Search

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

Email [email protected]

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 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 »

Media should be able to fly, despite temporary flight restriction in Ferguson

August 19th, 2014 by Alicia Calzada

Although the FAA has issued a temporary flight restriction over Ferguson, Missouri, those restrictions should not include news helicopters.

The flight restrictions have been widely reported, and several news organizations have reported that the restrictions apply to news media. However, the regulation giving the FAA authority to issue the temporary flight restriction contains an exemption for news media.

NPPA member William Luther, a photojournalist at the San Antonio Express-News who holds a private pilot’s license, brought the exception to NPPA’s attention earlier today.

The FAA issued the temporary flight restrictions under the authority of 14 CFR § 91.137(a)(2) (Temporary flight restrictions in the vicinity of disaster/hazard areas.). That section relates to the issuance of a TFR necessary to “provide a safe environment for the operation of disaster relief aircraft.” When a temporary flight restriction notice is issued under that subsection, aircraft are banned from the designated area, unless certain exceptions apply. One of the exceptions permitting flight within the restricted airspace is that the aircraft is carrying accredited news representatives.

Specifically, the regulation permits aircraft “carrying properly accredited news representatives,” if, “prior to entering the area, a flight plan is filed … and the operation is conducted above the altitude used by the disaster relief aircraft, unless otherwise authorized by the official in charge of on scene emergency response activities.”

As a result of the persistent legal problems many journalists have faced covering protests in Ferguson, NPPA’s General Counsel Mickey Osterreicher arrived in Missouri today and is providing legal support to visual journalists in the city.

Posted in FAA, Ferguson, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Legal, Photographers' Rights, Recording Police, Visual Journalists | No Comments »

Texas Court Upholds the Right to Photograph and Record Police Activity

July 26th, 2014 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an important ruling in Texas, a federal judge held that the right to record police activity is a clearly established right protected by the First Amendment.

In a civil rights lawsuit, Antonio Buehler alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested by the Austin Police Department multiple times for taking pictures of police activities. Buehler was first arrested when he came upon a police scene at a gas station, where he began recording the arrest because he felt that excessive force was being used. After that arrest, he formed a group called the “Peaceful Streets Project” and began regularly documenting police activity. He was arrested again and again for documenting police activity, according to the lawsuit.

In an effort to get the lawsuit dismissed, the Austin Police Department claimed “qualified immunity” which protects state officials from suit. However, qualified immunity is not available if officials violate a clearly established constitutional right. In their argument, APD claimed that the right to photograph or videotape police officers “is not recognized as a constitutional right”.

In an order released Thursday, the federal judge in the case held that not only is there a constitutional right to document police officers, but that the right is clearly established. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane held that “the First Amendment protects the right to videotape police officers in the performance of their official duties, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.”

Continuing, the judge wrote:

If a person has the right to assemble in a public place, receive information on a matter of public concern, and make a record of that information for the purpose of disseminating that information, the ability to make photographic or video recording of that information is simply not a new or a revolutionary expansion of a historical right. Instead the photographic or video recording of public information is only a more modern and efficient method of exercising a clearly established right.

Buehler’s attorney, Daphne Silverman told NPPA, “Antonio and I are pleased with Judge Lane’s ruling upholding the First Amendment right to document police conduct. This is a win for the citizens and should be of no concern to honest police officers.”

The NPPA filed an amicus brief in the case last month in support of Buehler’s position, whose case will now go forward.

See also, http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/crime-law/federal-judge-upholds-activist-antonio-buehlers-ri/ngnbp/

Posted in Austin Police, blogging, False Arrest, Federal Court, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Lawsuit, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, NPPA, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording Police | No Comments »

NPPA Member Wins Major Victory Against Suffolk County Police Department

June 17th, 2014 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NPPA member Philip Datz today won a major settlement from the Suffolk County Police Department in a civil rights suit stemming from Datz’s arrest while filming law enforcement activity on a public street.   Under the terms of the settlement, Suffolk County agreed to pay Datz $200,000, implement a new training program (including a training video), and create a Police-Media Relations Committee.

The NPPA, attorneys from the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT) and the NYCLU worked with Datz, a freelance videographer, to file a federal lawsuit after Suffolk County prosecutors dropped charges resulting from his 2011 arrest.  In July of 2011 Datz was filming police activity from a public sidewalk when Suffolk County Police Sergeant Michael Milton confronted him (VIDEO), demanding he leave the area immediately.  Datz was wearing his press credentials at the time and was standing near several other onlookers, who were not asked to leave.  Although no police lines had been established, Datz complied and then drove a block away. He was filming from there when Sergeant Milton came speeding up in his police cruiser, placed Datz under arrest for obstruction of governmental administration, and seized his camera and videotape.

