Join NPPA Now!

September 10th, 2015 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , ,

To those of you who read the Advocacy Blog or follow us on Facebook and who support NPPA through their membership – thank you. To those considering joining or renewing their lapsed memberships please get off your best intentions and do it today ( For those of you who just take a free ride by viewing the news and information provided by NPPA on our website, Twitter and Facebook, I urge you to join now.

NPPA cannot do the advocacy it does without members and money. It cannot take a leadership position, where 32 major news organizations joined in a letter that I drafted to convince the Governor of California to veto a constitutionally suspect drone bill (, without you.

Aside from your actual dues NPPA receives money from a copyright organization based upon our membership numbers – so think of joining as part of a matching fund. It is unfortunate to report that our membership numbers continue to decrease when commonsense would expect just the opposite.

If you want our advocacy efforts to continue, but moreover, if you want NPPA to continue to be heard as the strong “Voice of Visual Journalists” then please support us and join today!

Posted in National Press Photographers Association, NPPA | No Comments »

NPPA Joined by 32 Other Media Groups Urges Gov. Brown to Veto CA Anti-Drone Bill

September 3rd, 2015 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , ,

Today the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) sent a letter to California Governor Jerry Brown urging him to veto SB 142, which would create strict liability for anyone operating a drone over the “airspace overlaying the real property” of another person or entity without “express consent.” The letter was joined by 32 other media organizations.

“We believe this bill will unduly restrict the development of new uses for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) by establishing a technology-specific restriction that is impossible to comply with, impossible to enforce, and likely will conflict with the existing authority and proposed new regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), said NPPA general counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher, in the letter. He went on to say, “while the bill acknowledges the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, its language flies in the face of both common sense and federal preemption,” adding “the chilling legal repercussions of this bill will tax an overburdened court system and thwart the federal government’s efforts, in which we are participating, to bring about a sensible regulatory regime for this new technology.”

Those groups joining in the letter are: Advance Publications, Inc., American Society of News Editors, Associated Press Media Editors, Associated Press Photo Managers, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, CNN, First Look Media, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Hearst Corporation, KBAK-TV (Bakersfield), KERO-TV (Bakersfield), KGTV-TV (San Diego), KMPH-TV (Fresno), KXTV-TV (Sacramento), Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Merced Sun-Star, Newspaper Association of America, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Scripps Media, Society of Professional Journalists, Student Press Law Center, The Associated Press, The Desert Sun, Palm Springs, The Fresno Bee, The McClatchy Company, The Modesto Bee, The Sacramento Bee, The Salinas Californian, The (San Luis Obispo) Tribune, Tulare Advance-Register and Visalia Times-Delta.


Posted in Access, broadcasting, California, drone, Drones, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Newsgathering, photographers, photojournalism | No Comments »

Judge Halts Enforcement of Unconstitutional Nude Photo Law in Arizona

July 10th, 2015 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

PHOENIX – A federal court today permanently ordered Arizona state prosecutors to halt enforcement of a 2014 law restricting the display of nude images.

The order approved a joint final settlement between the Arizona attorney general and the coalition of plaintiffs which include the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), Arizona booksellers, book and newspaper publishers, and librarians, who filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law.

The order resolves all claims in the lawsuit, Antigone Books v. Brnovich, and states that plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees.

“We are very pleased with the outcome of this case and our representation by our attorneys in this matter,” said Charles W. L. (“Chip”) Deale, NPPA Executive Director.

“This is a complete victory for publishers, booksellers, librarians, photographers, and others against an unconstitutional law,” said Media Coalition Executive Director David Horowitz, whose members include plaintiffs in the suit. “Now they won’t have to worry about being charged with a felony for offering newsworthy and artistic images.”

The law, Arizona Revised Statute 13-1425, was initially passed with the stated intent of combating “revenge porn,” a term popularly understood to describe a person’s malicious posting of an identifiable, private image online with the intent and effect of harming an ex-lover. But, as plaintiffs maintained in the lawsuit, the law wasn’t limited to revenge and criminalized far more than offensive acts. It could have led to the conviction of someone posting a nude photo with no intent to harm the person depicted. This would include, for example, an artistic photographer who creates an anthology of his images of nudes — as well as the book’s publisher, seller, or librarian.

As part of the lawsuit, NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher expressed fears in his declaration “that the NPPA’s members (including me) are at risk of prosecution under the Act simply for doing our job—the accurate and comprehensive reporting of the news. The Act would subject the NPPA’s members to prosecution for taking newsworthy, non-obscene photographs and videos, and either offering those photographs and videos for publication, or themselves publishing the photographs and videos through electronic or other media.” “With this very comprehensive settlement, that concern has now been alleviated,” said NPPA President Mark Dolan.

