London Photographers' Branch

Due to previous and current threats from the English Defence League and Casuals United and a history of violence against journalists and photographers, West Yorkshire Police have issued two phone numbers all journalists attending should carry with them.

• Nigel Swift – 07900 050353
• Andy Smith – 07709 398664

Nigel and Andy are both Press Liason Officers, their main role is to ensure good police/press relations on the day. Any emergency such as attacks should firstly go through police officers on the ground, but they have asked to be kept informed of any attacks on journalists.

Andy Smith will also give a briefing for the media at 1000 on the day at the Jacob’s Well car park in the centre of Bradford. The main West Yorkshire Police Press Office number is 01924 292045.

The NUJ Emergency Legal number is 0800 5877530, this is for NUJ members who need legal emergency legal assistance only.

Branch member Carmen Valino had images deleted from her camera by police and was threatened with arrest whilst photographing the scene of a shooting in Hackney, East London. The incident happened on Saturday as Valino photographed the crime scene from outside a police cordon whilst on assignment from the Hackney Gazette. She had identified herself as a journalist and showed her UK Press Card to police.

A police Sergeant approached Valino telling her that she was disrupting a police investigation and to hand over her camera. After protesting to the Sergeant that she was in a public place, outside the cordon he had no right to take her camera, he grabbed her wrist and pulled out his handcuffs. Before he could put the cuffs on she handed him her camera. He then left for five minutes before coming back, bringing Valino inside the cordon and asking her to show him the images and deleting them. Valino was told that she could come back in a few hours to photograph the scene.

This incident highlights how police officers are still woefully ignorant of the law regarding photography and the agreed ACPO Media Guidelines which state:

Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.

It comes days after Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson admitted that officers did not always apply laws and guidelines to photographers correctly. Valino is being supported by the branch and is seeking legal advice with backing from the NUJ.

Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary said “The abuse of the law must stop. There is a gulf between photographers legal rights and the current practices of individual police officers. The police should uphold the law, not abuse it – photographers acting in the public interest deserve better.”

NUJ supports threatened photographer – National Union of Journalists

Image © James MacKay

Branch member photojournalist, James Mackay, represented by Chez Cotton, head of the Police Misconduct Department, at leading civil rights law firm Bindmans LLP, has succeeded in a complaint against the British Transport Police after he was unlawfully ordered by one of their officers to delete photographs he had taken on the basis that he “was not allowed to photograph the police.”

The journalist, who predominantly works on issues in and surrounding Burma and currently is working with exiled organisations on a global campaign to raise awareness on political prisoners in Burma, was passing through Waterloo mainline station on his way to catch a flight on 8 May 2009 and witnessed a number of Police Community Support Officers (PSCOs) apparently detaining a male.

Read the rest of this article »

We’ll be supporting this event on Sunday organised by I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!

Yesterday the European Court of Human Rights rejected the governments appeal to it’s decision in January that ruled Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Although the Home Office has said it is still considering how the ruling effects the law and the police will continue to use it. It’s possible that any Stop & Search under s44 since 12th January 2010 will be open to legal challenge, so hang on to any receipts.

Unfortunately there are still a swathe of laws that police use to harass photographers, most notably s43, which is similar to s44 but requires an officer to suspect that you are a terrorist and s76 which makes it illegal to ‘elicit information about a police officer’ which includes photographing them.

In the meantime we’re going back to the place where our campaign started, outside New Scotland Yard. We’ll be gathering at 12 noon, this Sunday 4th July (Independence Day!) Come along and lets celebrate a little more freedom for photographers.

Facebook Event Google Map

After Tuesday’s branch meeting members are also invited to the NUJ Regional Press Awards After Show Party:

NUJ in association with Love Music, Hate Racism presents
The NUJ Regional Press Awards After Show Party

on Tuesday 29th June 2010
from 7.30pm
at Dingwalls, Middle Yard, Camden Lock, London NW1 8AB

with DJ Rugrat

and You’re Invited!

Please feel free to bring along a friend or two and pass it on to your colleagues.

We’re planning an evening of celebration, socialising and dancing and it wouldn’t be the same without you. So, hope to see you there!

