Vietnam – Who Took The Picture? Whenever you think or talk with anyone about the US war against the people of Vietnam back in the sixties and seventies the one image that is in everyone’s mind is of a nine-year-old girl, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, running naked down a road screaming after a napalm attack on her village by the South Vietnam Air Force following misleading US intelligence. She saved her life by stripping off her burning clothing and running but was badly burnt. And the photographer who made this iconic image also saved her life.
Although this image is in the public domain in the USA because of it’s date of publication, I think it is still in copyright in the UK, so I won’t post it here. If you need to look at it again it is widely on the web, including on Wikipedia. It’s title is ‘The Terror of War‘, though it is better known simply as ‘Napalm Girl’.
The picture was taken by and credited to a young Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut (Huynh Công Út) working for Associated Press, the US not-for-profit news agency based in New York, and Ut took the 8 films he had shot that day into AP’s Saigon agency – after he had rushed her to hospital – where the film was processed. This image stood out immediately but the AP staff were reluctant to send it to New York because of its full-frontal nudity. They called agency director Horst Fass back into the office and he saw the power and news value of the image and transmitted it to New York demanding they publish it despite the nudity. They did and it won the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography and the 1973 World Press Photo of the Year.
As so often in covering events, Ut was not the only photographer at the scene, but his image was the most visceral and Fass who was a noted photographer and fighter for the right of photographers to be credited saw that Ut’s name was attached to the picture – and AP had very careful procedures to ensure that pictures were accurately credited. So we can be sure that this picture was the picture taken by Ut.
And we all were convinced until a rival agency, VII led by its co-founder Gary Knight, working largely on the stories of a disgruntled former AP employee challenged this a few years ago and set up a two-year investigation which culminated in the film “The Stringer” released this year. This argues that the picture was actually taken by another, much less well known, Vietnamese photographer, Nguyen Thanh Nghe, who also took his film from that day into AP.
The film puts forward some evidence – enough to convince some reviewers – but I think few actual photographers who have read the truly comprehensive report of the investigation by AP into circumstances will be left with any real doubt that the published picture was by Ut.
Of course many of those who could have given relevant evidence are now dead, and film negatives contain little of the evidence that would be available from digital metadata, though AP did conduct extensive testing of the two negatives that remain from the film. The only people who denied them access to evidence were the film makers, who demanded AP sign a non-disclosure agreement which would have prevented AP from disclosing anything it found – which would have defeated the purpose of the investigation. And both “Nguyen Thanh Nghe, who says he took the photo, and former AP photo editor Carl Robinson, who claims he was ordered to change the credit” declined to be interviewed, instead providing written statements.
The AP investigation which took more than a year points out a number of lies, deliberate misrepresentations, omissions and errors in the film and points to the failures of a report commissioned for “The Stringer” on material still available from the day’s events from the commercial company INDEX which has also so far failed to work with AP. AP carried out a similar but more comprehensive study with significantly different conclusions and shows that the film makes use of “a flawed graphic 3D render of the scene.“
As so much of the relevant evidence has disapppeared, AP are very circumspect in their conclusions. They conclude that Nick Ut could have taken the picture but there are some questions which it is impossible to be sure about largely because of the passage of time.
They say that they cannot now prove conclusively that Nick Ut took the photo, but the “no proof has been found that Nguyen took the picture” and also that there were other photographers who were in a position to have taken it.
And they conclude:
We applied AP’s photo standards to guide us to an outcome. AP’s standards say “a challenged credit would be removed only if definitive evidence … showed that the person who claimed to have taken the photo did not.”
All available evidence analyzed by AP does not clear that bar. Thus, the photo will remain attributed to Ut.
Some photographers have been very much clearer – including some of those who were invloved and gave evidence to AP and it seems almost certain that the accusations made in the film are both untrue and slanderous and that Ut took the picture used by AP which won him the Pulitzer.
I wasn’t in Vietnam and have no connection with either AP or VII or any of the photographers involved. But often I see published pictures of events or places I have photographed and cannot always decide if they are my work or that of another photographer. Particularly on Facebook, where most weeks I come across several of my pictures appearing without any attribution. I have to go back to my files to make sure if a picture is really mine or if someone else has taken a very similar picture. But usually when I have a suspicion a picture could be mine it is.
It seems to me quite likely that Nguyen took a similar but less powerful image on the roll that he claims went in to the AP office. He says AP paid him for bringing the picture in – something they often did even for pictures they could not use, though the records from the office show no record of any payment – and gave him back a print of his picture – but that later his wife threw that away. As the negatives no longer exist we cannot compare his picture with that by Ut. If his wife had kept that print I feel sure we would not now be having this controversy.
Ut deserves a grovelling apology and compensation from the film makers for questioning his integrity – as do many of the others involved. Of course they won’t get it.
Hanging on my living room wall (and there are copies on walls and at least one mug elsewhere) is a picture I made of a sculpture of a lion at Chatsworth. Years after taking it I opened a book by Fay Godwin – a photographer whose work I admired and who I knew personally – and found that very same lion staring out at me.
It’s part of the nature of photography that photographers can make very similar images to each other – and sometimes very minor differences or even chance can make one a masterpiece and another an also-ran – though in this case I think we both did pretty well. Her picture was taken from a position that must have been within an inch of where I had held the camera eight years earlier. Even though we were not there at the same time we saw the scene in the same way. More about this in my post Fay Godwin – Land Revisited.
Flickr – Facebook – My London Diary – Hull Photos – Lea Valley – Paris
London’s Industrial Heritage – London Photos
All photographs on this page are copyright © Peter Marshall.
Contact me to buy prints or licence to reproduce.