Likewise, a person who shared a photograph could have been charged with a felony even if the person depicted had no expectation that the image would be kept private and suffered no harm, such as a photojournalist who posted images of victims of war or natural disaster. As a result, the law applied to any person displaying an image of nudity, no matter how newsworthy, artistic, educational, or historic.

“This is an important vindication of the First Amendment and a great resolution for our clients,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Lee Rowland, who, along with lawyers from the ACLU of Arizona and Dentons US LLP, represents the plaintiffs. “We commend the state for agreeing not to enforce a broad statute that chilled and criminalized speech unquestionably protected by the Constitution.”

Dan Pochoda, attorney for the ACLU of Arizona, added: “We always believed that it would be a waste of the Arizona taxpayers’ money to continue defending this unconstitutional statute. We’re pleased that the court’s order means this law will not be enforced, all without additional and unnecessary litigation.” Today’s order is at:

The plaintiffs were: Antigone Books L.L.C.; Intergalactic, Inc., D/B/A, Bookmans; Changing Hands Bookstore, Inc.; Copper News Book Store; Mostly Books; Voicemedia Group, Inc.; American Booksellers Foundation For Free Expression; Association Of American Publishers; Freedom To Read Foundation; and the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA).

Posted in Access, ACLU, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism | No Comments »

Judge Orders Sanctions Against Atlanta Police Department for Obstructing Filming Police Conduct

May 14th, 2015 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , ,

ATLANTA– On May 13, 2015, United States District Judge Steve C. Jones found the City of Atlanta in contempt of court and imposed sanctions for the city’s failure to comply with obligations set forward in a prior Court Order on behalf of a woman whose constitutional rights were violated when she was arrested as she peaceably photographed police activity in 2009.

The Southern Center for Human Rights, along with Atlanta based attorneys Daniel J. Grossman and Albert Wan, presented arguments on April 28, 2015, for civil contempt sanctions against the City of Atlanta in Anderson v. City of Atlanta, et al. The plaintiff, Felicia Anderson, brought this case against the City of Atlanta and one of its police officers for falsely arresting her as she photographed police arresting her neighbor. The parties ultimately reached a settlement on Ms. Anderson’s claims in 2012. In addition to damages, the parties agreed to a Consent Order requiring the City of Atlanta to permanently revise and implement a number of APD policies and trainings that would set strict limits on officer’s interference with citizens documenting police activity.

In November 2014, several reporters covering the Ferguson demonstrations in downtown Atlanta had their cameras taken away from them by APD officers as these individuals attempted to film police activity. One of them was a photojournalist for 11Alive News, whose arrest by police officers during his coverage of the protests has been the subject of numerous news stories. Another was a reporter for Creative Loafing; Atlanta police officers intentionally stopped him from taking photos during the protest, grabbed his camera, and then arrested him, even as he and his editor repeatedly told the officers that he was a reporter. These are but a few examples of the actual damage that came to light as a result of the City’s failure to abide by this Court’s order, including interference with citizens and reporters filming police.

Judge Jones stated, “The Court finds Defendant in contempt for violating the March 2012 Order… and it now imposes sanctions to bring Defendant into full compliance and to address future monitoring of Defendant’s compliance with the Order.”

“The Court has now found the City in contempt based, in part, on the City’s own admissions that it failed to comply with the Court’s Order,” said attorney Albert Wan. “ The next few weeks and months will be telling. Will the City treat the Court’s order with the seriousness it deserves, or will it revert back to its old ways? All eyes are on the City to see what it will do, and they should be. As recent events have shown, the public’s right to document police conduct is an important one, and the City needs to recognize that. It can start by fully complying with the Court’s Order.”

Judge Jones ordered the following:
• Permanently implement the revisions to the Atlanta Police Department Standard Operating Procedures set forth in the Court’s March 2012 Order
• Conduct mandatory, in-person training of all Atlanta police officers every two years regarding the Standard Operating Procedure revisions set forth the Court’s March 2012 Order
• Within forty-five days, the Chief of the Atlanta Police Department shall issue a Command Memorandum to each APD officer attaching a copy of the 2012 Consent Order, requiring that it be read and signed. The City of Atlanta shall provide the Court and the Plaintiff with a sworn statement attesting that this has been accomplished within ten days after the 45-day period of compliance has expired. The City of Atlanta shall be fined $10,000 per day after the 45-day period of compliance has expired if the City of Atlanta fails to comply.
• Within forty-five days, the City of Atlanta shall provide in-person, roll call training consistent with the industry standard to every police officer of the Atlanta Police Department on every revision to the Atlanta Police Department Standard Operating Procedures required under the March 2012 Order. The Atlanta Police Department is required to video solely this portion of the Atlanta Police Department’s in-person, roll call training. The City of Atlanta must provide Plaintiff’s counsel with a copy of each video within ten days of the in-person, roll call training. The City of Atlanta shall be fined $10,000 per day after the period of compliance has expired if the City of Atlanta fails to comply.
• The City of Atlanta, within five days, must report to the Court and Plaintiff any revisions made to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) at issue in the 2012 Consent Order.
• The City of Atlanta will reimburse Plaintiff’s counsel for a portion of fees and costs associated with ensuring compliance with the Court’s Order.

