Chapter Nine: The Ethics of Visual Communication
We've already had a taste of ethical issues in the Gorgias v. Plato debates about the role of persuasion in
technical communication. In this chapter we're going to consider more concrete ethical concerns about
misrepresentation, fair use, and plagiarism.
Misrepresentation in Visual Communication
The graphic on the old homepage for this course is a good example of misrepresentation as it leaks into
visual communication. Well-meaning technical communicators sometimes introduce this kind of distortion
into their graphics without even thinking: it would be "cuter" to have little Macs instead of bars for the bar
graph, so let's put them in to wake up the audience! The problem is, you've inadvertently introduced what
Edward Tufte calls a "lie factor." The lie factor is the amount that a graphic representation exaggerates data,
and the lie factor of the Mac graph is an 8 because the area of the big IMac is eight times larger than the
standard thin bar that would indicate the same level on the Y axis.
Along with the lie factor, there are other ways to distort data in visual representation. One is scale
truncation. In Figure 1, the left-hand bar graph shows the result of survey data about popular majors at
Creosote Tech; the graph on the right shows the same data, but Electrical Engineering looks like it has
much larger enrollment now. Why? Notice the Y axis on the graphic. It starts at 39. This scale truncation
exaggerates the percentage of effect (effect in this case being the difference between EE and the next-mostpopular major). In fact, it introduces a lie factor of 515% (it makes the difference seem over 5 times greater)!
The scary thing is that the bad graphic was the one that the Excel Chart Wizard automatically
produced. Now, this might not seem a big deal when we're talking about technical majors, but what if we
were talking about performance of different bullet-proof vests or return on investments? The stakes go up
then, and the potential effect of the exaggeration could become much more serious as people often make
their decisions based on their holistic impressions of graphics, not on the actual data.
Figure 1: Scale truncation in Excel
The fact that the software is written automatically to exaggerate effects means that you as a visual
communicator need to be on your guard whenever you use programs as tools to create your graphics. In the
end, it's not the program who will get blamed for the distortion--it's you. (By the way, to fix this problem with
the Chart Wizard, you need to double-click on the Y axis in the finished chart, select Scale, and reset the
Minimum and the X Axis Crosses At values to 0).
Touching Up Graphics
Recently, controversy erupted when a South Korean researcher was found to have fabricated results
published in the journal Science in a study of cloned patient-specific stem cells. A key part of the controvery
were the photographs of stem cells which were doctored in Photoshop to create the appearance of 11
different stem cells from photos of only two stem cells. Figure two shows two of the doctored photos:
Figure 2: Doctored photos of stem sells from fraudulent Science article
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Journals are now considering adopting standards in place at the Journal of Cell Biology, which has caught
14 cases of fraudulent digital manipulation so far by requiring authors to submit original .PSD or other
graphics files and examining the history and layers of the images for unethical alterations. The JCB issues a
set of standards for its authors that define fair practices with respect to graphics, which basically amount to
the principle that any filter applied to the whole image--such as adjusting for brightness or contrast--is fair
game as long as the background or context of the image is still clear, but changes that only apply to one
part or feature of the file are out. These are good guidelines for visual communicators, as temptations to
"clean up" photos or video of experiments can quickly amount to the same thing as throwing out data that
doesn't fit the hypothesis--a cardinal scientific sin.
Graphics and Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are pseudo-arguments that "work" in that they often convince people, but they're basically
tricks. An example is the bandwagon fallacy. "Everyone is shopping at Wal-Mart, so it must be a good place
to shop." We follow illogic like this every time we stop at a restaurant that seems like it has a lot of cars
outside. It's true that popular places might be good, but there's no logical connection between popularity and
excellence.
Some logical fallacies apply to the use of graphics in documents. Here they are:

Correlative fallacies. These fallacies imply that because two trends are correlated in time or
space, one must be controling the other. Tabloids do this all the time when they show two stars
together at a function and imply that they're romantically linked as well as spatio-temporally linked.
Visual communicators have to be very careful about how they present graphics. Watch:
Figure 3: Ford Pinto and Dead Fish Images
http://www.mawwfire.gov.uk/images/firesafety/vehicle_arson/abandoned_car1.jpg
http://www.mgfalaska.com/Graphics/dead_salmon.jpg
You assumed I was trying to show that pollution from this car killed that fish, right? We will always try to infer
causality between two correlated things because if we know the cause of something, we can control it, and
that's a pretty attractive strategy in our unpredictable world. What if I told you that these two photos were just
two random shots I took on my summer vacation to Texas, miles away from each other? That's certainly not
what I implied by placing them next to each other. You assumed I put them together for a reason. We have
to be careful about what we're implying by arranging graphics near each other in a document.



