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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
In 1980, in what can only be described as fortuitous, Occidental College undergrad Lisa Jack photographed a freshman named Barry Obama for a portrait project. It’s now nearly 30 years later, Barry is President of the United States Barack Obama, and the collection is being shown at M+B gallery in West Hollywood.
The exhibit - showing Obama in a fedora, smoking a cigarette, looking smooth - marks the first time the collection is on display (they were featured as part of Time Magazine’s 2008 “Person of the Year” issue). The gallery describes the set as taken during the future president’s soul-searching period. Or soulful period?
“Barack Obama: The Freshman” is at M+B through August 29.
Participants at LeBron James’ Nike basketball camp in Cleveland this week learned a little bit about media manipulation alongside ball handling skills. From The Quad blog in the New York Times comes a report that a freelance photographer’s footage was confiscated after he ran afoul of the star’s vanity.
Ryan Miller had been at the camp shooting video all day when he caught an Xavier sophomore dunking on James – what Miller calls the “highlight of the camp.” Miller says James’ team lost the subsequent game and then he saw the star call over a Nike official. The official then told Miller he couldn’t tape the professional players basically because the players are out of shape, and then he took the video – the entire video of the day, mind you, that Miller was shooting as a freelancer for ESPNU. Not right.
It’s fine to have a closed camp with a no photography policy. But to decide midway through the event, after what is so clearly an embarrassing moment for James, to then enact a policy and confiscate footage (and someone’s livelihood)? That’s not just bad PR, it’s ridiculous. Get over yourself.
While photographing the Michael Jackson memorial on Hollywood Boulevard on June 27th, I came upon a scene where an Andrews International private security guard was ordering a guy who was heckling the gathered reporters to leave the public portion of the boulevard. I took one photo and the guard, Vasquez #782, immediately turned his attention to me and told me to stop and that I couldn’t take pictures specifically of him. I refused, being that I was on a public sidewalk and what I was doing was legal (not to mention completely reasonable – I mean, really? There are thousands of cameras on the boulevard on any given day – not including Andrews International’s own cameras that are videotaping us 24/7. After I repeatedly refused and went to take another photo, Vasquez grabbed my camera and pushed it into my face. Then he called his supervisor to report – get this – “I have somebody taking taking pictures of me.”
Forget for a moment that what I was doing was legal. All of this took place on the public portion of the boulevard, which raises the question: Why are Andrew International’s private security guards patrolling the busiest public sidewalk in Hollywood, acting as though they are LAPD, when they have no police powers or legal authority to do so? Andrews International guards are stationed at Hollywood and Highland to handle incidents that occur on the private property of the entertainment complex. They are not there to take action when something occurs on the public portion of the Boulevard, nor do they have the legal authority to do so.
However, based on the fact that this is my second encounter in a year involving these guards and photography on Hollywood Boulevard, as well as personally witnessing numerous encounters between the guards and other people on the public sidewalk, it’s very apparent that these private guards believe their authority extends well beyond the mall they are paid to patrol.
More important, it seems that city officials don’t have a problem with ceding one of LA’s most popular tourist attractions to a bunch of bullies who couldn’t find a law in a law library. Of course Hollywood Boulevard is going to be photographed – every inch of it has been and will continue to be. And of course a security guard might find himself in someone’s frame, whether he’s detaining someone or just standing there. It’s not his (or her) place to do anything about it. These guards’ job is to only “observe and report,” and that doesn’t involved harassing and assaulting photographers.
Andrews International’s mentality of “observe and take action,” no matter where the incident occurs, has gone unchecked for too long and this type of behavior will continue to happen unless we pressure local officials (namely city councilmembers Eric Garcetti and Tom LaBonge) to put an end to it.
To voice your concerns, we’ve compiled a list of all the relevant officials to send a complaint to, along with a written statement you can cut and paste if you don’t have the time to write your own.
*****Copy and Paste These Emails Into Your Email*****
*****Copy and Paste This Statement Into The Body of Your Email*****
Subject: Andrews International’s Harrassment of Photographers
I am writing to object to the treatment of photographers on Hollywood Boulevard. It is well known that Andrews International, the private security force hired to patrol the Hollywood and Highland complex, regularly overstep their authority and harass photographers who are there only to document what is a major Los Angeles tourist attraction. Despite having no legal authority to do so, these security guards harass and even assault photographers, who have every legal right to photograph on public sidewalks.
So these guards are, in effect, attempting to enforce rules by breaking the law. This is troubling, not to mention an abuse of authority and an embarrassment for Andrews International and the city of Hollywood. I strongly encourage you to look into these policies and see that these employees are properly educated about photography in public.
It is troubling that this popular tourist attraction is being marred by bullies who aren’t familiar with laws, or even the parameters of their own jobs. If the intention is to make Hollywood a welcoming, open and mainstream place for tourists and locals to enjoy, these very aggressive and poorly trained officers certainly don’t do well in reinforcing that mission.
I hope you can see the value in rectifying this situation and I would appreciate your timely response to this matter.
The Annenberg Space for Photography will debut its second exhibit in July, the prestigious annual photojournalism contest ”Pictures of the Year International.” The exhibit will feature over 80 prints and thousands of digital images from some of the world’s best documentary photographers.
For 65 years, the exhibit was held at my alma mater, the University of Missouri School of Journalism, and this will be the first year it’s held in Los Angeles.
Photo by
