Earlier this year, I shared my reflections on World Press Photo’s values and the controversy surrounding the iconic photograph
The Terror of War, which was awarded World Press Photo of the Year in 1973 and also received a Pulitzer Prize. The image—showing a young girl running from a napalm attack during the Vietnam War—had an immediate and lasting global impact. It has long been attributed to Huỳnh Công “Nick” Út, a young Vietnamese staff photographer for the Associated Press (AP), who went on to have a distinguished career.
In that earlier
article, I emphasized that World Press Photo’s most meaningful role is not to act as a final judge or arbiter, but to foster space for difficult, honest conversations. In complex cases, acknowledging doubt, placing events in historical context, and understanding the layers of narrative can be just as important as asserting a definitive truth. This philosophy is especially critical in the realm of photojournalism and documentary photography—and it is the lens through which we have approached this case.
When an organization is tasked with evaluating tens of thousands of photographs submitted to our annual contest from around the world, a rigorous, fair, and transparent judging process is essential. At World Press Photo, our procedures are designed precisely with this in mind—and they include protocols for re-evaluating awarded work when new evidence or significant questions arise.
In this spirit, and following the release of
The Stringer, a documentary by The VII Foundation that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, we launched our own investigative analysis into the authorship of
The Terror of War. The film, supported by visual analysis from Paris-based research group INDEX, casts doubt on the traditional attribution of authorship to Nick Út and presents compelling evidence that the photo may instead have been taken by Nguyễn Thành Nghệ, a Vietnamese stringer for AP.
Our analysis included a thorough review of both the documentary’s findings and
AP’s own in-depth internal inquiry. Crucially, we conducted our assessment collegially, transparently, and with the intention of understanding—not accusing. We also chose not to disclose our conclusions until AP had publicly shared the outcome of their investigation, in order to ensure a fair and respectful process. (
A summary of our report can be found here.)
When reduced to its core, what is striking is the convergence across all three investigations—by World Press Photo, AP, and the filmmakers—that there remains doubt about the photo’s authorship. While the image has traditionally been credited to Nick Út, the available evidence points to a strong possibility that Nguyễn Thành Nghệ took it instead, but also raises the possibility that Huỳnh Công Phúc may have been in a better position to take the photo.
The key difference lies not in the recognition of doubt, but in how each organization has chosen to act in response.
The documentary takes a stand that Nguyễn Thành Nghệ is the author. Associated Press has concluded that since there is no definitive proof that Nick Út did not take the image, the attribution of authorship to him should stand. At World Press Photo, however, we took a different path. Guided by our judging procedures we conclude that the level of doubt is too significant to maintain the existing attribution. At the same time, lacking conclusive evidence pointing definitively to another photographer, we cannot reassign authorship either.
Therefore, we have taken two important steps:
1. Suspension of Authorship Attribution
We have officially suspended the attribution of The Terror of War to Nick Út. This suspension will remain in place unless further evidence can clearly confirm or refute the original authorship.
2. Updated Text
The photograph will now carry the following revised note:
“Due to this current doubt, World Press Photo has suspended the attribution to Nick Út. The available visual evidence and the likely camera used on that day indicate that photographers Nguyễn Thành Nghệ or Huỳnh Công Phúc may have been better positioned to take the photograph. Importantly, the photograph itself remains undisputed, and the award for the photograph stands. Only the authorship is under review. This remains contested history, and it is possible that the author of the photograph will never be fully confirmed. The suspension of the authorship attribution stands unless it is proved otherwise.”
Some may ask: why revisit the authorship of a photo taken more than 50 years ago?
The answer lies in our responsibility as a 70-year-old organization with a legacy of setting standards in photojournalism. In an era defined by misinformation, polarization, media manipulation, and eroding public trust, reexamining how we approach authorship, evidence, and ethical accountability is not only relevant—it is essential.
This may not be a perfect resolution. But it is a thoughtful and principled one. It honors the complexity of the issue, remains open to new developments, and most importantly, invites critical dialogue. Our hope is that this approach helps foster meaningful conversations about truth, authorship, and integrity in visual storytelling.
Joumana El Zein Khoury
Executive director, World Press Photo
