NPPA Joined by 13 Organizations Files Comments in Support of Electronic Recording and Audio-Visual Coverage of Court Proceedings in NYS

November 13th, 2015 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The NPPA, joined by 13 other organizations filed comments today with the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) in support of proposals to revise and update the Unified Court System (“UCS”) rules regarding electronic recording and audio-visual coverage of court proceedings in the state.

The letter also supports proposed revisions to the definition of audio-visual coverage and other proposed clarifications excluding still photography from the definition of audio-visual coverage. Additionally the letter affirms support of the proposed goals set by the Communications & Media Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of New York City: “(i) consistently maintaining the distinction between audio-visual coverage and still photography throughout the rules and using consistent terminology to avoid confusion; (ii) emphasizing that there should be a presumption in favor of permitting both audio-visual and still photographic coverage to the extent consistent with Section 52 of the Civil Rights Law, with ultimate decisions left to the presiding judges; and (iii) eliminating certain restrictions on coverage created or continued by the proposed revisions that go beyond the requirements of Section 52.”

It urges OCA “to exercise its authority to ensure that New York’s court system, which has been a beacon of progressive policies for the nation, does not fall further behind than it already has under some of the anachronistic rules promulgated at a time when televisions used vacuum tubes and at best could receive 12 channels, broadcast in black & white for a few hours a day.”

Addressing those opposed to the proposed changes, NPPA general counsel, Mickey H. Osterreicher wrote, “the tired arguments that camera coverage will: prejudice a defendant’s fair trial rights, their right of privacy, the prosecution’s ability to have witnesses comply with subpoenas, as well as the detrimental effect cameras will have on lawyers, judges, and other participants are just that – threadbare and unsubstantiated. But the more crucial point is not how cameras affect either side in a litigation. It is whether cameras will increase the public’s confidence in our justice system. Nothing is more fundamental to our democratic system of governance than the right of the people to know how their government is functioning on their behalf. That, we submit, is a higher value which should drive the debate here; and is the central point about which the Bar Association, the Unified Court System and, indeed, the legislature should be concerned.”

The groups joining in the letter were: Associated Press Media Editors, Associated Press Photo Managers, The Deadline Club/New York City Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, Media Law Resource Center, New York News Publishers Association, New York Press Photographers Association, New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc., The NewsGuild of New York Local 31003, CWA, North Jersey Media Group, Online News Association, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Scripps Media, Inc., d/b/a WKBW-TV and Society of Professional Journalists.

Posted in Access, Cameras, Cameras in the Courtroom, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism | 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 »

NPPA, Joined by Other Media Groups Files Comments Objecting to Fairfax County, VA Photo Permit Fees

February 5th, 2015 by Alicia Calzada and tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), joined by twelve other news and photographers’ organizations and First Amendment advocacy groups, filed comments with the Fairfax County Park Authority strongly objecting to their proposed permit and fee structure.

The proposed scheme would require all professional photographers to obtain a “professional photography permit”. Further, the permit would take 5 days to process, making it nearly impossible for news photographers to obtain one in time for most news situations, for which there is little to no warning.

The comments, authored by NPPA general counsel, Mickey Osterreicher, explains that “the proposed rules, create an unnecessary and burdensome distinction between amateur and professional photographers. Whether the images being made and recorded are for journalism, weddings or any other type of photography/filming (hereinafter “photography”), distinguishing between professional photographers and amateurs who are doing precisely the same things, at the same times, and in the same places, is arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional.”

NPPA has always argued that permits in parks should only be required if the photographer’s presence would create a disruption. As the comments explained, “We believe that the proper question to ask is whether the photography creates any unusual impact on the land. If the activity presents no more impact on the land than that of the general public, then it should be exempt from permit and fee requirements.”

In the submitted comments Osterreicher went on to explain that, “unfettered access is necessary in coverage of the important public policy issues that arise in the conservation and use of public park resources. Journalists should be free to report to the public on public issues from public lands at any time. That protection should extend not only to individuals traditionally identified as newsgatherers, but also for freelance visual journalists and members of the public who may use cameras on a speculative basis to photograph or film activities on public lands without having an assured media outlet for their work.”

The other groups joining in the letter were: the American Photographic Artists, the American Society of Media Photographers, the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press Media Editors, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, the Graphic Artists Guild, the North American Nature Photography Association, PACA Digital Media Licensing Association, the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists and the White House News Photographers Association.


Posted in Access, American Society of News Editors, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, Newsgathering, NPPA, Permits, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Public Photography, Regulations limiting photography, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, White House News Photographers Association, WHNPA | No Comments »

Important Info for Those Covering Ferguson

November 23rd, 2014 by Mickey Osterreicher and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

For all NPPA members and visual journalists in Ferguson, Missouri – Please print out the federal court orders below and keep them with you at all times.

Also please contact NPPA general counsel Mickey Osterreicher if you are interfered with or arrested. You may call or text his cell: 716.983.7800 or email

You may also call 800.336.4243, which is the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Legal Defense Hotline.

County Order

Highway Patrol Order

Ferguson Order

Posted in Access, Ferguson, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Recording Police, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Visual Journalists | No Comments »

« Previous Entries