UK photographer chased down and detained for taking pix at fun fair – Boing Boing Yet another post about yet another UK Photographer being unfairly harassed by UK policing.
Is it any wonder that photographers are being turned in left and right with the “brilliant” new campaign targeting photographers by the Metropolitan police.
Photography is not a crime. One more reason (besides the weak dollar) to stay away from the UK this year.
http://www.flickr.com/apps/video/stewart.swf?v=1.173
Boing Boing posts on a recent account by Lawrence Windrush of his unfortunate run in with UK security guards.
“They then said photographing shops was illegal and this was private land. I was angry at being grabbed by this man so i pushed him away, one of the men wearing a BARGAIN MADNESS shirt twisted my arm violently behind my back, i winced in pain and could hardly breathe in agony.
A policewomen was radioed and came over to question the two suspects ( the total detaining us had risen to seven, a large crowd had now gathered)
The detaining guard released me, i asked the policewoman if my friend and i could be taken away from the six guards, she motioned us to a nearby seat and told all the security people to go. She took our details, name, address, date of birth etc. She wanted to check my camera saying it was unlawful to photograph people in public, i told her this was rubbish. we agreed to come with her and we sat in the back of a police car, she radioed back to the station to check our details, i explained to her the law regarding photography and handed over a MOO card, i asked to take her picture and she said no. We were free to go with no charge.”
Photography is not a crime.
BBC NEWS | Magazine | Innocent photographer or terrorist? Lloyd England just dropped me a comment with a heads up on an article over at the BBC about the increasing harassment that photographers are being subjected to in Great Britain.
Fortunately it does look like at least one politician, Austin Mitchell, a photographer himself, has taken up the challenge to confront the increasing hostility towards photographers in Great Britain.
British MP (Member of Parliment) Austin Mitchell has proposed a motion condemning the British police for harassing photographers and recommending a “code” which would highlight that in the UK photography is not a crime.
“Mitchell stressed that taking pictures in public areas is ‘perfectly legal’ and urged the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to agree on a ‘photography code’ to be used by police officers ‘on the ground’.
Such a code, states the petition, should set out the ‘public’s right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion’. “
It’s nice to see a British law maker supporting this effort, especially in light of the most recent Metropolitan Police propaganda campaign encouraging people to turn in odd looking photographers to the police.
Interestingly enough, Mitchell is a photography enthusiast himself and has a photo gallery up on his own website.
This is Mitchell’s entire motion.
“‘That this house is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people’s art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which police, Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography, and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious grounds such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public’s right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion.'”
In what I can only view as troubling and a move surely to invite more backlash against photographers, London’s Metropolitan police has launched a new counter-terrorism PR campaign complete with anti-photography propaganda.
The campaign is meant to encourage people to turn in “odd” seeming people that they see taking photographs.
“Thousands of people take photos every day,” reads their advertisement being run in London’s major newspapers. “What if one of them seems odd?”
Having personally been harassed in the past by the U.S. police while out shooting, I worry that this kind of a campaign will result in even more harassment for photographers going forward. In addition to police harassment, I think that this campaign also sends the wrong message to people about photographers and photography. I think it encourages people to think suspiciously of photographers and to add to the climate of fear associated with photography.
Photography is not a crime. Taking photographs is part of a rich tradition of art, social commentary and historical documentation. I’m very disappointed seeing London’s Metropolitan Police decide to take this course of action and worry that this sort of backward thinking will continue to spread the boogeyman myth that photographers and photography are the enemy when they very much are not.
Having people report “odd seeming” photographers will only take important police time away from ways that it could better be spent in really fighting crime and terrorism.
Thanks Nick for this important heads up.
On Digg here.
On boing boing here.
PopPhoto Flash: The Crime of Photography: Rewarded! Pop Photo blogs about the case of amateur photographer Bogdan Mohora who was jailed in Seattle last year after he took photos of police that they didn’t want him to take during an arrest.
Although Mohora was only briefly detained he pushed the issue and worked with the ACLU to get an $8,000 settlement for his arrest. The two officers involved in the incident James Pitts and David Toner, pictured above, were discilplined with written reprimands for a lack of professionalism and poor exercise of discretion.
Photography, even of the police, is not a crime. Think about this the next time a cop tells you that you cannot take a photograph. The police should know better than this and I’m glad that Mohara is $8,000 richer after being harrased by them.