“Almost every week we see the crucial importance of citizen video as a tool for police accountability. It is a shame that City Hall fought against this for almost six months, and that it took a federal judge to hold the city in contempt and order it to provide the training that even Atlanta’s police officers themselves were asking for,” said attorney Daniel J. Grossman.

“It should not have taken over three years for the Atlanta Police Department to respect citizens’ rights to video police conduct as required by Judge Jones order. The Court has shown, and the national conscience has shown, that cameras are an important tool in ensuring police are held accountable,” said Southern Center for Human Rights attorney, Gerald Weber.

To read the Contempt Order go to: Atlanta Contempt Order – Anderson 05-13-15

Posted in Access, Atlanta Police Department, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, News Photography, Newsgathering, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording Police | No Comments »

Some Practical Advice about Covering High Conflict News Stories

April 28th, 2015 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

See the attached document containing some practical advice about covering high conflict news stories.

Issues covered:

  • Legal
  • Local Ordinances
  • Federal Trespass
  • Resources
  • Important items to have with you
  • Potential for arrest
  • Complying with police orders
  • Being questioned and detained
  • Protecting your files
  • Arrest & release
  • Practical advice
  • Preparation
  • Your equipment

These have been put together as a result of covering the NATO Summit in Chicago in 2012 the political conventions in Tampa and Charlotte later that year and the demonstrations in Ferguson in 2014.

For more information please contact:

Mickey H. Osterreicher

Cell 716.983.7800


Twitter @nppalawyer



Posted in Access, Baltimore Police, Baltimore Riots, cell phone cameras, Ferguson, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment rights, Legal, Maryland ACLU, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Photography, Recording Police, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights | No Comments »

In AFP v Morel Judge Denies Attorney Fees to Morel Trial Lawyers, Grants Lien by Former Lawyer

March 24th, 2015 by Wills Citty and tagged , , , , , ,

******************* UPDATE 03-24-15 ***********

In a surprise decision the trial court judge in the case denied Morel’s application for attorneys’ fees for his trial lawyers but granted the motion by his prior lawyer for her charging lien. “Briefly stated, Morel fought a fair fight and won. The fact that this was a close case on the merits, involving novel legal issues, persuades the Court that the purposes of the Copyright Act are not furthered by awarding fees and costs pursuant to § 505.”  Read decision AFP v Morel – attorneys fees 03-23-15


*************** UPDATE 10-05-14 ***************

On October 3, 2014, Morel’s lawyers filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Daniel Morel’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs against. Attorney Joseph T. Baio argued that as the prevailing party where the Court had already affirmed the damages that the jury had awarded, Mr. Morel is entitled to more than $2.3 million in fees and another approximately $200 in expenses. Additionally Mr. Morel’s previous attorney, Barbara Hoffman is seeking more than $700K in fees for her part of the case.  orm of a new trial on all issues.”

*************** UPDATE 01-29-14 ***************

On January 24, 2014 Morel’s lawyers filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law. Attorney Joseph T. Baio argued that the court should stop AFP/Getty’s “continuing four-year war of attrition against Mr. Morel” and  deny their request “to eradicate the jury’s findings across the board, slash the amounts they must pay Mr. Morel, or order a ‘do-over’ in the form of a new trial on all issues.”


Getty Images and Agency France-Presse have filed documents requesting a landmark copyright infringement verdict rendered against the media giants be overturned.

In the motion challenging the verdict, AFP and Getty’s lawyers claim, among other things, that no reasonable jury could have found that their clients willfully committed infringement.  The motion also disputes the jury’s allocation of actual damages (damages directly traceable to the copyright infringement) claiming the $275,000 was excessive and not supported by sufficient evidence.  AFP and Getty are seeking a reduction in damages or a new trial so the issue can be reheard.

Last November a jury essentially threw the book at Getty and AFP, awarding photographer Daniel Morel $1.22 million in damages on a claim arising from the media groups’ unauthorized use of Morel’s photos of the aftermath of the 2010 Haitian earthquake.

The case arose after Getty and AFP used images Morel posted to Twitter.  The groups falsely credited another user who had reposted the photos and claimed to own them. The damages awarded are the maximum allowed, increasing the impact of a case that had already captured the public’s attention as a test of the law’s treatment of intellectual property shared on social media.