Visit the NUJRegionalPressAwards.co.uk for more information about this year’s awards

Facebook Event Google Map

A police officer attempts to stop the media reporting on a blockade of the Greek Embassy by Greek and British anarchists in London, England. Image © Marc Vallée 2008

Video: Journalists win payout after police admit failing to respect press freedom – guardian.co.uk

Investigative photojournalist Marc Vallée and videographer Jason Parkinson have received an apology and damages from the Metropolitan Police after being forcibly prevented from working by officers at a political protest outside the Greek Embassy in 2008. Both members received the apology today:

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has accepted liability for breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The MPS apologise for this and have paid compensation. The MPS confirms its recognition that freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy and that journalists have a right to report freely. The MPS recognise that on 8 December 2008 they failed to respect press freedom in respect of Mr Vallée and Mr Parkinson.

The police have accepted liability for breaching Article 10 and made a payment of £3,500 compensation to each and are paying their legal costs.

Responding to the settlement Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary said:

Professional journalists and photographers have detailed numerous attempts by police officers to stifle the reporting of protests. Today we have achieved a significant victory – it is right that the police admit liability, apologise and compensate those whose basic human rights were breached in such a blatant and aggressive manner.

The police need to quickly learn the lessons of these shameful events, recognise the importance of media freedom and take the necessary steps to recognise the press card during police training to ensure it doesn’t happen again. The result is a huge boost for media freedom and the rights of photographers.

On the day of the protest armed officer from the Metropolitan police’s diplomatic protection group pulled Vallée’s camera away from his face and covered the lens of Parkinson’s video camera whilst stating “you cannot film me.”

NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff said:

The police need to learn that journalists and photographers have a right to report and photograph as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights. The NUJ has held the police to account before and will do so again unless all officers at all ranks abide by the law

Chez Cotton, Head of the Police Misconduct department at leading civil rights firm Bindmans LLP said:

It is of grave concern that an armed, diplomatic officer of the Metropolitan Police Force felt it was appropriate to call these journalists ‘scum’ and stop them from working and was happy to do so in full knowledge that he was being filmed.

My clients were physically prevented from reporting on protest and political unrest of international importance.  Just before he was frog marched by officers away from events, Mr Parkinson filmed an officer punching a protester in the side of the head, although the protester appears to be already under the control of several officers.  That the police appeared not to want these journalists to film what appeared to be extremely brutal arrests using force is a cause for further alarm.

Further to this public acknowledgment that his officers have breached the fundamental right of journalists to report, and in light of wide ranging criticisms of how the press were stopped from reporting at G20 and other ‘politically sensitive’ events, it is very much hoped that the Commissioner will take immediate steps to ensure his officers act properly and support rather than obstruct the press in the important role they play in keeping the public informed, including of police wrong doing.

The pair were not disrupting police activity and had not had any contact with the police prior to the incident. They had complied with requests to leave the area but were forcibly removed and told to report from a distance.

Marc is the London Photographers’ Branch Secretary and Legal Rep and Jason is the branch Welfare Officer.

Payback from the DACS royalties scheme opened this week and members have until 17th September to make their claim, more from the press release below:

Don’t miss out on your share of £3 million of Payback royalties

Each year DACS has £3 million of royalties to pay to NUJ members whose work has been reproduced in UK books or magazines or on certain television channels.

DACS negotiates these royalties on behalf of photographers and other visual artists. In 2009 DACS paid out a share of £3 million to 11,628 visual artists.

Did you know?

• The average NUJ member claim was £541, compared with the average Payback claim of £295
• Last year the highest payment made to a NUJ member was £5656 – the most any Payback claimant received in 2009
• Every NUJ member who makes a successful Payback claim is guaranteed a minimum of £25

Where does the money come from?

Payback royalties come from revenue generated through collective licensing schemes. Collective licensing is used in situations where it would be difficult or near impossible for photographers to licence their rights on an individual basis, for example, when an individual wishes to photocopy a page of a book or magazine which features their work.

Payback launches on 21 June and NUJ members have until 17 September to make their claim.

