Archive for the 'Photographers’ Rights' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

SF Muni to Halt Harassment Very Soon

Published August 8, 2009 Harassment , Photographers' Rights 1 Comment
Tags: , ,

It seems the San Francisco Muni, the city’s transportation agency, is finally being forced to publicize its policy regarding photography. After several incidents where passengers have been harassed by drivers and fare inspectors, including this disturbing one involving a  high school student (yes, the inspector actually says the Muni is private property), SF Appeal asked an MTA spokesperson for answers. The spokesperson said a policy is forthcoming (“soon”), while allowing that it will say non-commercial photography is allowed as long as it doesn’t disturb transit. 

Muni inspectors in the meantime are being re-trained on how to deal (or not deal, as the case may be) with photographers. Rather smartly, the Appeal asked the spokesperson what one should do if they are harassed by a Muni staffer.  

His answer: “Ask to speak to their supervisor. If that doesn’t work, call 311 and file a complaint with all the details.”

Article from SF Appeal via Streetsblog San Francisco

Famed Photographer Facing Financial Ruin

Published August 6, 2009 Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

Annie+Leibovitz+Photographer+Life+Press+Conference+rkE0S6pNJFal
Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images Europe

Annie Leibovitz is one of, if not the, preeminent celebrity photographer in the world. She also owes $24 million – due September 8th – and she’s on the verge of financial ruin, not to mention losing the rights to her archives.

So the New York Times in a recent article asks rather incredulously: “If Annie Leibovitz can’t make it in New York, who can?” Er, anyone can make it in New York – especially at the salary she’s been commanding for around 30 years; she just must be, to be really frank, a colossal flake.

While the article seems sympathetic to Leibovitz, any thinking person would come away shaking their head. It describes Leibovitz as beholden to a “pawn shop”-like lending company (but their shaky reputation was apparently well-documented) and having  family burdens (like work overload and children – yes, very unique) and real estate expenses (multiple million-dollar homes). They also say she’s  terrible with her money and extremely irresponsible and always has been.

“The mind that can take these extraordinary pictures is not necessarily the same mind that is a perfect money manager,” said Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair.

OK, but does that mind know well enough to pay someone else to manage their money? How does anyone making the money she does, or even just anyone anywhere,  get into a situation where they owe $24 million? The article notes that she’s always been extremely protective about reproduction of her work, and sadly, she stands to lose the rights to all of her images since she pledged them as collateral for the loan (along with her homes). Too bad she wasn’t protective of her financial portfolio.

Like MC Hammer and Ed McMahon before her, it’s just really hard to feel sorry for multi-millionaires who can’t manage their money.

Article from The New York Times

“Sign of the Times” – Bleak In Yorkshire

Published August 6, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment , Security Guard Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

It almost seems redundant to keep posting these incidents from England because they’re so egregious and, sadly, seem to be just the way of life there nowadays. But it’s also possible, with regular attention and outrage, that things could improve and the stranglehold authorities have on photography might lessen one day.

In a story on the Yorkshire Post site Tuesday, Carl Minns, a member of the Hull City Council, was contacted by police after he took pictures at a local mall. Minns was taking photos at St. Stephen’s shopping center when a security guard told him he wasn’t allowed because it was private property. But here’s where it gets ridiculous: When Minns complained, in the form of an email to the center’s management, instead of replying they forwarded it straight onto the police! As if a city council member expressing concern about a photography policy was a threat!

Minns soon got a call from the police, which he said was handled all well and good on their end, but acknowledged it was an unusual scenario: “I have a lot of dealings with the police because of my job, but I can imagine the shock of this happening to an ordinary person.” The police told him the center was supposedly acting within the country’s terrorism guidelines.

In the meantime, Minns was told he won’t be facing any charges, but he still hasn’t received a response to his initial complaint. A center spokesperson called it an oversight they’re working on, while admitting the photography policy was a “sign of the times.”

Article from the Yorkshire Post

Homeland Security Renews Photography Suspicion

Published August 5, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment , Security Guard Harassment 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

0382A012Critical infrastructure. Photo by discarted

Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano told reporters last week that we all need to be aware and on the lookout for terrorists on the prowl, and that means calling in photographers “continually taking photographs of a piece of critical infrastructure that doesn’t seem to make any sense.” Jeesh, way to set us back, oh, about eight years, Janet. I feel like I’m having flashbacks to a different administration.

Just when it looked like there was a little progress, with Amtrak and the NYPD revising or clarifying their policies – now, law enforcement has a renewed mandate to harass photographers who “continually” shoot, say, their local ports or skyscrapers. I can just see the cop or security guard who finds that type of photography just “doesn’t make sense.”

