easy to be totally cynical.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

As noted above, on NPR this AM McCurry said that he specifically asked the woman what SHE would like in the way of compensation. She wanted 2 things: 1. To go on the Haj to Mecca with her family (they are observant muslims) 2. To return to anonymity. It strikes me that these responses are quite appropriate within her cultural context, and for us to tell her what she should want is presumptuous and wrong. Not everyone in the world views a mansion in Malibu as their idea of heaven. It is McCurry himself who has spent the last decade searching for her and it is he who is arranging to provide funds for the educations of her children if she wants the help. I respect his work as a photographer and what he has offered to do for her.

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Sharbat Gula turns out to be pretty savvy after all. If someone turns up out of the blue and says a childhood picture of mine was iconic, and I got 1) my kids future education taken care of 2)an all expenses overseas trip paid for for the whole family and 3) an assurance of future anonymity, hey, I'd figure I had a good deal.

We don't need to furrow our brows about "appropriate to her cultural context" to figure this one out.

Bully for her!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 13, 2002.

I'm having a difficult time figuring out what all the fuss is about. National Geographic had retinal scans done to prove that it's the same person. From looking at the photos at the below link, it seems like us silly American's are exploiting her. She certainly doesn't look very happy. Why do I get the feeling that this PR is going to benefit National Geographic more than her or her family?

-- Tristan (tt@tristan.net), March 13, 2002.

http:/ /www.melia.com/ngm/0204/feature0/index.html

-- tristan tom (tt@tristan.net), March 13, 2002.

I'm glad the girl/woman has survived.

Should writing journalists pay their subjects for every quote they take down and publish?

At the time that picture was published, the late USSR was still occupying Afghanistan. How much did that picture do (among a million others) to influence world opinion and bring pressure to bear so that (eventually) this woman got to go home? Is that part of her 'compensation'?

When LIFE published Gene Smith's Nurse-Midwife story, the flood of donations from READERS built Maude Callum a new clinic - and LIFE went back to visit her and promote their roll in getting that money for her - I don't know if they contributed a thing themselves (except the cost of ink and paper for 10 million magazines.)

I guess I see some moral (not legal, maybe not even ethical) obligation to help those who help you further your creative dream - but through the fluid interplay of human relationships, not some absolute set of rules or laws or percentages.

To the commercial pros out there - have you EVER paid a model 50% of the gross? What's the usual percentage?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 14, 2002.