“It’s a win-win situation for NUJ members. All you need to do is fill in a Payback claim form telling us which books, magazines and television programmes your work has featured in. Once you’ve had a successful Payback claim, you can claim for the same published work every year, so the size of your claim could increase if you have new work.” says Nicolas Watkins-Wright, DACS Payback Manager.

Examples of where previous NUJ members’ work has featured includes:

Magazines – Amateur Gardening, BBC Music Magazine, The Journalist, Art Review, The British Medical Journal, Inside Housing, National Geographic and Hello

Books – Essential Psychology, Rough Guide to Portugal, DK How Cool Stuff Works, Transport Systems and Faces of the Century

NUJ members can also claim for work which has featured on any of the following TV channels in 2009 only – BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, CBBC, CBeebies, ITV1, Channel 4, SC4 and Channel 5

The easiest way to claim is to fill in the form online at dacs.org.uk. Alternatively they can request a claim form to be sent to them by post or email.

For further information about Payback or to request a claim form contact the Payback team on 020 7553 9062 or email payback@dacs.org.uk

Poole Council has been forced into an embarrassing climbdown over it’s policy restricting photography on beaches after condemnation from photographers up and down the country.

Amateur Photographer reports a fortnight after Hattie Miles, Bournemouth Echo photographer and NUJ member was prevented from photographing on the beach by a beach warden on the grounds that she did not have a licence. The council has now clarified its position:

We have reaffirmed the guidance given to beach wardens and they have been advised not to approach photographers and film-makers unless their activities present a risk to public safety or are likely to cause serious offence, disruption or obstruction to other beach users.

This is a victory for common sense and press freedom. Hattie should be applauded for highlighting the issue and not allowing council bureaucracy to dictate what the media can and cannot photograph.

Photographers, amateur and professional are simply fed up with arbitrary restrictions and will defend our right to use a camera in any public place without being harassed.

Branch Committee member Marc Vallée is stepping down as Secretary to prioritise his work as branch Legal Rep. In his email sent to Branch Committee members on 3rd June 2010 he explains:

I have decided to resign as Branch Secretary.

In the first six months of the Branch’s life a great deal has been achieved. The highlights for me have been the Branch discussions on The Future for Photography with Martin Argles along with Kelvin Bruce and John Harris, the Ethics & Photojournalism meeting with Stuart Freedman and the hugely successful Hostile Reconnaissance rally – the only major civil liberties event of note during the general election campaign.

The positive outcome of the last six months is that the Branch has recruited new members each month and without doubt is becoming the voice of London photographers.

As all Branch officers know the time and energy we put into the Branch is voluntary. The best use of that limited time and energy for me is to focus on supporting members who have had a negative encounter with the state and to defend media freedoms as the Branch Legal Rep.

I will not step down as Secretary until the Branch has elected a new Secretary and I hope that will take place at the June Branch meeting.

Marc will stay on the branch committee as Legal Rep and there will be an election at the next branch meeting on the 29th of June for a new Secretary.

Branch member Grant Smith has sent this account of a stop and search under s44 of the Terrorism Act. The incident happened earlier today in the City of London whilst Grant was doing some test shots for an environmental portrait of an architect. This comes just weeks after the Metropolitan Police issued new guidance to officers about using s44 on photographers.

The incident clearly shows how officers are continuing to abuse Terror laws and how security guards are abusing their position by calling the police every time somebody photographs a building, which they claim is not allowed, but is of course perfectly legal and legitimate.

Can I Please Have My Mobile Phone Back, Officer?

I spent the weekend in Derby at the National Photography Symposium and was involved in a panel discussion on ‘Photography, Security and Terrorism. How ironic that my first assignment back in London today saw me experience again the public humiliation of a detention and a physical search by a City of London police officer.