Hasty generalization. This fallacy draws a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. We've all
seen it: "my brother got sick taking an antibiotic, so all antibiotics are bad for you." Visual
communicators have to be very, very careful to avoid triggering a hasty generalization, particularly
when presenting graphics from experimental trials. If you got one brilliant photograph of a desired
result, but the rest of the photographs were unsatisfactory, it's a strong temptation to use the
"pretty" photograph in your report. Now, if the photo is pretty because the lighting or focus was
better than the rest, but all photos show roughly the same result, then go ahead and use it. But if
it's pretty because that particular trial worked and the rest didn't, don't use it. You're
misprepresenting the success of your methods.
Argument from authority. This fallacy uses a celebrity endorsement to convince people to buy
something or vote for someone. First, you can't use someone's likeness (ahem, Chuck Norris for
example) in conjunction with your product/service unless you have an agreement with them to
provide a testimonial. Second, especially in technical communication, celebrity endorsements are
weak arguments for your product/service and may alienate as many people as they attract.
Personal attack (ad hominem). This fallacy signals a failure of argumentation. It is a resort to
attacking a person when you can't find any weaknesses in their argument. Visual communicators
have to be careful when using graphics of people in connection with an argument. Opponents of
presidents, for example, love to use pictures of them with their mouth open or otherwise looking
distracted and/or clueless. While these tactics may be effective, they're ethically impoverished and
should be avoided.
Fair Use and Plagiarism
This section is probably the most important one in the chapter. To use graphics ethically, you have to
understand fair use and plagiarism. In the United States, the expression of ideas is protected by law as
capital from which the originator can make a living, just like property or products. Patent law covers
scientific and technological creations. Copyright law covers expressions, whether written, graphic, or
audio/musical. Although the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed in 1998 contains very
restrictive language, essentially making it illegal to possess an electronic copy of any copyrighted graphic
(and web graphics are considered copyrighted even if the copyright is not stated, as with print
expressions), there are ways you can fairly use graphics created by other people. We'll discuss edcuational
fair use first and then permission.
Basics of Educational Fair Use
Technical graphics may be reproduced for educational (non-commercial) purposes as long as they are fully
cited. Cite as completely as possible any graphic you borrow from another paper, and make note if you
altered it. A common citation form for this latter situation is "Adapted from Smith (2000)."
While, technically, any copy of a copyrighted graphic obtained without express written permission is in
violation of the DMCA, the wording of the act is undergoing scrutiny, and while this process takes place, it's
still okay to use graphics for standard educational fair use, which means class presentations and papers.
Make sure you always cite the source of any graphic you use in the classroom; usually a URL is sufficient
for a web graphic.
Now, if you put your class presentation up on your website or if I, for instance, decide I want to use it in my
textbook, the situation changes....
Permissions and Commercial Use
If you seek publication or reproduction for commercial use of a document that contains graphics or quotes
from copyrighted work, you will need to seek permission to do so from the copyright holder. In some cases
your publisher will do this for you, but you need to clarify this point when you sign a publisher’s contract.
You might say, "Well, my website isn't a dot-com, so the graphics I borrowed and posted on it aren't
commercial uses." You're right, but they're not educational fair uses, either, which puts them in a dicey
middle ground. You could be cutting into the original producer's market share without realizing it. If he or she
makes a living creating the art you borrowed from their site, you're making it easier for people to get it
without paying the artist. Therefore, you could in extreme cases be liable to lawsuit. It's best whenever you
use a borrowed image on your website to seek permission. Some source sites have conveniently-listed
criteria for reproduction, such as "Just say somewhere on your page that you got this graphic from my
page." Some don't, and in those cases, you should email the producer and ask for permission to
reproduce the image on your site. I did that with David Lane's graphic on the homepage of this site. Even
though it's an educational site, so is his, and I didn't want people to miss out on his site or think I created the
graphic, so I emailed and asked permission to reproduce, which he graciously and quickly granted. Even if
you don't hear back from a producer, you're still somewhat covered from having tried to contact them. Keep
a copy of the query email you sent.
Now, about publication of graphics: a general rule for copyright of photographs and other graphics is 95
years. Under the current extension of copyright made by the 1976 copyright act, some producers can
maintain their copyright for up to 95 years. This will change in 2010, but until then, if you know you are
dealing with a graphic made more than 95 years ago, you're okay to use it. Otherwise, you will have to
research the copyright, and this is not obvious or easy to do in some cases. Library of Congress images, for
instance, are not automatically in the public domain, which it would seem they are. And some very old
photographs which are not under copyright are still liable to charges for permission and reproduction
because an archive or individual may have bought the particular copy of the image that you want to
reproduce. For more guidelines on researching copyright, see the references below.
Summing Up: Lessons in Ethics for Visual Communicators



In general, any alteration that affects only one part of a graphic, distorts scale or effect, or obscures
context in a way that leads to a hasty generalization is unethical.
Think carefully about the implications you make when selecting and combining graphics
In general, seek permission to reproduce graphics that will be published, including posting on a
webpage.
Exercise
Find an example of a graphic that you consider to have questionable ethics. Include the graphic in your
journal and discuss the ways in which it's violating ethical principles of visual communication.
References
Information on U.S. Patent Law and infringement thereof: http://www.uspto.gov/
Information on U.S. Copyright: www.copyright.gov
For a very helpful tutorial that clarifies fair use guidelines and copyright limits, go to
http://www.lib.utsystem.edu/copyright/