Video journalist Jason N. Parkinson with NUJ supporters outside the Royal Courts of Justice before the Dale Farm production order judicial review. © Jess Hurd/reportdigital.co.uk

The NUJ and other media organisations have won the judicial review at the Court of Appeal following the decision by Chelmsford Crown Court to grant the Dale Farm footage production order. The decision to force journalists to hand over unbroadcast footage has been overturned.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary said: “Today is a huge victory for the cause of press freedom and the protection of sources and journalistic material. We are incredibly pleased that the NUJ and other media organisations have won the High Court battle against the police production order to force journalists to hand over their Dale Farm eviction footage.”

Jason Parkinson, who challenged the order said: “This ruling to overturn the Crown Court’s decision to grant the Dale Farm production order sends a very clear message to all police forces that these wide-ranging fishing trips will not be accepted by the UK courts and that we will not be forced into to role of unwilling agents of the state. We are not there as evidence gatherers to fill police intelligence databases with hours of material on activists or protestors, we are journalists and we are there to report the news and keep the public informed.

In the last 18 months, every time one of these orders has been served it has put journalists in greater danger while trying to report on public order situations. I know this because I have been threatened and assaulted by people claiming my material will be used by the police. I am very happy to see Judge Moses has recognised the impact these orders have on the safety and impartiality of all journalists and has made sure any future production order applications must take this into account, as was clearly not the case this time round.”

This victory would not have been possible without the support of the NUJ legal team and campaign department. Special thanks to our General Secretary Michelle Stanistreet for her support, Roy Mincoff from the NUJ legal department, Sarah Kavanagh and Frances Rafferty from the NUJ campaign department, Martin Rackstraw from Bindmans Solicitors, Gavin Millar QC and all our campaign supporters.

We should not underestimate the significant stress and energy that go in to challenging such production orders, especially for freelancers, whose reputation and safety is on the line. It is extremely important that the High Court has acknowledged and reinforced the independent role of frontline journalists and their safety in gathering the news for future public order situations.

Press Clippings:

Read Guardian, Independent, ITN, BBC, Press Gazette articles.

John Toner (NUJ), David Hoffman (EPUK), Adam Mynott (G4S)

Headland House May 10, 2012

Following the incident on 21 April 2012 where two G4S security staff assaulted me and other photographers working on public land outside the Olympic Park John Toner, NUJ Freelance Organiser arranged a meeting with Adam Mynott, G4S Director of Media Relations and me, David Hoffman, wearing my (white) EPUK Moderator hat.

The meeting started on a positive note with Mynott apologising for the actions of the guards who he described as having “behaved wrongly” and having “acted incorrectly”. We were particularly concerned by two comments that the guards’ supervisor made. She had said:

“We are told we should refrain people from taking photos” and “It his job to basically approach people and deter them from taking photographs of the secure area.”

Mynott told us that this was not how G4S trained their guards and, specifically, that “photography was not to be discouraged in any way at all” and it was NOT their job to approach and deter photographers He was quite clear that there should be no interference at all to photographers working on public land and that the guards had been reminded of this following the April incident.

Adam Mynott told us that they were recruiting 10,000 staff for the Olympics and that there was a structured training programme. No member of staff would have less than 4 days training and some would have up to 14 days. All their training was to SIA approved standards and the security guards were SIA accredited. We were assured that the training was running well, was on schedule and not being rushed.

Mynott told us that he was aware of the National Press Card and that his staff were trained on it and on how to recognise a UKPCA card. John Toner gave him some UKPCA posters to help in training.

We asked about the presence of guards on public land. Mynott assured us that the security guards should only operate within the Olympic Park border, that they should not have left the Olympic Park in the April incident and that they would be reminded of this.

I mentioned that Jason Parkinson had twice been stopped recently on the public road outside the Olympic Park by security guards in an SUV. Mynott could not adequately explain that and we will be following this up as it directly contradicts the assurances we had been given.

We asked if G4S could provide a map showing what land was public and what was the Olympic Park. He will try to arrange that.

We were particularly keen to have a 24/7 hotline direct to G4S senior management as a way of resolving problems, rather than having to resort to the police. Adam Mynott suggested we use his mobile number (this will be available on the members’ area of this site).

It was a friendly and constructive meeting and we got the impression that G4S do genuinely understand the issues and want to avoid making difficulties for us. Whether they are capable of training their 10,000 staff to a standard sufficient to achieve that is yet to be seen.

The May meeting of the London Photographers’ Branch will be Olympic Concerns: Preparing Photographers for London 2012, a discussion and debate with Bindmans Lawyer Chez Cotton.