Led by attorney Robert Balin, DWT filed suit on Datz’s behalf in 2012, claiming the unlawful arrest violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights as well as the Privacy Protection Act of 1980.  Rather than take the case to trial, SCPD agreed to the settlement payment, and a series of relief measures aimed at educating its officers on the rights of the public and press to observe and record police activity.  As part of these measures,  SCPD officers will now be annually required to watch a training video explaining these rights.  In addition, a newly created Police-Media Relations Committee consisting of representatives of SCPD and local media will be charged with promoting better relations between press and the police and will address complaints regarding police-media relations. Its membership will include a commanding officer in the SCPD, the executive officer of the SCPD’s Public Information Bureau, and members of local print and broadcast media outlets, as well as a freelance videographer or photographer. The SCPD also revised its rules to instruct officers that “members of the media cannot be restricted from entering and/or producing recorded media from areas that are open to the public, regardless of subject matter.”

“This settlement is a victory for the First Amendment and for the public good,” Datz said. “When police arrest journalists just for doing their job, it creates a chilling effect that jeopardizes everyone’s ability to stay informed about important news in their community. Journalists have a duty to cover what the police are doing, and the police should follow the law and respect the First Amendment to ensure they can do that.” Datz has also made a generous donation to the NPPA defense fund.

“We are delighted that Suffolk County has now joined other police departments, the U.S. Department of Justice and numerous courts across the country in recognizing that the public and press have a First Amendment right to photograph and record police officers performing their duties in a public place – a right that is essential to newsgathering and the free discussion of government affairs,” said Robert Balin. “This settlement is a huge victory not just for Phil Datz, but for all journalists and Suffolk County residents. The changes in policy and training agreed to by the County are major steps toward transforming the SCPD culture that led to this unfortunate incident. “The settlement is an encouraging sign in a climate where interference with and unlawful arrest of photographers has become commonplace.

“The National Press Photographers Association commends Suffolk County for working with Phil Datz and his counsel in order to turn a far too commonplace First Amendment violation into a constructive resolution of the case,” said Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the NPPA. “The real challenge now will be to ensure the ongoing training of SCPD officers in order for Suffolk County to be a positive role model for other law enforcement agencies. The NPPA is also extremely appreciative of the tenacious advocacy by Rob Balin, Alison Schary and Sam Bayard of the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine who worked tirelessly on Phil’s behalf. And finally our thanks go to Phil Datz for not only having to endure the abridgment of his civil rights but for his willingness to stand up for his rights and the rights of others.”

The Suffolk County case is just the latest example of a lawsuit forcing local law enforcement to protect, rather than violate, the First Amendment. In March the Baltimore Police Department settled a case brought by the ACLU for a similar amount and also announced a new policy that prohibits officers from stopping people from taping or photographing police actions after officers destroyed a man’s personal, family videos because he taped a police incident, a case in which the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest affirming the right of both the public and the press to record police activities in public.

Also see: http://www.freedomtofilm.com/settlement.html  for additional info and links to documents including letter of discipline and Internal Affairs report.

 

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

NPPA files Amicus Brief Supporting Right to Photograph and Record Police in Public

June 2nd, 2014 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NPPA filed an Amicus Brief today in a federal civil rights lawsuit involving an Austin, Texas man, who says that police violated his constitutional right to photograph and/or film police in a public setting.

In his complaint Antonio Francis Buehler alleged that he was arrested on a number of occasions while recording Austin Police officers performing their official duties in public places. As a result of these incidents Buehler formed the Peaceful Streets Project, a group which routinely videotapes police officers in the city.

Buehler filed suit against the Austin Police Department and several police officers for violations of his civil rights. The defendants in the lawsuit then moved to dismiss the suit, and claimed “qualified immunity,” which protects government officials from being the subjects of lawsuits unless they have violated a clearly established constitutional right.

“The NPPA chose to file an amicus brief so early in this case because of the extraordinary and incredulous claim by the Austin Police Department that ‘the Fifth Circuit does not recognize photographing/videotaping police officers as a constitutional right,'” said NPPA Advocacy Chair Alicia Calzada.

The brief counters the police department’s argument that the “First Amendment right to videotape law enforcement is not a cognizable claim,” as being incorrect as a matter of law and also because it frames the issue far too narrowly.  Rather, the constitutional right to film police officers while on duty has been well established for decades through numerous constitutional decisions that protect the “coextensive” rights of journalists and members of the public to gather information and to hold government officials accountable for their actions, as the First Circuit Court of Appeals held in the 2011 case of Glik v. Cunniffe. In Glik, a citizen was arrested after using his cell phone to photograph Boston police officers he believed were using excessive force in effectuating an arrest. After his charges were dismissed, Glik filed a civil action against the Boston Police Department and won because the First Circuit observed that a citizen’s right to film police officers on duty is a “basic, vital, and well-established liberty protected by the First Amendment.”

Several other cases have affirmed that the right to film police officers while on duty is clear and unambiguous, thus further weakening the Austin Police Department’s dubious claim. Most recently, the First Circuit reaffirmed this principle, denying qualified immunity in a case that involved videotaping police during a traffic stop in the case of Gericke v Begin. The court in Gericke explained that some constitutional principles are self-evident and do not need to have a case directly on point.

