Archive for the 'Photographers’ Rights' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Man Sues Police for Photo Detainment

Published December 11, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

West Virgina is a hotbed of photographers rights infringements lately, huh? A man whose photos of a police cruiser using two handicapped spaces resulted in a confrontation with a state trooper is suing over it.

The Charleston Gazette reports that Michael Kidd filed a lawsuit this week against the West Virginia State Police because he “suffered embarrassment, humiliation, annoyance and inconvenience while his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated.”

Ahhh, if only we could all sue for suffering annoyance.

In September, Kidd noticed the flagrant cruiser and was taking photos of it when State Trooper Jason Garnes approached. The trooper detained Kidd for 15 minutes, forcing him to stand with his hands against a wall, while he checked his ID and tried to find something on him, the lawsuit says. Trooper Garnes couldn’t find anything to detain him further, but he did warn Kidd, “I’ll be seeing you again sometime.”

As a frequent witness to the LAPD doing the same exact thing in illegal spaces, it’s not surprising. Some police officers like enforcing the law but not following it. But when will they learn an appropriate response to someone discovering their transgressions? Intimidation and harassment just backfires – like this.

Article via The Charleston Gazette

Customs Officer Threatens Photographer

Published December 7, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Photojournalism , Police Harassment 3 Comments
Tags: , , ,

Do the usual laws not apply to Customs and Border Protection officers? There’s one in Tampa who thinks so. When Jay Nolan, a Tampa Tribune photojournalist, arrived at the scene of a three-car crash today and took photos, he was detained for 15 minutes and his phone was confiscated. David Tipton, the Customs and Border officer involved in the crash, wanted Nolan to assure him the photos wouldn’t appear in the newspaper. When Nolan was unable to do that, he wasn’t pleased. As Nolan explains in the Tampa Tribune:

“He told me, ‘You don’t understand. We’re not local law enforcement here. We’re the federal government. We’ll take your gear right now,'” Nolan said. “He gave me two choices: either give my assurance or be placed under arrest.”

Nolan was detained for 15 minutes, and he smartly replaced his flash drive with a blank one and retained his photos. According to the article, Gary McClelland, the agency’s port director, later apologized to Nolan and explained the situation away by saying customs and border patrol “don’t permit photographs because of the nature of their jobs, but the agency doesn’t want to hinder the media.”

OK, I get there is a security issue with these agents working the border. But couldn’t you say the same thing then applies to all people who work with gangs and violent offenders (police officers, prison guards, judges, social workers…)? It seems like a very strange policy to “not permit” someone to take photos of you (when you’re in an accident in public, no less), because really, how do you enforce something like that without illegally throwing your weight around? Oh yeah, like Tipton did.

Article from the Tampa Tribune

Queen Wants to Limit Paparazzi

Published December 7, 2009 Photographers' Rights 1 Comment
Tags: , ,


Photo of Buckingham Palace by madancer

The queen of England is saying off with their heads…that is, to the paparazzi who violate her family’s privacy. The Telegraph reports that Buckingham Palace is taking legal action to bar paparazzi from photographing the Royal family on their private estates. The Royal family grants public photo opportunities but want anything more to be deemed criminal harassment. Some say the Royals are just trying to prevent unflattering pictures from emerging – noting two particular photos where the queen was caught wringing a pheasant’s neck and an earl was hitting his hunting dogs. Paparazzi apparently station themselves on public roads and get intimate shots like these with their telephoto lenses. 

I am firmly not in the aggressive paparazzi camp, so I have a hard time siding with people who intimidate and intrude on their subjects to the point of being sleazy and dangerous. Though, on the other hand, it comes down to public people (in this case, very public) and their reasonable expectations of privacy. Do they have any? Not to mention that it also smacks of some hypocrisy, as the article points out, when members of the Royal family are happy to sell access to their private events for some serious cash to these same “intrusive” media outlets.

Articles via the Telegraph and Guardian

Marshall Responds to Photographer Harassment

Published December 4, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Security Guard Harassment 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

The local Madison, Wisconsin, paper Isthmus picked up the story this week about an incident that happened in October where photographer Josh Zytkiewicz was questioned by a security guard outside the federal courthouse. The guard told Zytkiewicz “security procedures” prohibited him from taking photos of the building and said he was calling the Madison police (which never arrived, if he did).

In a nice bit of reporting, the paper talked to Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Kirk Papenthien who admitted the courthouse is a popular landmark and not all people who shoot photos of it are stopped and questioned. When asked why the security guard told Zytkiewicz to stop taking photos and threatened to call the police, Papenthien says, in typically noncommittal law enforcement-speak, “I have no knowledge as to whether that is an accurate transcript.” Zytkiewicz recorded the conversation on his iPhone and you can listen to it here. Even so, Papenthien won’t admit that the guard was out of line because he said he didn’t know what Zytkiewicz was taking photos of.