Olympic security guards try to prevent photographers and video journalists from filming the Olympic site from the public highway. East London.

Last week at an NUJ organised meeting with senior police several experienced photographers (I was one) asked Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison (in charge of Olympic policing) & Cdr Bob Broadhurst about the private security guards’ training and instructions. We said that on the past record of private security guards we could expect unlawful and oppressive interference.

Allison assured us that the security would ONLY be acting inside the site and that we’d have no problems on public land outside. He may have believed that. We didn’t and thought that we should check out the accuracy of his promises. There were other issues (such as closures of public rights of way) that also seemed worth coverage.

Before we’d got half way round the site – all on public land – G4S security had run out from the site, shouting at me and grabbing the camera of a colleague (Jess Hurd), pushing her back and preventing her from taking photos. A second guard also appeared and assaulted a video journalist colleague, Jason Parkinson, grabbing his camera and pushing him around.

See Guardian video here

Their manager appeared after a minute or two. She defended their behaviour and told us that they were trained to deter people from taking photographs. We asked for police to attend and two SO23 officers soon arrived, confirmed that our behaviour was entirely lawful and the G4S guards retreated back into the Olympic site.

The guards are very poorly trained by G4s, on rotten terms of temporary employment and receiving the minimum wage. The blame should be on G4S and LOCOG whose penny pinching attitude and contempt for the media is already causing us problems and is certain to cause us a great deal more unless we take a stand.

© David Hoffman

David Hoffman images here

Jess Hurd images here

Other links:

I’m a Photographer Not a Terrorist

Put your camera away: security guards offer glimpse of Olympic enforcers

Olympic Park Security Guards Forcibly Stop Journalists form taking photos (Guardian)

Press Freedom at the Beijing Olympics (Guardian)

O2 Olympic venue security staff stop legal photography (Guardian)

Olympics’ security guards “trained to deter people from taking photographs” (BJP)

Olympic Guards Wrong to stop Photographer, Admits 02 (AP)

Rod Liddle’s Got Issues: CCTV (Sunday Times)

Photography and Hostile Reconnaissance, a guide for BSIA members

The Dead Zone – Philip Wolmuth

Security & the London 2012 Olympics – Grant Smith

Not FIT design © Jason N. Parkinson

On Wednesday 25 April 2012 freelance journalists and broadcasters will enter the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London, to fight for Judicial Review on the Dale Farm Production Order.

The National Union of Journalists has called the “Not FIT” protest at 9.15am outside the court, to defend journalism and to send a clear message the police – we will not be forced through production orders into being evidence gatherers for the police. ”Not FIT” refers to police evidence gather units known as Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT).

All those involved in the Dale Farm production order case have shown great concern at the increase in the use of production orders against the media over the last 18 months and the fear is journalists are being forced into becoming the eyes and ears of the state. The consequences of this can have serious implications towards the impartiality and safety of journalists in the future.

Please come and show your support in the latest battle for press freedom, to tell the police and the state, we are “Not FIT”.

The protest will be held at 9.15am, Wednesday 25 April 2012.

The Defending Journalism Parliamentary Meeting will be on Thursday 19 April 2012.

Previous posts

NUJ and Broadcasters Granted Judicial Review

Why I’m Resisting the Dale Farm Production Order

Journalists Not Evidence Gatherers

We Are Press Not Police Intelligence

Protecting Journalistic Material

On Friday afternoon, 16 March 2012, we received conformation that the application for judicial review on the Dale Farm production was accepted by the High Court.

Following the October 2011 eviction police served production orders on all professional camera teams that covered the operation at the Dale Farm Irish Travellers site at Cray’s Hill in Essex. The court orders were to deliver all the footage shot over two days.

After four months of fighting off the production order and losing the first round in Chelmsford Crown Court, the successful application is next hurdle successsfully passed in what LPB Vice Chair  Andrew Wiard called “the most important legal case we [NUJ photographers] have fought in years”.

In a statement on Friday NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet said: ”The media played a critical public interest role in reporting on Dale Farm and the case will have significant implications for the whole of our industry.”

The application success comes just days after ITN CEO John Hardie said in a statement: “The wide-ranging Dale Farm production order is in danger of becoming the norm and we are alarmed at the frequency and nature of these requests.”

ITN head of compliance John Battle told the Guardian: “If we are successful [at judicial review] it would set an important precedent and would hopefully show the police that broadcasters do have a right to report independently and impartially and that should be respected.”

The BBC and BSkyB have also expressed serious concern over the dramatic increase in production orders being served on the press. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) told the Guardian this is because of the increase in public disturbances since the Summer riots.

