Archive for the 'Photographers’ Rights' Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Filmmaker Gets Chile Reception

Published June 13, 2008 Harassment , Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,

The Interpress News Agency (IPS) is reporting on the growing concern over a popular filmmaker who’s being held in a Chilean jail. Varela had been working on a documentary on the problems between lumber companies and the indigenous Mapuche people in Southern Chile.

Charged with “illicit association with the intent to commit a crime,” Varela was arrested May 7 for her alleged connections to a revolutionary group that is suspected of committing two robberies in 2004 and 2005. Though what’s most troubling is that much of her materials relating to the documentary were seized, including interviews, diaries, scripts, footage and cameras.

In an open letter to President Michelle Bachelet, Reporters Without Borders said “that other journalists and filmmakers have got into trouble when trying to cover the sensitive subject of the situation of the Mapuches.” 

Yes … its’ highly coincidental. And we’re sure those lumber companies don’t mind at all having her out of the way so they can continue to raze forests.

Article via IPS.

They Can Shoot Us, But We Can’t Shoot Them

Published June 13, 2008 Photographers' Rights 1 Comment
Tags: , , , ,


Photo by discarted

It only took 17 years, but the LAPD is finally getting dashboard cameras installed in patrol cars. The issue was first suggested in the early 90s, and in an article in New American Media, Councilman Ed Reyes blamed the delay on the fact that it was a “low priority” for the previous administration. The first wave of cameras will be for about 300 cars in the South Bureau, which sees the highest rates of crime and violence.

There will be two different dashboard cams (one facing front, one facing the backseat) and the officers will wear wireless microphones. Data will be automatically uploaded and sent to a computer at the local station.

“From a patrol officer’s point of view, it’s a good thing,” said Officer Danny Hernandez.

From a suspect’s point of view, it’s also a good thing.

Article from New American Media.

Update: APD to Undergo Training

Published June 12, 2008 Assault , Harassment , Photographers' Rights 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , ,

We posted on this story earlier, about Albuquerque police officer Daniel Guzman attacking a local NBC news videographer after exchanging some unpleasantries, and it looks like changes are afoot at the APD. It was all caught on tape, and Officer Guzman’s aggression was pretty shocking.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, Police Chief Ray Schultz reviewed the tape and determined mistakes were made. Now, the entire police department will undergo training so that they know how to appropriately respond in such situations.

Lesson #1: Don’t attack journalists while a camera is rolling.

Article via KOB.com New Mexico.

Photographer Arrested for Hitting Cop With Nose

Published June 10, 2008 Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: , , ,


Photo via Discarted

Tony Overman, staff photographer for the Olympian in Washington, was arrested at the scene of a fire on Friday for hitting a Lacey detective in the “nose with his forehead.” That apparently amounts to a charge of simple assault and obstruction.

From Det. David Miller’s perspective, Overman entered a restricted area and was told to leave. Det. Miller told another officer if he did it again he’d be arrested. This prompted a heated exchange between the two, where, Det. Miller claims, the forehead-nose contact took place. His report says:

He appeared to be very upset. He yelled again, ‘What did you say?’ I responded, ‘If you cross the taped area again you will be arrested.’ Overman got inches from my face and yelled, ‘I left didn’t I.’ Overman then hit me in the nose with his forehead.”

As for Overman, he said he did approach the restricted area but did not enter it. He said Det. Miller got aggressive with him and “put his face literally half an inch from my face. I didn’t move. He instigated the contact. He touched his nose to my nose.” He continues:

“When our noses touched, very, very softly, at that point he stopped and slammed me in the chest with two hands, really, really hard.”

Interestingly though, the other four Lacey cops who were at the scene did not mention this physical altercation in their reports. The Lacey Police Department is investigating the incident.

It seems like a MAJOR waste of tax dollars, if you ask us. Not to rail on cops all the time, but that should not have escalated to the point of arrest. Why can’t certain law enforcement keep their egos and tempers in check and keep things in perspective? It was a nose bump for god’s sake! 

By the way, an Austin cop was fired after his department reviewed an incident where he claimed a suspect was aggressive and determined his account wasn’t credible (his dashboard camera told a different story). That is not to say all police fabricate incident reports; it is to say it’s nice when the rotten ones are called out for it.

Article from The Olympian via PDNPulse.

Was L.B. Jeffries Violating Privacy Laws in Rear Window?