The sad thing is that the police get away with telling photographers not to shoot probably 99% of the time. It’s only when photographers really push the issue and insist on their First Ammendment rights that we see this stuff in the press.
More from the Seattle Times here. And more from the Seattle PI here.
On Boing Boing here.
Update. Officer David Toner responds:
“Hello, I just came across this web site while looking for something else and read the comments about Mahora’s incident. I am the officer that arrested Mahora. I have seen a lot of negative comments concerning this arrest and wanted to give you my perspective. First of all I would like to say that not one single person has contacted me about my side of this arrest. Not the press, not the ACLU, and not one single individual. All of the results of this have been based on Mahora’s less that honest and rather self serving retelling of the arrest.
First off, Mahaora has every right to photograph police officers while doing their everday work. Some exceptions apply but not in this case. There were outside circumstances that caused this arrest to become more dangerous to both the officers and the two men being contacted. The fact that Mahora was taking pictures of the event was not in and of itself an issue. I get photographed doing my job more often than you’d think and have no problem with it. The problem arose when Mahora got too close to us to take his pictures. I had asked him to move back and he did. Eventually he got close in again and was again instructed to step back a short distance. Again he complied. The third time became a serious officer safety situation when my partner was handcuffing a compliant suspect and I was seated in my car several feet away. I looked back to make sure my partner was under control with his suspect and there was Mahaora standing right next to me blocking my exit out if needed, taking a close up of my face. At this time I saw that my partner was fine and then placed Mahora under arrest for hindering.
Many other parts of Mahora’s story were inaccurate and sometimes out and out lies but they do not address this particular topic so I won’t go into them. Suffice is to say that this was not an issue about trying to suppress anyones constitutional rights but one of keeping two police officers safe while trying to do their job.
As for the $8000, Mahora was given the money as a settlement out of court as there was no court case about this. He won nothing but was simply paid off to “go away”. This is common practice for governments to do since handling a case in court will cost many times that amount. And yes, it makes me mad as well since that was yours and my tax money paying off a guy who was in the wrong. That’s politics for ya. I know that this will not mean anything to some of you who are quick to blame us dirty stinking cops for everything you can but I know that most of you know that we are all in this together and some might have wanted to hear the other side. Thanks”
"You can’t take pictures in here," said the New Jersey police officer.
"What?" I answered back.
"You can’t take pictures after the screening area," he clarified.
"Ok," I answered back, moving my camera from my eye to around my neck…
…until he passed and I rounded the corner up there on the left at which point the camera came right back out again and continued shooting.
Misplaced concern ? Ricky Leong, yellow journalist Yet another case where the “no photograhy police” try to shut you down. Unfortunately.
Last week I was shooting the Federal Building in San Francisco and had another similar run in of my own.
The guard came out and told me that it was against the law to photograph Federal Buildings from the sidewalk. I told him that it wasn’t and that I was going to keep shooting the building anyways. He told me, “Ok, but when you get arrested it’s on you.” I told him that this would be fine with me and he went back inside while I finished shooting the Federal Building.
In what should be hailed as good news for photography rights advocates, new rules and regulations proposed earlier this year by the City of New York that would have required permits for group shooting and other photographic activity have been quashed.
New York City is one of the most photogenic cities in the world and the previously proposed “permit” requirement would have been disastrous. Fortunately Mayor Bloomberg’s office has reconsidered their photography permit requirement after considerable public outcry and the the originally proposed rules have been relaxed considerably.
The old proposed rules were written in response to a lawsuit settlement with Rakesh Sharma, a filmmaker who had been detained by NYPD in 2005 for using a hand-held video camera in Midtown.
Photography is not and should not be a crime.
The Guard at 45 Fremont gave me crap when I was taking this photo from outside the building the other day. I asked him if he remembered the last guy whose portrait I took there. The guy who flipped me off. He said he did. I asked if that guy still worked there and he said no. I told him that I wasn’t going to take his portrait today but that I was shooting from a public area and that he should go back inside and let me finish up with my shooting and that I’d be leaving when I was done. He said ok and went back inside.
Some people never learn. It kind of pisses me off a bit because 95% of people who are asked not to shoot from public areas will just listen to the security guard and not challenge their authority. He wasn’t going to give me crap because of the fallout over it the last time at this building, but it makes me wonder how he would have treated a different photographer.
On an unrelated note, I’ve always seen the bridge walkway that connects 45 Fremont and 50 Beale Street as a lifeline between two hearts. I’m not sure why. I think you can see it better as a lifeline here.