The Judicial Review hearing is expected to start after Easter.

Enter Dale Farm: A riot police officer points a taser gun

Following the case that lasted several months spanning 2011 and 2012 at Chelmsford Crown Court and the subsequent ruling against those involved, I can now report the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has submitted an appeal to challenge the production order forcing journalists, media organisations and broadcasters to submit all their footage to the police.

The legal challenge is in response to a court decision requiring those involved to comply with the production order and hand over all footage gathered over the first two days of the Dale Farm eviction to Essex police.

In today’s press release those applying for appeal in addition to myself are the BBC, ITN, BskyB, Hardcash Productions.

As I wrote back in December, by being forced to comply with the production order I am being forced into breaching my own union’s ethical code, but I am also to be forced into being an unwilling agent of the state.

NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet said: “This is an attack on press freedom and turns photographers, videographers and journalists into potential targets. Journalists are not there to carry out investigatory work for the police.”

John Domokos, video producer for Guardian.co.uk said: “We are very concerned about this production order as we believe it will not only seriously jeopardise his safety and ability to cover future events of this nature, but also affect the safety and impartiality of all video journalists.”

Roy Mincoff, NUJ legal officer said if the production order reporters and photographers will “be seen merely as evidence gatherers for the police, with major consequences for their ability to report objectively and impartially in the future. The vital role of the media as the public watchdog, so important to a democratic society, would be seriously undermined.”

But it is not just the NUJ who, are concerned about the future implications for journalists. In a statement this afternoon ITN Chief Executive Officer John Hardie said, “the wide-ranging Dale Farm production order is in danger of becoming the norm and we are alarmed at the frequency and nature of these requests.”

He added that they were also resisting a separate production order to obtain footage from the recent Syrian Embassy protest that ended in 24 arrests for violence and trespass.

NUJ Press Release

Statement from ITN CEO John Hardie

In the News

Guardian: ITN to Fight Police Pressure to Hand Over Public Unrest Footage

Press Gazette: Broadcasters Resist Dale Farm Footage Grab by Police

Guardian: Roy Greenslade: NUJ Appeals Against Order Compelling Journalists…

Journalism.co.uk: NUJ Appeals Dale Farm Footage Handover Order

Previous LPB Reports

Why I’m Resisting the Dale Farm Production Order

Journalists Not Evidence Gatherers

We Are Press Not Police Intelligence

Protecting Journalistic Material

Based on a talk given to NUJ London Photographers’ Branch by Nigel Dickinson, February 2012

Article 10 of the European Convention affirms that there are human rights for the freedom of expression and public rights to receive information. But in FRANCE this right is not absolute and has to be conciliated with certain individual rights.

Laws about shooting and publishing photos and video

Before taking a photo of someone you are required by law to ask the individual’s permission. If you want to publish it in anyway you have to ask their permission for each specific usage. Any object that is created by or is the copyright of an artist, or designer must have permissions to be published in specific contexts. Any owner of property can assert rights of ownership of property, again the photographer needs permissions to publish, regardless of whether the image was shot from a public or private space.

It is advisable in France to always get a signed written permission by individuals, owners of property and creators of original works, whatever the situation whether in a public or private space.

Individuals can use two different French laws to defend their rights against publication of their image

The right of your own image (Droit d’image)

In France each individual has the exclusive right to their image and of who uses their image. Not only publishing the image but even taking the photo of someone, the photographer has to have the individuals permission under French Law. The fact that the person accepts to be photographed doesn’t mean that they accept to have their image published. A minor aged between 12 to 14 years old can be considered responsible enough to decide whether he/she gives the right to use his image.

Circumstances where the public right of information might be stronger than the individual’s right of one’s image When someone places himself or herself is in a public place then there is already a measure of tacit consent already presumed but this is reflected in each individual case. Normally the person only has a right of complaint if he/she is a principal subject in the photo.

If someone is in a photo but not an essential element – or when the person is not recognizable – or is an accessory by chance – say in an image of a public monument, or statue, then it is generally considered that consent is not necessary, even though people have taken photographers or publishers to court over this. The same goes when the person is part of a crowd. But again each case is taken on its own merits, as to what is considered a crowd or an accessory or not.

But in all circumstances the persons dignity must be respected.

Normally public figures, when going about their public life, such as politicians, sports stars, singers etc are not required to give their consent in such situations because the right of information supercedes their right to their own image, but this only for journalistic news purposes only not commercial ones, nor for illustration (the same image which was once a news image could be considered later on as an illustration, or when taken out of its news context).