But…if photography is legal at the courthouse, does it matter what the photos were of? So, is that to say, taking photos of windows are fine, but entryways are a different story? Of course not. It’s not a gray area, and shouldn’t be approached as one. When photography is legal in public, which it always is, then you can’t harass and threaten people for doing it.

Article via Isthmus

BBC Photographer Doubling as Terrorist?

Published November 30, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,


Photo by bjoerncologne

BBC staff photographer Jeff Overs was taking photos of London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral at sunset this past week when he was stopped under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act and questioned as a possible terrorist threat. For taking photos. Of a major architectural attraction. Sadly, the officer told Overs she’d been stopping people all day and he was the first to complain.

Just one more reason to be thankful we live in right-thinking democracies that value our rights…and allow us to take photos. Of major architectural attractions.

See Overs’ reaction to the harassment on The Andrew Marr Show here, where, among other things, he describes this new attitude as “all a bit Eastern Bloc, isn’t it?”

Articles via Boing Boing and  BBC

All Eyes on California Town

Published November 26, 2009 Photographers' Rights 2 Comments
Tags: , , ,


Photo by view-askew

The tiny town of Tiburon, Calif., wants to install almost $200,000 worth of security cameras so it can track all the cars coming into its city limits. Officials think it’s an effective measure against car theft. NPR says the “plan could effectively turn Tiburon into perhaps the nation’s first public gated community.”

Nevermind that crime, and car theft, is low in the town. This is another example of supporting the wrong solution to solve a big, tough problem. Nicole Ozer of the ACLU says instead of spending money on more law enforcement, they’re doing something that opens a can of worms – one that can lead to charges of spying and discrimination.

Jennifer King, a Berkeley professor of technology and public policy, goes even further to say privacy protections are a risk here – and can ultimately be used against the residents. She says these this type of data is always used for more than its original intent, citing toll records that have been subpoenaed in divorce cases.  

At a city council meeting, Tiburon resident Terry Graham said, “I’m horrified this is before us. We shouldn’t be surveiled every moment of the day. Why do we need to spend money to surveil residents who are innocent?”

Article via NPR and the Marin Independent Journal

Nat Geo Photographer Meets Solicitous Seal

Published November 18, 2009 Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

Check out this video of National Geographic photographer Paul Nicklen‘s recounting of his trip to Antarctica to photograph the dangerous leopard seal. Besides the photos being pretty amazing, it did not go down as you would expect.

“Security Theater” – We’ve Got a Front Row Seat

Published November 14, 2009 Photographers' Rights 1 Comment
Tags: , ,

64365384_0c98675fed
Photo by Thomas Hawk

Bruce Schneier is a cool head and a voice of reason when it comes to security and terrorism, and he has been outspoken on the issue of photographers’ rights. In his recent essay for the NewInternationalist, Schneier makes some salient points as usual. 

“Security theater” is the term Schneier uses to refer to measures that essentially make the public and government feel good but do little to actually prevent an incident. He writes:

An example: the photo ID checks that have sprung up in office buildings. No-one has ever explained why verifying that someone has a photo ID provides any actual security, but it looks like security to have a uniformed guard-for-hire looking at ID cards. Airport-security examples include the National Guard troops stationed at US airports in the months after 9/11 — their guns had no bullets. The US colour-coded system of threat levels, the pervasive harassment of photographers, and the metal detectors that are increasingly common in hotels and office buildings since the Mumbai terrorist attacks, are additional examples.

That makes perfect sense. When law enforcement and security guards harass photographers shooting in public places, it’s not like they’re really deterring terrorists or uncovering any plots, it just makes them feel like they’re doing their part in fighting a very intangible, nebulous enemy. 

And in a larger, big-picture sense, these misguided tactics work toward eroding our civil liberties and making us all feel a little less free than we were before. So in essence, this decision to criminalize very mundane, previously acceptable things (street photography, shampoo bottles on airplanes, etc.), it is us, the American people, who bear the brunt of the war on terror and find our lives are less pleasant and free than they were before. Joe Schmo Terrorist in Syria or wherever? He’s doing just fine.

And by the way, the best way to combat terrorism? Schneier says the most effective defenses are those you won’t even see in your day-to-day life: “investigation, intelligence, and emergency response,” and beyond that, it’s really about “our social and political policies, both at home and abroad.”

Schneier reminds us that the best way to deal with our new way of life, this all-consuming fear of terror, is not to overreact. As he says, terrorism is actually very rare. Don’t give into the hype, the hysteria, the suspicion lurking around the corner. It’s just not worth it and does nothing toward keeping us safe.

Read the whole piece on his blog: Schneier on Security.