A security guard tries to stop Grant photographing a building. Image © Grant Smith 2010

Scouting for a location on London Wall for a portrait of one of the architect’s responsible for the City’s changing skyline, I went to One Aldermanbury Square. Loaded with a Canon g10, I wandered around the base of the building taking recce shots. A guard employed by the building waved his hands at me, asserting that I couldn’t photograph this building. As I stood on the pavement opposite the building I told him he was wrong, and I had every right to photograph, which I kept on doing. Another guard approached saying the same thing, and that if I didn’t move he’d call the police. (He recognised me from a previous occasion when he had warned me off, which had also resulted in a police response. On that occasion they were satisfied that I was within my rights and I had done nothing wrong. Thus the security guards had prior confirmation from the police that I was a photographer, not a terrorist.) I wandered back and forth, sizing up my locations and where I would place my subject. I walked along London Wall high walk, and saw the frenzied police activity below. Four officers had arrived and were in animated discussion with the guards. A police van with flashing lights sped out of Wood Street and eyeballed me, fixing my position.  Uniformed police approached me from both directions. I continued walking and photographing. PC 374 walked towards me and greeted me with a cheery ‘Hello’. I responded in like fashion and continued to walk on as he spoke into his radio. He stopped me with his hand firmly on my chest. I asked if I was being detained.

‘I’d just like a word with you.’

Am I being detained? ‘Yes you are.’

Under what grounds? ‘Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act.

Why? ‘If you’ll let me finish’, he responded. ‘And you are?’ He inquired the way a school bully might query anyone on their patch.

I wanted to know why I was being detained, and what were the reasonable grounds. ‘The guards at the building over the road alerted us to someone acting suspiciously. And under Section 44(2) we don’t need reasonable grounds.’

‘What’s suspicious about my behaviour. I was taking photographs.’

‘If you let me finish. The fact you were taking photographs, we’d like to know the reason. ‘

I said that I’m in the City, an area of iconic buildings and fascinating historical sites, that’s why I’m taking photographs. He replied with a cryptic answer:‘You’ve just explained it.’ I looked puzzled.

‘The very fact you were here at all is the reason we’ve stopped you.’

I explained that being in a public space I could not be prevented from taking photographs. He said the guards were wrong in trying to stop me.  I felt relieved and thought that the whole affair would rest then and there. As I began to move away a second PC, PC29 moved from behind and took both my arms, preventing me from moving. PC 374 then told me he was searching me under s44, and he began to go through my pockets and pat me down. My phone was taken from me. The camera hanging around my neck was carefully removed and placed out of my reach. I asked several times if I could record this incident on camera and was denied this right, being told that under s44(2) I must do as ordered. The power was now in their hands. Mine were still being held.

PC went through my pannier, flipping through personal notebooks, gingerly peeking in a plastic bag that contained a towel and swimmers, still wet from my earlier swim. He located my wallet, and pulled out my drivers licence with obvious glee. Each time I attempted to move PC29’s grip on my arms became firmer. I moved to zip up my jacket, which had been unzipped in the search, and his grip tightened. I explained I was getting cold and would like to warm up. He agreed, but kept hold of me by one hand.  I tried to move left or right and he blocked me. Repeated requests for my phone and camera were turned down. I asked to get pen and paper from my bag, and this was declined. I said I wanted to record the incident, only to be told that I will get their record at the end of the procedure.

Many times I asked why was I being stopped under s44. The answer I given was because of my obstructive and non-compliant attitude. Based on this observation, it then became necessary to treat me as a potential criminal suspect. I noted that s44 could be open to misuse, as it was so powerful and sweeping. PC374 replied ‘It has been said, but it is open for our use’ The implication being that it can be used on anyone who is non-compliant.

Waiting for the data base to give PC374 the all-clear on my record, I was kept hemmed against the barrier by PC29, repeatedly told that if I kept moving I would be handcuffed. This scene of public humiliation, as I was restrained and treated like a criminal, was watched by workers from the neighbouring building.

Once the all clear was given, PC374 tore off the pink slip of the s44 stop search form asking if I wanted it. I asked if I could carry on taking photographs, he turned his back on me like a petulant child, forgetting that his cap lay on the ground in the spot he had removed it earlier. Joined by a third PC, the posse then turned their back on me refusing to answer any further questions from me. I watched as the three of them walked away from me, with my mobile phone. Excuse me I called ‘Can I please have my mobile phone back?’

Grant is also one of the organisers of the I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! campaign.