Published June 9, 2008 Photographers' Rights 4 Comments
Tags: , ,

Image via IMDB

Although the NPRD and this site are dedicated to preserving the rights of photographers as well as educating the public about those rights, we must be impartial, and discuss the other side of this issue — an individual’s right to privacy.

So, was L.B. Jeffries violating privacy laws using a giant telephoto lens to peer inside his neighbors’ apartments in Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window where there was an expectation of privacy? … The answer is YES.

And if you do a quick search on this subject you will quickly find numerous sites and discussions debating this issue. Or just simply type in Andrew Kantor, and you may come across the following PDF explaining a person’s right to privacy.

Whether we can take a photograph is determined by whether the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy or seclusion. If not — if he’s visible to the public (even on private property) — photography is legal.  The logic is simple: If you can see it, you can photograph it. If it requires extraordinary means to see (e.g., using a telephoto lens, or trespassing on property not open to the public such as a private office), then you may not be able to photograph it legally.

So all of you out there with telephoto lenses, take note. If you would like more information on this subject, there are some links in our Know Your Rights section.

Photog Arrested for Snapping Raid

Published June 9, 2008 Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: ,


Photo via discarted

Do photographers interfere with police work — taking photos from a distance?

The Cape Town police in South Africa would say yes; photographer Mlandeli Puzi would probably disagree. The off-duty photographer, who normally works for the newspaper Cape Argus, was arrested over the weekend for taking photos of a police raid on a tavern in Delft South. They charged him with resisting arrest and obstructing police from performing their duties.

Puzi’s friend, who was at the scene, said:

“The officer just grabbed his camera and shoved him inside the van; we couldn’t understand why.”

A police spokesman said:

“No one is allowed in the operation area beside police and the parties concerned, and failure to comply will result in arrest.”

Puzi is expected to appear in court today.

Article via Cape Times.

Let’s Break It Down

Published June 7, 2008 Photographers' Rights Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

Andrew Kantor is a tech writer/pundit/author who wrote this article in USA Today awhile back, but it bears repeating.

The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:

  • Certain military installations or operations.
  • People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that’s not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone’s window with a telephoto lens.

So simple, yet so complicated. But wait — that’s not all:

You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don’t change because of their age or where they are, as long as they’re visible from a place that’s open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)

Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.

And yes, you can shoot on private property if it’s open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you’re asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.

You can also shoot in subways and at airports.  … Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it’s quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you’re in an area open to the public.

Photo by Andrew Kantor.

“No pictures. You could be a terrorist.”

Published June 6, 2008 Harassment , Photographers' Rights , Security Guard Harassment 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , ,

KG

Keith Garsee was one of the photographers who joined us at the Photographers’ Rights Day rally in Hollywood on Sunday and also one of the inspirations for the event in the first place. He was harassed in the Los Angeles Metro, and we do mean harassed. It’s one thing to be told you can’t take photos, another to be threatened with arrest, and then quite another altogether to be told “F–k you” when you ask a simple question! Perhaps our tax dollars need to be going toward charm school for these security folks?

Here’s just an excerpt.

Him: Hey! It’s against the 9-11 Law to take pictures down here man!
Me: You mean the Patriot Act?
Him: No pictures.
Me: Could you explain? What law do you mean?
Him: You are lawyer?
Me: No.
Him: No pictures. You could be a terrorist. Very strict!
Me: How about I take a picture of you?
Him: F**k you… (I couldn’t believe it either)

Read the full account here.

Via Boing Boing.

Photo by discarted.

A Good Question

Published June 6, 2008 Photographers' Rights 9 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

A recent article in The Guardian by security technologist and author Bruce Schneier says that photographers have been coming under increasing scrutiny since 9/11 under the auspices of national security. But, he says:

The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography.

He makes a good point. Outlawing photography makes politicans and law enforcement feel good, like they’re doing something in the fight. Unfortunately they’re going after the wrong people.

And in case there was any doubt, he gives this nice reminder:

Fear aside, there aren’t many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that’s already in public view. If you’re harassed, it’s almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There’s nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.

Article via The Guardian.
Photo via let ‘er rip.

Photographers Stand Up for their Rights

Published June 4, 2008 Photographers' Rights , Protests 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Naomi Mercer, host of the web series “Gadget Gossip,” passed up a beautiful day at the beach to document our first-ever Photographers’ Rights Day in Los Angeles on Sunday, June 1.  

Video by Naomi Mercer

Spam Blocked

1,139,445 spam blocked by Akismet