Article from PDNPulse

Read the National Press Photographers Association response here

Photography Police Issue Goes to High Court

Published July 27, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

2583984586_5783c40aa6
Photo by danger joel

A woman in England is finally taking on the Met police for their harassment of people who film and photograph them. Gemma Atkinson is pursuing a High Court review (equivalent to our Supreme Court in the US) over the police practice of using the Anti-Terrorism law to basically criminalize all photography.

In March,  Atkinson was filming her boyfriend being detained in a London subway station as part of a drug search when she was approached by a plainclothes officer who told her what she was doing was illegal. (“Do you realise it is an offence under the Terrorism Act to film police officers?” he said.) When she refused to hand over her cell phone – having already slipped it into her shirt pocket – the officer was relentless in trying to get it from her, ultimately calling over two female officers for help. A struggle ensued for the next 25 minutes where she was physically overpowered, handcuffed and threatened with arrest.

Finally, when the officers called the station (presumably to speak with a supervisor who told them they had no cause), they let Atkinson go – no apology, no explanation, nothing. The original officer’s only rationale during the incident was that he didn’t want the video to be all over the internet, i.e., YouTube.

Interestingly, the premise of this case is at odds with the report that police in Manchester have filmed over 900 suspects and their associates, whether they’ve committed a crime or not, all in the interest of building a database for tracking criminals and maybe-someday-future criminals. Police at times have openly followed these suspects down the street with a handheld camera. Suspects are then sent a letter informing them that the footage could appear on YouTube. Oh, the hypocrisies!

Read the article about the Gemma Atkinson incident and an interview with Gemma  at The Guardian site.

Read the BBC report about the Manchester Police here.

Thanks to pixel.eight.

Calgary Police Delete Photos

Published July 24, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment 2 Comments
Tags: , , ,

calgary police
Photo by Robert Thivierge

A photojournalist in Calgary found out the hard way that law enforcement will do whatever it takes to assert their power. Last Sunday, Robert Thivierge came upon a scene where four Calgary Police Service officers were arresting a man. He starting taking photos and was told to stop and delete his photos or – get this – he’d lose his camera for a year. 

What an outrageously asinine rule! Do these security guards live in a special fantasyland where they get to make up their own laws? Or is Canada just totally fine with trampling its citizens’ civil rights?

From Thivierge’s account:

The security guard on the left said the pictures I took didn’t belong to me, and I wasn’t allowed to have any of the images, and they’d have to be deleted.

Then, the other security guy talked to a cop, who said it was ok for me to go, with the images, saying the first security person “misspoke”.

Then, the next cop, said I couldn’t leave with an image that’s potential evidence. So, I would have to delete it, if I didn’t want to lose my camera for a year. When I said it would be illegal to delete evidence, they said it wasn’t evidence if it’s deleted. Make sense?

Thivierge says he is pursuing the matter and the police seem to be looking into it too, according to Metro News Calgary. I do hope he gets some answers. According to Thivierge, Canada does not have an ACLU equivalent or respect civil rights as we do in the US. To be sure, in this country, at worst, these officers (or whatever these guys are) are engaging in lying and stealing; at best, they’re just incompetent because they don’t know what their job parameters are.

Just remember this mantra, and repeat it to yourself if you’re ever in one of these situations: Police (or security personnel) do not have the right to take your property or delete your photos, and don’t be bullied into thinking otherwise.

Read a brief article on the Metro News Calgary site here.

See Robert Thivierge’s Flickr photostream here.

Penn State Photog Cleared

Published July 24, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Photojournalism Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

A District Attorney in Centre County, Pennsylvania, who apparently doesn’t have anything better to do than go after college paper photographers, lost his battle in court this week when a judge cleared the photographer of all wrongdoing. 

Michael Felletter was photographing the melee after Penn State’s victory over Ohio State last October 25 for The Daily Collegian when he was arrested and charged with five counts of failure to disperse and one count of disorderly conduct. (In March the charges were re-filed with only one count of failure to disperse.) The criminal complaint – somewhat shockingly, if only because it sounds so preposterous – claimed Felletter’s photographs incited the crowd to become “more exuberant, excited and destructive.”

Interestingly though, the police used Felletter’s photos to identify and charge more rioters involved in the incident. So, the State was happy to use the fruits of his labor, they just didn’t believe he should have been there taking photos. Hmmm.