Rick “Dirty” Sanchez Ignores Facts, Spins Story

Published November 12, 2009 Los Angeles County Sheriffs , Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment , Richard Gylfie #2955 6 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

Picture 21

In a desperate attempt to spin a story to his liking, Rick “Dirty” Sanchez (a man known for hitting Jeffrey Smuzinick with his car during a drunk driving accident and fleeing the scene, as well as publicly attacking Fox News for their lies) decided to ignore some very important facts regarding my detainment during his broadcast yesterday. However, even though his three-minute smear campaign against me was an honest and accurate report in his delusional mind, it’s too bad that others saw right through Sanchez’s gutter journalism report and have started calling him on it.

If you would like to voice your disgust at Rick Sanchez and his producer, Janelle Griffin, for spinning this story and running such a lopsided and biased segment (which intentionally and egregiously did not air Sheriff Gylfie’s lies, false claims, and threats), you can contact Janelle at (404) 827-1500. I’m sure she’ll appreciate your call, and make sure to ask her the following questions:

  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie saying, “It’s against MTA rules,” when photography is allowed on the Metro? More important, why did you include the entire beginning, but removed only this section of the video?
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie threatening Shawn when he said, “You know what, I’ll just submit your name to ah…(chuckles)…T.L.O.”
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie threatening Shawn when he said, “You’ll be on the FBI’s hit list. Is that what you want? That’s the direction you’re heading.”
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie threatening Shawn when he said, “We’ll just put your name on the hit list, dude…that’s fine.”
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie’s inaccurate claims about bombs being planted in the London subway bombings, when the explosions were caused by suicide bombers?
  • Why did you cut out Richard Gylfie’s inaccurate claims that photos were taken by the 7/7 terrorists prior to the attack being carried out when, in fact, photos were not taken? The four men involved in the attack did a trial run, which did not include taking photos.
  • Why did Rick claim in the segment that Shawn “is clearly out to provoke the officer, it seems, to try to make him look like a jerk” when that is absolutely not true? Do you have actual evidence to back up this claim?
  • Did Rick intentionally try to publicly smear Shawn by purposely leaving out very important facts involving his detainment?
  • Why did Janelle Griffin call Shawn on Wednesday morning to berate him, demand to know his attorneys’ names, and threatened to make him look bad on the show after he told her he was not going to participate?

Finally, if you’re going to call Janelle, make sure you do it during normal business hours, because as the producer of “Dirty” Sanchez’s show she apparently only checks her messages during that time.

Sheriff Threatens to Submit Photographer to FBI’s Hit List

Published November 8, 2009 Bayes #456 , Harassment , LASD , Los Angeles , Los Angeles County Sheriffs , Photographers' Rights , Police , Police Harassment , Richard Gylfie #2955 , Sheriffs 390 Comments

It is completely legal to photograph the Los Angeles Metro System.

Be sure to Digg the video here, leave a comment on YouTube, and submit the story to boingboing.

On October 31, 2009 while on my way home from the Hollywood and Highland area, I was unlawfully detained for 25 minutes by LASD Officers Richard Gylfie #2955 and Bayes #456 for taking two photographs of the turnstiles located at the Hollywood and Western Metro Station — an act that is completely legal and occurred in public space.

As you can see in the video (which can be viewed on YouTube, Vimeo, Liveleak, Flickr and discarted.com), Officer Gylfie #2955 and Officer Bayes #456 took it upon themselves to ignore established law and Metro policies in order to bully me, humiliate me, and detain me for conducting a perfectly legal activity in public. More important, by illegally detaining me, Officers Gylfie and Bayes violated my constitutional rights, which protect me as a photographer and against unlawful stops, searches, and seizures.

To voice your concerns regarding my unlawful detainment, contact the following individuals and offices:

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s online complaint form.

Michael J. Gennaco, Chief Attorney
The Office of Independent Review
4900 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 204
Commerce, CA 90040
Phone: (323) 890-5360
Email: mjgennac@laoir.com

Karyn Mannis, Captain
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Internal Affairs Bureau
http://www.lasd.org/divisions/leadership-training-div/bureaus/iab.html
(323) 890-5300

Eric Garcetti, City Council President
5500 Hollywood Blvd., 4th Floor
Hollywood, CA 90028
Phone: 323-957-4500
Email: councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

NOTE: Garcetti’s office is directly across the street from where this unlawful detainment took place. Gil Garcetti, Eric’s father, is also a former Los Angeles District Attorney, as well as an acclaimed urban photographer, so Eric should be well aware of photographers’ rights and the issues that we deal with today.

Tom LaBonge, Councilmember, District 4
Hollywood Field Office
6501 Fountain Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Phone: (323) 957-6415
Email: councilmember.labonge@lacity.org

Spam Blocked

1,139,412 spam blocked by Akismet