Images of public figures must not violate the Privacy law. In other words the images must only deal with the individuals public life and role and not refer to anything which is about the individual’s private life.

In other words there mustn’t be anything which invades the private life of this person even though he/she is a public figure.

And an image which was part of a news event, with a public figure at one time, may be considered less relevant later on, in which case what was once a perfectly unusable news image – can be deemed unusable later. It is not newsworthy therefore becomes an illustration – and the photographer or publisher can be prosecuted for its publication

Taking the picture itself will not necessarily be by itself against the law unless someone’s private life is affected or private property is invaded as a result

In certain instances legal judgments have considered certain types of publications in exhibits and books not to require authorization: When the research is considered artistic, cultural or sociological

Set up pictures (studio or mis-en-scene)

In France in this situation: Anyone professional or not is considered as a model., The photographer cannot pay the model direct, the client must pay, on a salaried basis according to French law. In the case of a model working for an agency, the photographer must check the agency possess the relevant agreements. The client can be held responsible against problems with the agency.

An image needs a model release, everything has to be licenced – there are very strict rules in France. One needs an official French State licence and financial guarantee. Foreign agencies cannot place models in French soil

If a photographer wants to put such images into a photo-library there could be 2 problems:

Authorization and remuneration 1. Authorization might be considered too general (to put into a photo-library without a defined use) One needs explicit destination made clearly in the text contract 2.Remuneration – a contract has to be made between the photographer and model saying not only how the image will eventually be used but what is the exact percentage of the financial remuneration

La Loi Vie Privée (Law against making the Private Public)

The privacy law is applied when treating the personal characteristics of an individual. This concerns people themselves, not objects, unless the person is obviously or reasonably easily identified by those objects. The law doesn’t apply to a family album or a sporting event, but does when such images are used in public – press or internet etc – because they are shown to an unlimited public – therefore it is not in a private use anymore. However one can send by e-mail to the family or put images into a secured passworded website limited only to the family etc

Application of this law is less strong when the person is part of a large group and not specifically targeted as the main person of the photo. But every image is judged on its individual merits. There is no absolute law.

Permission and consent has to be freely given by the individual and specifically for a certain use. In law it doesn’t have to be written but it has to be without doubt – so for our purposes it is almost impossible to prove without a written release. One would even need permissions for use in a school photograph, sporting event etc.

It is recommended that the model release signed by the individual should also give people information about what are their rights, that they have a choice whether to sign or not, and information about the appropriate laws.

Minors

It is good to get the parent’s consent but a minor aged around 12-14 who is intelligent and discerning can have the right to give permission legally for use of his/her image

Some personal characteristics are very strictly monitored under this law and considered very personal and sensitive issues – race, sexual orientation, health, political opinions.

Interpretation

Everything is seen in its context, for example; the skin color of someone is not in itself a private item, but if a photo of someone is used to identify of class someone by the color of their skin then this could go against the privacy law; also if from an image of someone one can deduce that person’s state of health, this is different to using an image, purposely to show someone’s state of health.

So it is both the context, the use and the purpose of the photographic/video image which is important; but again, everything is judged on its individual merits and it depends a lot of the judge, the place. One judgement maybe different to another on the same photo. It can also be a matter of chance, who judges it….

Privacy laws confer certain rights to individuals:

• Right to be informed about how images will or can be used • Subjects right to ask questions, to be informed, by what right the person has to take a picture – the photographer has to answer this • Subject has right to access information, at any stage they want, and get information by telephone, written etc • A person photographed has the right of opposition at any time, when they have a serious reason for doing so, for editorial usage. • A person don’t need a reason to oppose its use, if the image is used for direct marketing, commercial or publicity

Specifically in respect for Journalism – in news (not illustration)

Exceptions to privacy are when it can be proven without doubt that the treatment of sensitive information, health or past legal history is for press, artistic expression or literature. And only when any or all of these aspects of an individual have a direct rapport with their public character or news events; then they can be brought into the public domain. In such cases the person does not have the same rights to information or access to rights of privacy as set out above.

This forms part of the ‘democratic’ rights of journalists to perform their duties as ‘watch dog’ in a democratic society. But journalists must not abuse this privilege. Whilst a journalist or accredited magazine might have rights to perform these duties, a school journal may not be afforded the same rights, so it becomes defamation – it is all about context, purpose and end result….

Property laws (2004 onwards)

Whilst an owner of a property or object doesn’t have exclusive rights over the use of the image of that object, they always have the right to oppose the use of the image of that object or property by a third party WHEN the use of the image causes an abnormal problem to them.

The French laws are fixed on this point. And this refers to images shot from a public space.