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has also affirmed this right in  multiple Statements of Interest, explaining that over eighty years of precedent, going back to the 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota, stand for the proposition that “government action intended to prevent the dissemination of information critical of government officials, including police officers, constitutes an invalid prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

The law is also clear that these constitutional protections apply as much to individuals as they do the institutional press, something the NPPA has consistently noted. “NPPA has always fought to uphold the right to photograph and record in public for everyone,” said NPPA Generasl Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher. “While the press may not have any greater right of access than the public, they have no less right either and the last thing we want is for the government to be the arbiter of who is entitled to ‘Free Speech’ or ‘Free Press’ First Amendment protection,” he added.

The amicus brief was drafted pro bono by attorneys Robert Corn-Revere, Ronald London, and Alison B. Schary, with the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine, who have generously supported this and other NPPA efforts to promote and uphold the right to take pictures in public. Corn-Revere, London and Schary were recipients of the 2013 NPPA Kenneth P. McLaughlin Award of Merit for their efforts in support of the First Amendment.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Austin Police, Boston Police, cell phone cameras, Department of Justice, DOJ, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Glik v Cunniffe, law, Lawsuit, Legal, Newsgathering, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording, Recording Police, Simon Glik, Texas | No Comments »

NPPA Joins Brief Supporting Journalists’ Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems

May 7th, 2014 by and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NPPA and a coalition of media organizations have joined to file a legal brief in a case that may help shape the future of the use of unmanned aerial systems (“UAS”) by journalists nationwide.  The brief, filed by the law firm Holland & Knight on behalf of the NPPA and 13 other media organizations, argues in favor of a UAS pilot fined by the FAA for flying a model plane fitted with a camera around the University of Virginia in 2011.

A judge overturned the fine against Raphael “Trappy” Parker in March, but the FAA appealed that decision. The National Transportation Safety Board will review the holding in the coming weeks.  The approaching NTSB review will focus, in part, on whether the FAA’s current ban on the unlicensed commercial use of small UAS exceeds its administrative authority.

The amicus brief argues that the FAA’s current policy is overly broad, and improperly fails to draw a distinction between commercial uses and “the use of UAS technology for the First Amendment-protected purpose of gathering and disseminating news and information.”  The brief contends that lagging administrative proceedings to update the rules and minimal efforts to grant licenses to private parties have combined with current policies to essentially ban civilian use of UAS.

NPPA General Cousel Mickey Osterreicher said the blanket ban improperly burdens journalists.

“With the advent of smaller and more advanced aerial platforms which are simple to operate and inexpensive to purchase, it is logical that innovative visual journalists [would] seek to report the news by using these devices to capture images with which to better inform the public,” Osterreicher said.  Osterreicher pointed to aerial photographs of the aftermath of the recent building explosion in Harlem as an important example of this type of publicly beneficial use.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the idea that the First Amendment extends some protection to newsgathering activities.  By incorrectly deeming media organization’s use of UAS as a commercial activity, rather than a newsgathering application, current policies undermine significant constitutional concerns.  “Contrary to the FAA’s complete shutdown of an entirely new means to gather the news, the remainder of the federal government . . . has recognized that, in the eyes of the law, journalism is not like other business,” the brief asserts.

The particular utility of UAS for newsgathering purposes reinforces the First Amendment interests at stake.  A recent NPPA survey canvased approximately 50 news organizations and media associations to determine how small UAS could help journalists do their jobs.  The survey revealed UAS could aid in the reporting of newsworthy events such as natural disasters, accidents, and adverse weather conditions, where safety concerns or other restrictions might otherwise limit coverage.

Even strong proponents of UAS concede that increased use might present some dangers, especially in highly populated areas.  However, the brief argued, “the News Media Amici and the government can address legitimate safety concerns while protecting First Amendment rights and providing the public with enhanced access to important information.”  The government’s delay in promulgating a formal rulemaking process to consider the balancing of these interests is a central basis for the challenge to current policy.

The brief also argued that privacy concerns arising from media organizations’ use of UAS could be addressed by existing laws, and that forward looking policy determinations regarding privacy should be “based on a discussion among policy makers, privacy advocates, and industry.”

The other problem with the FAA’s current policy is that it was arguably adopted without proper administrative procedures.  When an agency seeks to establish enforceable rules or regulations, as it did here, it must meet certain legal requirements.   The lack of proper procedure is compounded by an absence of clarity in the policy itself, leading to outcomes that depart from legal norms, such as the regulation of model airplanes under general federal aviation regulations.

The current state of the law on UAS use for newsgathering purposes demands swift action from the FAA, Osterreicher concluded:

“It is incumbent that the FAA chart a pragmatic and expedited course in its administrative rulemaking. There is neither room nor time for complacency or hubris in addressing this matter, lest, flying too low or too high it end up failing like Icarus in an attempt to rule the sky.”

Osterreicher will present the NPPA study and paper on UAS at a meeting of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International in Orlando next week.  The FAA’s “roadmap” for integrating civilian UAS usage is available here.

Posted in Access, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism | 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries