Archive for the 'Photographers’ Rights' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

El Paso PD Bully, Threaten Anyone Who Records Them

Published March 30, 2011 Photographers' Rights , Photography , Police Harassment 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , ,

Sounds like the police in El Paso are resorting to good old fashioned bully tactics when it comes to photography and video. Dan Wild told the local NBC affiliate KTSM that police took his camera and deleted all the photos on it after he recorded a raid on a suspect’s house in his neighborhood two years ago. The officer told Wild it was a felony to film a police raid. (I feel like I’ve heard that one before….)

Wild came forward after KTSM aired a report last week on a taxicab inspector named Jesus Lopez-Ledesma who was bullied by El Paso police for recording a confrontational traffic stop with his cell phone. In that incident, officers threatened Lopez-Ledesma’s job and told him that they would give the driver they pulled over his driver’s license information so she could sue him for violating her privacy. (See the video here.) The El Paso police spokesman claimed the officers didn’t do anything wrong and weren’t using intimidation tactics. (That, despite one officer saying, “I’m sure your licensing, your job, depends on your cooperation with the El Paso Police Department.”)

“If we allow police to pick and choose who can film or photograph and who can’t then we might as well call the quits on democracy,” [First Amendment rights expert] David Cuillier said.

Let’s not do that. That seems lame.

Source: KTSM News Channel 9

Mohawked Man Goes Ballistic Over Photo

Published March 20, 2011 Photographers' Rights , Photography 1 Comment
Tags: , , ,

If you shoot street photography, you’ve certainly come across angry or belligerent subjects. They don’t usually beat you on the head with a skateboard though, as a miffed mohawked man did to a photographer in Austin, TX.

The man who was assaulted said he had been taking photos of “anything that was remotely interesting or unusual,” according to the affidavit. When he photographed 23-year-old Johnathan Washburn’s mohawk, Timothy Beard, 19, told him to delete the picture from his digital camera, according to the affidavit.

The man refused and Beard took his $100 Oakley sunglasses, the affidavit said. When the victim tried to get his sunglasses back, according to the affidavit, Washburn hit him on the left side of the head with the skateboard.

This seems odd because mohawks are in my mind aggressively look-at-me hairdos, so wouldn’t you be accustomed to the attention?

By the way, Washburn was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and Beard was charged with theft.

Source: The Blotter/The Statesman

New Haven Police: Go Ahead, Record Us

Published March 4, 2011 Photographers' Rights 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , ,

The New Haven Police Department is re-training its force in accordance with a new policy, General Order 311. That policy states that cops can no longer arrest citizens for recording them in public. The caveat is that recording is permitted as long as it doesn’t interfere with police activity or jeopardize anyone’s safety, and you might think that would be abused. But, the order addresses that issue:

“The video recording of police activity in and of itself does not constitute a crime, offense, or violation. If a person video recording police activity is arrested, the officer must articulate clearly the factual basis for any arrest in his or her case and arrest reports.”

And as Assistant Chief Tobin Hensgen, who lead a training session (see above video), said:

“If a citizen wants to exercise his First Amendment rights and photograph you while you’re in a squad car and uniform or on detail while you’re performing your duties, as long as they’re legal, you have no expectation of privacy.”

The policy was initiated by Police Chief Frank Limon after a rash of incidents over the past year involving citizens and recording, where police clearly abused their authority. The New Haven Independent was a champion of the cause, and this is an impressively swift reaction by the police if you want to look at it optimistically.

Or, as a commenter put it: “Breaking News Flash—Cops ordered to Not arrest someone who is NOT breaking the law.”

Source: New Haven Independent

Shooting Cows In Florida to Be a Felony?

Published March 3, 2011 Photographers' Rights 2 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

Photo by JH

With politicians like these, who needs enemies? Florida State Senator Jim Norman is doing a pretty good job on his own of taking away Americans’ everyday liberties — funny, how we’re always blaming foreigners for that, right?

Norman, a Republican from Tampa, has introduced a measure making it illegal to photograph farms. But wait, not just illegal — a pretty serious crime.  Under the “Farms” bill, it would be a felony to photograph or take video of a farm or its animals without the owner’s permission.

Creative Loafing did a little digging and found out Norman’s true motivation for this ridiculous bill: his connections to Big Agriculture. Of course! It always leads back to “Big” something.

The not-so-obvious purpose of this bill is to prevent people from obtaining employment inside a farm operation for the purpose of photographically documenting what they believe to be abuses of farm animals or violations of laws governing agricultural operations. Mr Cadle identified one of the groups they were trying to stymie as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). He said that there are many groups/individuals that try to record things and then expose them on the web.

…

When BIG money speaks, Jim listens. And next thing you know, special interest laws get written and we lose a little sunshine.

Pennsylvania Cop Lies About Wiretapping Law, Then Backtracks

Published February 25, 2011 Harassment , Photographers' Rights , Police Harassment Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

NPPA Protests JetBlue’s Treatment of Photographer

Published February 23, 2011 Harassment , Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The National Press Photographers Association has come out in support of photographer Steven Sunshine, a New York Daily News contributing photographer, who was taking photos of blizzard-induced flight delays at JFK airport in December. JetBlue security personnel told Sunshine he should have requested clearance three days earlier, despite the fact that the Sunday storm’s severity was not known until the day before. Sunshine was escorted out of the terminal and, when he filed a complaint with the Port Authority Police, which oversees the airport, they threatened to pull his credentials.