Getty and AFP claimed that Twitter’s terms of service allowed supported their use of Morel’s photographs.  AFP went as far as to file suit against Morel, arguing that he was interfering with their business practices.

In 2011 a federal district court judge dismissed AFP’s claim and ruled that it, as well as Getty, had infringed on Morel’s copyright by publishing the photos without his permission, and the decision was heralded as a major victory for photographers who share content on the Internet. It was then up to a jury to decide the appropriate damages, that determination in part being premised on whether or not the group’s copyright infringement had been “willful”.


Posted in AFP, AFP v Morel, Agence France-Presse, Daniel Morel, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Getty, Getty Images, Lawsuit, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Twitpic, Twitter | No Comments »

FAA Announces Proposed Drone Rules: will allow use of UAS under 55 lbs., under 500 ft; certification required

February 15th, 2015 by Alicia Calzada

Today the FAA proposed allowing drone flights within line of sight, during daylight hours only, and with a special operator’s certification. The FAA  announced its long-awaited proposed rules, for the regulation of small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS, or sUAVs), commonly referred to as drones. The NPPA is reviewing the rules, and the entire text of the proposed rules are not yet available, but based on the initial information released by the FAA, the rules appear to be an overall positive development for photojournalists and will address safety while enabling photographers to use the technology with fewer onerous restrictions than were expected.

“While we still need to review the proposed rule in its entirety, we are very encouraged that the FAA has chosen to follow the commonsense and less burdensome  approach to its rulemaking that NPPA has been advocating for over the past few years,” said Mickey H. Osterreicher, NPPA general counsel who was on today’s call with the FAA.

Under the proposed rules, sUAS flights will only be permitted during daylight hours, cannot go more than 500 feet above ground level, cannot be operated over any people who are not directly involved in the operation, must stay clear of other aircraft, and the UAS must remain within the line of unaided sight (no binoculars) of the operator or visual observer. However, there seems to be accommodation for the use of a visual observer in the rules. Remote cameras would not satisfy the visual-line-of-sight requirement but could be used as long as the UAS were still within the line of sight of the operator or observer.

NPPA president Mark Dolan commented, “the NPPA has been involved with this issue from the very beginning through our advocacy committee, which has consistently offered opinions and advice at every stage of the discussion. We are happy to see the FAA seems to have followed the spirit of that advice in taking a thoughtful and measured approach to the issue rather than take an extreme and restrictive stance, which can so often be the official reaction when faced with any type of new technology.” Dolan added that NPPA, “will continue to observe, and weigh in on, this issue as it moves through the public comment period of the FAA’s  rule-making process,” he added.

Under the proposal, the sUAS must weigh under 55 lbs. Pilots of small UAS, called operators, must be over 17; would be required to pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved center; be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); obtain a sUAS operator certificate which never expires (unless revoked), and pass a recurrent test every 24 months. An individual with a private pilot’s license will still need to obtain a sUAS operator certificate to pilot a sUAS. Once certified, the operator can pilot any type of UAS for commercial purposes, “so long as you are flying within the parameters of the rule, line-of-sight, etc.” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta this morning. The FAA has long considered photojournalism to be a “commercial” enterprise for the purposes of its rules on sUAS. Hobbyist’s use of sUAS will not require a certificate.

Operators will be required to conduct a pre-flight inspection to ensure that the small UAS is safe for operation, and must report to the FAA any accidents which result in injury or property damage within 10 days.

The proposed rules also considers the idea that there might be a “microUAS” category for UAS under 4.4 pounds “that would allow operations in Class G airspace, over people not involved in the operation, provided the operator certifies he or she has the requisite aeronautical knowledge to perform the operation.”

The rules were presented in a hastily announced, mid-holiday weekend press conference, and are further outlined in a press release. The NPPA cautions its members that these are proposed rules and as such those wishing to operate sUAS must still petition for a section 333 exemption, although that petition (unlike previously granted petitions which included a pilot’s certificate) would now most likely be approved following the guidelines in the new NPRM. “It is also important to remember that while these proposed rules address safety issues, today the President also signed a memorandum (similar to an executive order) ensuring that the government’s drone uses don’t violate the First Amendment,” Osterreicher said. “That memo also tasks the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) with developing privacy and transparency rules for drone use,” Osterreicher added. The privacy issue is one that has been currently addressed by a patchwork of state legislation throughout the country.

The FAA will be accepting comments from the public for at least 60 days. Therefore the rules won’t go into effect until after the rulemaking period is over, which could still take another 2 years. The proposed rules are expected to be posted at this link later today:


Posted in broadcasting, drone, Drones, FAA, First Amendment, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, photojournalism, small unmanned aerial systems, sUAS, UAS, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) | No Comments »

« Previous Entries