The only two remaining negatives are held by Associated Press.
Nick Ut was a staff photographer for AP, Nguyen Nghe was an occasional stringer (freelancer) who sold images to AP.
Generally, photographers dropped their rolls of film into the office, a technician would develop them and create contact sheets. An editor would make a selection and wire selected images to Tokyo, New York or wherever.
There's no way to identify who the films came from or even on which camera they were exposed. Unlike digital, there's no connection between film and camera.
Having said that, the "owner" of the images is actually Associated Press and they do hold the negatives. Copyright belongs to the photographer and that's at the heart of these new allegations.
Realistically, after 50+ years without any dispute, it's now a question of who's the most credible and the most persuasive. It's hard to see a good outcome.
I was a teenager and a photography enthusiast when this image was published in 72. Your story reads as if this controversy is somehow new. It's not. I read many news stories and photography magazine articles about it back in 72 and 73, and I recall there was near immediate and public arguments over who should actually be credited with the image.
Personally I don't believe it matters much who took it, (except to the two photographers).
The image itself, is one of the most iconic of the period, and is seared in the memories of tens of millions. It's in a group with the image of John Junior saluting his father's casket, the Christmas earthrise of 1968, the Kent State image, and Bobby Kennedy's assassination.
The goal of virtually every news photographer, it's to create images which distill complex stories down to a single memorable image. Most photographers know that which image people actually remember is often decided not by skill, but by circumstance. I'm still humbled by both of these gentlemen, who bravely went in harms way day after day in order to remind us of the tragedy of war.
Gavin, thanks for writing such a good piece. I’d heard about the controversy but hadn’t read anything this comprehensive about the situation. What a mess! I hope someone comes up with something that finally solves the mystery.
Thanks David. The documentary is new, hence the current controversy. I'm not aware of any previous news stories or articles where credit for the Napalm Girl image was disputed and I've done a great deal of research. If you have any links for stories that I've missed, I'd love to see them.
Regardless of that, I agree that it's humbling to see the men and women who risk their lives to bring newsworthy images to our attention, which is why I write about them so often. Like, for example, Samar Abu Elouf, who I mentioned in my previous newsletter. You can find her Instagram account at https://www.instagram.com/samarabuelouf/.
You'll find many more examples in my newsletters because I agree with you, their work is deserving of our attention and respect.
An interesting read, Gav.
I guess it's not as simple as whoever holds the original strip of film being the owner?
No, you're right, therein lies the problem.
The only two remaining negatives are held by Associated Press.
Nick Ut was a staff photographer for AP, Nguyen Nghe was an occasional stringer (freelancer) who sold images to AP.
Generally, photographers dropped their rolls of film into the office, a technician would develop them and create contact sheets. An editor would make a selection and wire selected images to Tokyo, New York or wherever.
There's no way to identify who the films came from or even on which camera they were exposed. Unlike digital, there's no connection between film and camera.
Having said that, the "owner" of the images is actually Associated Press and they do hold the negatives. Copyright belongs to the photographer and that's at the heart of these new allegations.
Realistically, after 50+ years without any dispute, it's now a question of who's the most credible and the most persuasive. It's hard to see a good outcome.
I was a teenager and a photography enthusiast when this image was published in 72. Your story reads as if this controversy is somehow new. It's not. I read many news stories and photography magazine articles about it back in 72 and 73, and I recall there was near immediate and public arguments over who should actually be credited with the image.
Personally I don't believe it matters much who took it, (except to the two photographers).
The image itself, is one of the most iconic of the period, and is seared in the memories of tens of millions. It's in a group with the image of John Junior saluting his father's casket, the Christmas earthrise of 1968, the Kent State image, and Bobby Kennedy's assassination.
The goal of virtually every news photographer, it's to create images which distill complex stories down to a single memorable image. Most photographers know that which image people actually remember is often decided not by skill, but by circumstance. I'm still humbled by both of these gentlemen, who bravely went in harms way day after day in order to remind us of the tragedy of war.
Gavin, thanks for writing such a good piece. I’d heard about the controversy but hadn’t read anything this comprehensive about the situation. What a mess! I hope someone comes up with something that finally solves the mystery.
Thanks David. The documentary is new, hence the current controversy. I'm not aware of any previous news stories or articles where credit for the Napalm Girl image was disputed and I've done a great deal of research. If you have any links for stories that I've missed, I'd love to see them.
Regardless of that, I agree that it's humbling to see the men and women who risk their lives to bring newsworthy images to our attention, which is why I write about them so often. Like, for example, Samar Abu Elouf, who I mentioned in my previous newsletter. You can find her Instagram account at https://www.instagram.com/samarabuelouf/.
You'll find many more examples in my newsletters because I agree with you, their work is deserving of our attention and respect.