Photographer threatened with arrest and forced to delete images

They're still at it.

http://londonphotographers.org/2010/08/photographer-threatened-arrest-forced-delete-images/

 

forced-delete-images/

That police officer should be in serious trouble -
* she was in public
* outside the cordon
* she was carrying a press card
* she identified herself by showing her press card.

That rules out a bunch of the reasons they normally use to intimidate
photographers, and it brings in a bunch of extra protections
(journalistic material needing a court order etc).

It happened in London and is clearly against the Met's own advice aout
photography.

Fucking disgusting.

What's worse is that we know very little will happen. She lost out,
because news photos have to be timely; her employers lost out; etc etc.

(Hilarious Godwin at the cited site though.)

 

It is irrelevant that she was carrying a press card and identified
herself by showing her press card. She has no more (and no fewer) rights
than any other person present.

 

On the other hand... yesterday I turned up at an RTA and took pictures.
Showed the police my company ID card (it says "photographer") and they
were very helpful. I explained I was freelance and not actually on the
staff of the local paper.

They let me in side the cordon and told the fire officers I was OK after
I put on my Hi-vis vest. It has company name and "Photographer" on the
back.

They took my business card (not the memory card and said they would
be in touch for a copy of the pictures for the investigation.

So far I have been lucky when dealing with the police.

 

It is relevant. She had ID and a legitimate reason to be there. Press
cards are not issued lightly and have a picture on them.

Normally this does make a difference as I discovered yesterday at an RTA
and the press are treated slightly differently to the general public and
it is a two way street and the police often need the help of the media.

 

Please report back when you get hassled, it can only be a matter of time.

 

She was in a public place, outside the police cordon. Did she have a
'more legitimate' reason than anyone else to be there?

They simply serve to identify the holder as a bona fide employee or
member of one medium or another.

The police will often (and quite rightly too, and for whatever reason)
allow certain privileges and facilities certain people (for example,
access to restricted areas, such as crime scenes). This will be at the
discretion of the police, and not a 'right'. As such, they could just as
well allow non-card-carrying persons the same privileges (maybe just
because they liked the look of your face).

The point I'm getting at is the NUJ keeps on stressing that it is press
photographers and reporters who are being messed about by the police.
This is undoubtedly true but, as a results of their protests, I would
not like to see the press being granted any legal privileges over
'ordinary people'.

 

Yes under Counter Terrorist and other laws. For example (certainly in
the past if not now) the Police in a riot situation would move people
out of the area. However they would not move the press who were
recording the event rather than taking part etc. This seems to have
changed of late. Also of course the Press usually had insurance.

Though in some, legitimate, cases the police do not want any pictures
taken. At one incident I was asked not to take any pictures of some
people and delete some pictures. This was because some were undercover
police and some of the armed team had their faces visible. The
situation and the operation was ongoing. I deleted the photos as asked.

Yes... And having a legitimate reason for having lots of recording
equipment of various sorts and showing more than a passing interest in
proceedings. You would expect in depth questions and telephoto lenses
from the press but not usually from a random collection of bystanders.

Agreed. However the reporter in this case was in a public place.

As happened to me yesterday. I have a company id that says I am a
photographer but not Press card as issued by the NUJ or BBC etc.

BTW my company ID does not claim to be a press card. There are a lot of
photographers carrying UK/Euro/World "PRESS-CARDS" that are no more
valid than my company ID. You can buy them from many web sites and
Psuedo press organisations aimed at people who don't qualify for a real
press-card.

Yes... Not just the NUJ but many groups are complaining.

I understand your point. Why not?

 

I agree.... that is why I said "I have been lucky" so far.

I also always carry several photographers rights cards from various
sources. Some home office letters on photography, the Met Police
guidelines and the Mark Thomas stop and search card.

 

No-one is obliged to carry ID.

Everyone has a legitimate right to be in a public place unless they are
committing an offence for which they can be arrested.

Totally irrelevant, unless the person concerned is asking the police for
special privileges that they are not obliged to grant. Photographing
events in public is not one of these.

 

That is true, but it applies to all photographs whoever has taken them.

 

That's excellent. You go away with (hopefully) some sellable pictures;
the police get someone who doesn't hate them; the local paper are more
inclined to support them, etc.

Would you mind saying what force it was? Credit where its due and
everything.

 

It has two factors:

i) They say (incorrectly) that people who do not identify themselves are
suspicious and thus must be terrorists. A press card is an independent
ID and pretty secure. They can call a number and have it confirmed.

ii) More importantly, Journalistic material is protected with some extra
legal stuff. They need a court order to view it. I don't know why this
is, but it's quoted in the Met's own instruction to police. (So maybe
they got it wrong, but if so, they're ignoring their own 'mistaken'
instruction.)

 

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

This bit is everyone:-
"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or
photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming
or photographing incidents or police personnel"

This bit sounds like everyone...
"Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile
telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the
Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the
images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which
could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power
to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer
reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism."

....but

"However, where it is clear that the person being searched is a
journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as
images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute
journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order."

I have no idea where the Met get this from, or if it's correct.

 

I suspect that its essentially all bollocks. I can think of no reason
why journalists should, in law, enjoy any 'special protection' - except
that the police probably recognise that they would be wise not to upset
'The Press' too much.

 

I don't have a press card, but I usually carry more than sufficient
documentation to establish my identity and bona fides.

As I said, I suspect that this legally a load of bollocks.

 

In message <

Good point. The only way of doing it is: To be "Press" you would have a
Press Card. Though I know several journalists (it the
technical/electronics press) who do not have the official Press card.

 

Staffordshire.

So far they have let me photograph several RTA & fires from inside the
cordon and one armed siege from outside the cordon. Also I have had no
problem with the Met in London on the couple of times I have dealt with
them.

On the other hand it can only be a matter of time. Perhaps it is the
way I talk to them and the way I work and that I have just been lucky
with the officers I have had to deal with. I am not a full time
photographer. SO I only come into contact with them occasionally. If I
was doing it full time it might be a different story.

As it is I carry a full set of photographers rights cards, home office
letters and the Mark Thomas stop and search cards but so far never
needed them.

 

The question is, "Why should images, acquired or created for the
purposes of journalism, and which may constitute journalistic material,
not be viewed without a Court Order?"

Is there a specific law which distinguishes such images from 'other'
images? Or is it that the police just want to err on the side of
caution, maybe knowing that they might incur the wrath of the NUT, and
indeed, of the whole trade union movement?

 

What law is it that says that?