In countries or states where TV cameras are not allowed in court, presumably for legal reasons which escape me, is it always the case that courtroom scenes are depicted by an artist as opposed to, say, a still photograph?
Are these people employed by news agencies or by the court, or would that vary according to circumstances? I am guessing that the employer would own the copywright on any given picture.
Is there a market for courtroom pictures? I would have thought that scenes from famous trials would be quite valuable as collector’s items.
Photographs are considered too obtrusive, with the sound of their clicking and the light of their flash distracting and undignified. That’s especially true in a big trial back in the days where several newspapers would cover it. Since there is a ban, no one wants to change it.
The artist is hired by the media (usually TV) to make the sketches. I’d guess they’d be property of the TV station, not the artist, as work made for hire.
There is something of a secondary market for courtroom sketches. One lawyer I used to share office space with has a framed sketch of himself addressing the court from his first capital case.
IMO, that and the bronzed reporter pages you can buy that “commemorate your impressive courtroom victories” are just tacky as all hell.
I’m a journalist, mainly TV broadcast, but have done some court reporting. Court artists are used in countries such as the UK and Australia, where cameras aren’t allowed in courts. It’s very hard often to get a picture of the defendants, especially if they’ve been remanded in custody. Your only chance is getting them stepping out of the prison van, and that may even be possible.
Court artists I have met in Sydney have been freelancers, who usually have a fairly regular gig going with one of the local papers. And they can presumably on-sell their work as well, depending on whether they sell exclusive rights or not.
To my knowledge they are not employed by courts. The only official records taken by the courts are audio recordings of proceedings, and the shorthand typist (stenographer??) who is employed by the court.
I’ve not heard of a market but I’m sure it must exist. Many people are fascinated by all things concerning murder. And so many of those artists are so damn talented, the pictures are amazing. (You’d think the defendants’ families would want a copy if nothing else - particularly if their relative gets sent down!!)
It may be that it’s against some code of honour or professional practice for court artists to openly sell their work, or copies of it. Anyone else know?
AFAIK all electronic recording devices are forbidden, including dictaphones/tape recorders (hence why journos still have to learn shorthand) so cameras - video or still - would come under that.
But you are of course allowed pen and paper, which is enough to draw, so I guess they can’t prevent people from writing/drawing what they like. Also artists with photographic memory could keep going in and out, and do the actual sketch outside, so I guess that would be even more distracting for proceedings.
Incidentally it may be because of the increase of electronic recording media generally, as well as access to police records (legal or leaked) and photo archives, and people willing to sell pics of their murderous relatives, but you don’t often see court drawings in the papers. Usually photos.
Usually the papers stick with the same photo image of the defendant, they seem to pick one as villainous-looking as possible, and print it over and over for impact. And the same with victims, particularly children, always the same, innocent smiling photo, so it sticks in your mind more I guess.
With the Moors Murderers, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, they still always give most prominence to (police?) photo of Hindley with peroxide hair from the time of the trial several decades ago, even though far more recent photos of her exist, which often get printed as well but smaller. It’s like peroxide Hindley with weird staring eyes has become iconised as an image of the murderess.
My question was prompted by the recent showing on BBC news of a courtroom sketch relating to a current UK murder trial.
I neither approve nor disapprove of a possible market in courtroom art. However there have been many famous trials in the UK during, say, the past 100 years or so, where one might assume a contemporary courtroom scene would be valuable to some collector or other.
The attraction of ownership would relate more to the accused in each case rather than the participation of a particular lawyer.
Dr. Crippen, Oscar Wilde, Myra Hindley & Ian Brady, Timothy Evans and the Kray twins are some which spring immediately to mind.
Presumably these trials attracted courtroom artists, and I am left wondering what has happened to the original works.