“For you to have singled out Mr. Sunshine, who identified himself as a credentialed press photographer is an insult to our profession and members, who are also part of the flying public. While I appreciate your concerns for the safety of your patrons and employees I would hope that you can understand that photography/videography by itself is not a dangerous or pernicious activity.”

Source: NPPA Advocacy Committee

Mass Mayor Says No to Funding Police Legal Fees

Published February 23, 2011 Photographers' Rights , Photography Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , ,

When politicians talk about cutting budgets it’s amazing that they go after things like teachers and firefighters. Wouldn’t it make more sense to cut the needless expenses brought on by agressively incompetent and/or abusive civil servants?

As the Eagle Tribune reports, the mayor of Lawrence, Mass., William Lantigua, has the right idea: He says the city will no longer pay the legal bills for police officers who are being sued for misconduct charges. Over the past three years, the city has paid $1.2 million defending police officers in civil cases. (Twenty new police officers could be hired for that money.)

Instead, Lantigua says he will hold to the police unions’ contract, which says the city only has to pay the $5,000 retainer for a patrolman and $7,500 for a superior officer. Lantigua says officers have two options when they are being sued — to use one of the three city attorneys or have their unions pay for the defense.

Police brutality cases are especially costly, and there six lawsuits going to trial in the next six months. Lawrence recently settled one case, paying the plaintiff $400,000. So you can imagine, at this pace, we’re talking about the city potentially paying out over $2 million this year.

This idea is especially relevant in the case of photographers’ rights too, because the courts almost always respect those rights. To wit: a Fox TV camera operator got $1.2 million from the City of Los Angeles, Antonio Musumeci recently got an undisclosed settlement from the federal government, and infamous Amtrak photographer Duane Kerzic reportedly got a five-figure sum from the national railroad.

Really, this is a no-brainer. Spending millions on these lawsuits is just egregious waste. And in many, many cases it is entirely preventable. Some police officers don’t seem to understand the severity of abusing their authority because there are no personal repercussions. If the city foots the bill, and they get a new job, where is the disincentive?

DC’s Most Detained Photographer Gets Detained Again

Published February 15, 2011 Photographers' Rights , Photography 1 Comment
Tags: , , , ,

Last October, as a result of a pretty major lawsuit brought by the New York chapter of the ACLU, the federal government agreed to end the harassment of photographers outside all federal buildings. Sadly, not all federal employees have been apprised of the decision.

Here is photographer Jerome Vorus’s story of his encounter outside DC’s Superior Court, from our NPRO flickr group. (You might remember Vorus has been detained at Reagan National Airport and on the streets of DC in the recent past for his photography activities.)

On February 10, 2011, I was taking photographs around Capitol Hill and started to take photos of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (the corner of 6th and C Street NW), at which time I was stopped by a Court Security Officer (CSO) who told me that my actions of taking photographs were unlawful, and that I would need to stop taking pictures of the building even from the public sidewalk. The CSO (Gasser) then called for US Marshals for assistance and I was immediately stopped by deputy Torrance Wilson (4101) and Shanks (4475). I was told that I was being stopped for photography.

Both deputy Marshals began to enlist personal information from me, asking for my identification at which time I asked “am I being detained or am I free to go”. Both officers told me that I was not being detained, that I was “being stopped for questioning” I continued to ask “am I being detained or am I free to go” I was then told that I was being detained because I recording them. Deputy Wilson then called a supervisor for assistance because it was obvious that they were not knowledgeable of the law as it regards to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Continue reading ‘DC’s Most Detained Photographer Gets Detained Again’

Chicago’s Hypocratic Oath

Published February 9, 2011 Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags:

Illinois has some of the toughest laws in the nation when it comes to taking pictures or shooting video of police in action. Depending on the specifics and the mood of the officers at the scene, it can be construed as a felony offense to whip out that video camera to catch moving pictures of our police at work.

Which is why it comes off as hypocritical to listen to law enforcement types rant about how much they need to have those cameras installed on lamp-posts and buildings all over the city – creating the impression that “someone’s watching you” at all times.

Source: Chicago Argus

Patriot Act Extension Doesn’t Get Enough Votes

Published February 9, 2011 Photographers' Rights , Photography Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

Yesterday House Republicans were not able to get the seven votes needed to extend the Patriot Act. The failure is being chalked up to resistence from the new so-called Tea Party Republicans.

As we all know, the Patriot Act has been used as a catchall justification for abuses of power and the stripping of many of our basic rights, including photographer’s rights. (How many times have we heard authorities throwing it around and around when faced with a “dangerous” photographer?) It’s expected if Democrats don’t like it (as Rep. Dennis Kucinich said, “it represents the undermining of civil liberties”), but with the Republicans’ opposition, could this mean our leaders in Washington actually recognize what a dangerous law this is?

The Washington Post reports:

Rep. Steve Southerland (R-Fla.), a freshman who voted yes, said the measure is “going to need some examination going forward, so all I did today is just, hey, instead of making a wrong decision, we’re just going to do a little more due diligence to make the very right decision to both protect our security as well as protect the civil liberties of the American people.”

It’s not like I want to come down in favor of any of our political parties because I think they’re all self-serving and corrupt. But one thing I can say for the Tea Party movement is that if it is really for less government intrusion and a more faithful following of our founding documents, then I agree that the Patriot Act does not fit into either concept.

Source: Washington Post

Spam Blocked

1,139,037 spam blocked by Akismet