When an image is shot inside a private space, permission must always be granted, and a model release for persons and property must be arranged.

Rights of creation

Any sculptor, architect, artist has authors rights. Rights to the image of his/her creation. In certain instances the theory of the object as an accessory can take place in public or in private, but the author must always be mentioned by name.

One has to be extremely vigilant about the restrictions brought by the authors, examples of the recent “Le Corbusier judgement” where his inheritors have made it illegal for any photo/video image of Le Corbusier’s designs to be reproduced. Also for instance the Eiffel tower which one can photograph freely during the day but only certain circumstances at night; one is not allowed to photograph at night whilst the lighting display is in operation, as the lighting display itself is considered a copyrighted artistic work in its own right. Exceptions like this are numerous across France.

One has to research the specific rights in each object before publishing the image.

The photographer has to get written permission from the author, or his/her inheritors for up to 70 years after the author’s death

For photographing in all Private places one always needs permission Text © Nigel Dickinson 2012

Sources, information and translations include amongst others: The UPP France L’Observatoire de l’image

Dear Sir

The National Union of Journalists, London Photographers’ Branch notes with great concern the proposed introduction of new byelaws covering Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. We are specifically concerned with the restrictions on press photography in these areas without prior written consent:

“Acts within the Square for which written permission is required: take photographs or film or make any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate.”

This is wholly unacceptable to our members and we are protesting in the strongest terms against this infringement on our right to photograph in a public place.

We are also alarmed by the prospect of fines, “forfeiture of any item seized under bylaw” and giving security guards/heritage wardens the power to demand names and addresses. The production of a UKPCA press card should be sufficient to establish a journalists identity.

These GLA proposals are impractical and if enforced will have a massive impact on news gathering and press freedom. We urge you to consider our objections.

Yours Faithfully

Jess Hurd (London Photographers’ Branch Chair)

Tomorrow morning, Tuesday 13 December 2011, I will head to Chelmsford Crown Court to oppose a production order application by Essex Police to seize all my footage from the Dale Farm eviction.

The production order, calling for all footage shot on 19 and 20 October, is also being served upon other news outlets.

I am resisting the order with the full support on the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and legal support from Bindmans Solicitors. The handing over of material, either published or unpublished goes against the NUJ Code of Conduct.

I strongly believe a journalist should protect her/his confidential sources and material gathered in the course of her/his work. If I am forced to comply with the production order I am being forced into breaching my own union’s ethical code, but also to be forced into being an unwilling agent of the state, handing over material that will surely be used as intelligence.

I also believe it will have serious consequences on my ability, and the ability of those in my profession, to report future events. We are already seeing a growing trend of intimation and violence against members of the press reporting on the frontline. This is based on a wide mistrust of the media, which has been accelerated by the increase in the use of production orders we have seen since the student protests of 2010.

NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet said: “Journalists play a critical role in informing the public and the police should not be trying to hands their hands on journalistic material. Media workers are engaged in professional activity which is independent of the police and they should never be seen as collectors of information for the state. It is an attack on press freedom and turns every photographer, videographer and journalist into a potential target.”

The impact of this continuing trend of production order use will have dire consequences on press freedom in this country, to the extent that eventually we may not be able to report some events at all. The courts have recognised the vital role of the media as the public watchdog. With the press unable to operate a fundamental pillar of our democracy slips away.

The irony is that the restrictions on the press to operate freely will not come from the authorities – as we have seen with the misuse of anti-terror and other restrictive laws – it will come from the mistrust of the media by the public, believing that footage shot and images taken could be seized by the police. In effect the public may also unwittingly impact on press freedom.

I have operated in countries like Egypt, Mexico and Russia, where the press are under physical control of the state, and I have experienced first-hand the tactics deployed to stop the press reporting, from beatings in the street, journalist material seized and destroyed or used to apprehend protestors, to simply having a police sniper trying to put a bullet in the head of the camera operator first, in order to eliminate any witnesses to the atrocities they intend to commit. Is that the route we want to head towards here in the UK?

We need to be totally independent of the state, in order to get to the truth behind incredibly dangerous and sensitive situations. If no one was able to analyse the recent UK riots, or talk to the people on the ground as events took place, then we would only have the government response as to why they happened, ending in the government dictating the official line.

We need a strong and united campaign of awareness across our media organisations to resist this attack on press freedom.

The proceedings at Chelmsford will commence at 10am tomorrow morning. If we are able, judge willing, we will be tweeting from the court. For updates please follow @NUJPhoto #productionorder.

]]> http://londonphotographers.org/2011/12/why-im-resisting-the-dale-farm-production-order/feed/ 12