¶ … SJP Code of Ethics to run most of these photographs. An exception may be made with respect to the EMTs doing their jobs. Photographs of grief, and raw emotion, are frequently nominated and win awards for photojournalism. While such photographs might be seen as violating the harm principle with respect to showing compassion or the fact that the family are not public figures, the grief is part of the story, and the common use of such photographs in the media points to them being acceptable. Further, this "boldly tells the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience." The photographs of the paramedics working on the boy are likely to be insensitive. Getting in the way of such work would be entirely in contravention of "private people have a greater right to control information about themselves…" but also that the victim here is a young boy. It is possible that one might interpret these differently, and allow the publication of these particular photographs, but I do not think that I would....

The same can be said for zipping the boy into the bodybag, and for the same reasons. This is really out of respect for the family and the paramedics, who themselves would be incredibly distraught about losing such a young boy. Such photographs merely appeal to lurid curiosity, which should be avoided.
2. I would run these photos. There are a couple of principles at work here. The first is that someone competing in a public event has less expectation of privacy, so the man would definitely have been expecting someone to take a photograph from the event. That is, ultimately, all the photograph is. That the man died right after the photograph was taken makes it more interesting, but the picture itself is just a man doing a high jump. It is an athlete competing at an athletic competition. Pictures where the man is suffering the heart attack would be more in the category of lurid curiosity, and would be viewed differently from the photograph of the man high-jumping.

3. With this, I'm assuming that…