DA Michael Madeira said he is reviewing the decision and deciding whether to appeal or re-file charges. Andy Shubin, Felleter’s lawyer, said Madeira needs to “reread his copy of the Constitution.” It would seem he has the time to do so.

Article via Centre Daily Times

Kent Photographer Stopped Again

Published July 19, 2009 Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

Alex Turner was stopped for taking pictures of Chatham High Street in Kent, England, today. Hmmm, sound familiar? It’s the same Alex Turner who was arrested on July 8th for taking pictures on the same busy stretch of road.

When stopped this time, Turner was asked by police what he was doing and to produce some ID. He was also asked if he’d ever been arrested before, which he now had to say yes – under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Not wanting to get arrested again, he handed over his ID, and after seeing the pictures he took, the officers were satisfied that he was not a terrorist and let him go.

Turner admits maybe he was pushing his luck. But, really, why is it pushing one’s luck to photograph a public street at two different times?

Read his full account here.

Don’t Take Photographs in Kent – Or Else

Published July 17, 2009 Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , ,

questions-1024x679
Photo by Alex Turner

It’s well known the English police have no mercy when it comes to photography. The craziest stories always seem to be coming out of there. And this one is no different.

Photographer Alex Turner was arrested last week in Kent after taking some photos of a fish restaurant. The grounds were “prevention of terrorism” under Section 44, the catch-all anti-terrorism law English police like to use to do whatever they damn well please. But really the officer was just annoyed he took a photo of her, and she claimed that was an unlawful obstruction.

As he tell it on his blog: Two men who claimed they worked for the town council stopped Turner while he was taking photos and requested his identity. When he refused, being that they didn’t fully identify themselves or explain their authority to stop him, they called police. When the officers showed up and Turner took a photo, he was handcuffed, arrested and detained in a police van.

Whilst sharing their views about the threat of terrorism officer xxxxx stated she had felt threatened by me when I took her picture. I cannot recall exactly what she said but I do recall her referring to my size and inferring she found it intimidating at the time (I am 5ft 11in and weigh about 12 stone).

Are these officers really that dumb? Because they come off like real lugnuts, going around arresting people taking photos on busy streets and actually bringing up terrorism. Terrorists are blowing up buildings in Jakarta; they’re not taking photos of Mick’s Plaice in Kent.

In his blog on the Guardian site, Henry Porter writes on the incident and the “The war on street photography,” saying “Clearly something has to be done about the police attitude to photography and filming.” It’s heartening that major media outlets recognize things are out of control. But still. It just doesn’t end.

The  Kent Police released a statement to The Register and basically just recapped the incident, noting that the officers felt Turner was suspicious. However, an investigation is underway.

Turner ends his complaint to the Kent police department with this, which I think sums it all up nicely for those people who side with the government in such matters. And there are always those people who just don’t see there’s a much bigger picture here than one man being arrested in one town.

I know a fair few people may say serves you right for a number of reasons. My reponse to that is it will serve you right when you wake up one day and realise you don’t live in a free country anymore. I’ve been stopped nearly a dozen time under section 44. Up until now I’ve always provided my details. Today I decided not to. Seems that when I choose to exercise my rights I get arrested, cuffed and detained for doing so. Yossarian would appreciate the logic in that.

Read Turner’s full account in his blog.

Contest Winners Prove Point With Staged Photos

Published July 15, 2009 Photographers' Rights 3 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

21_gchauvin06
Photo by Guillaume Chauvin

Two students at a Strasbourg arts university had the brilliant idea to document student poverty for Paris Match’s annual Grand Prix photo contest. Turns out their essay, depicting such raw images as students foraging for food in the trash and a female student forced into the sex trade, was exactly what the judges were looking for. They won the contest and then promptly admitted the photos were staged.

Guillaume Chauvin and Remi Hubert said the photos were meant to be a “powerful artistic gesture” aimed at a complacent and voyeuristic media. The pair thought their work was so hackneyed they’d never win.    

So, to break it down, to prove how cliched photography has become they staged an incredibly cliched photo essay – and won. Wow.

Paris Match, which has considerable egg (or should I say ouef) on its face now, rescinded the equivalent of $5,000 in prize money and gave it to the winners’ school instead. Additionally, the magazine announced it would be increasing the cash prize to $10,000 next year because of the incident. (How that addresses the problem, I’m not so sure.)

While definitely an interesting move on the part of the students, the gesture would have presumably had no impact had they not won. So it’s lucky they won…right?

See the photos here.

Article via The Independent and British Journal of Photography

Spam Blocked

1,139,436 spam blocked by Akismet