March 27th, 2012 by Alicia Calzada and tagged Arrest, boston commons, first amendment, journalism, photographers, photography, photojournalism, photojournalist, police, police relations, recording, right to record, simon glik, video
The Boston Globe is reporting that the City of Boston has paid $170,000 to settle a civil rights lawsuit filed against them after they arrested a man for photographing police activity on the Boston Commons.
The underlying case was the subject of an earlier appellate ruling which held that “peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011).
The case began over four years ago, when Simon Glik was walking past the Boston Commons and noticed three police officers arresting a man. An attorney who believed that the officers might be using excessive force, Glik began recording with his cell phone. Police arrested Glik and charged him with, among other things, violations of the wiretap statute. All charges against him were either dropped or dismissed and Glik filed a federal suit alleging that officers violated his civil rights. The officers argued official qualified immunity but the court denied it, and an appellate court upheld the ruling, holding that “a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.” Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011).
The Boston Police Department initially defended the officers and in 2008 issued a memo stating that the two officers involved did nothing wrong, but back in January the department stated that the two officers would face discipline and used “ureasonable judgment,” according to the Globe.
See other articles on the case by Massacusetts Lawyers Weekly, ARS Technica, and Carlos Miller’s blog.
Read an earlier NPPA post on the First Circuit decision of Glik v. Cunniffe.
Posted in Boston Police, Cameras, cell phone cameras, First Amendment, Massachusetts ACLU, Newsgathering, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording, Recording Police, video cameras, Wiretap Law | 1 Comment »
March 16th, 2012 by Alicia Calzada and tagged Access, Arrest, first amendment, Legal, national press photographers association, photography, police, police relations, video
The city of Boston will be paying out $1.4 million to a man who was tackled by police while videotaping.
According to the Boston Globe, Michael O’Brien accused a police officer of knocking him to the ground while he was videotaping another police officer with a cell phone.
Read the full story here.
Boston is also the city where attorney Simon Glik case was arrested for videotaping police arresting and beating a man in the Boston Commons. The First Circuit, a federal appeals court, recently ruled that Glik’s First Amendment rights were violated by the arrest.
Posted in Access, Boston Police, First Amendment, Massachusetts ACLU, Newsgathering, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Recording, Recording Police, video cameras, Wiretap Law | No Comments »
March 10th, 2012 by Alicia Calzada and tagged agricultural, Agricultural Property Release, agriculture, farm bills, iowa, journalism, NPPA, photography, photojournalism, photojournalist, recording, television, Utah, video, visual journalism
The first two in a series of so-called “Ag-Gag” bills has been enacted into law. The bills, different versions of which have been pending in over half a dozen states, target animal rights activists but frequently are written in broad language that impacts other lawful First Amendment activity.
Iowa was the first state to pass a bill, in early March, making access to an agricultural facility by “false pretenses” illegal. It was heavily amended from its original version. The introduced version of the bill would have made recording while on the farm without the consent of the owner a misdemeanor (and a felony for a second offense) and made mere possession of photographs or video resulting from the earlier act a crime. Thankfully, that version did not pass- it would have been easily found unconstitutional. To put this into perspective, the only other category of photography that is a crime to possess is child pornography. In fact, just a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to criminalize the possession of video depicting animal cruelty.
A bill making photography of farm operations without the consent of the owner illegal has passed in Utah. The Utah state senate passed HB 187 and it is headed to the governor for a signature. An amendment was made after the NPPA and several other groups protested the original language of the bill. The bill makes it a crime to photograph “agricultural operations” without consent of the owner.Â There was no distinction in the original version of the bill for private vs. pubic property, and the wording left open the possibility prosecution for photographing animals grazing on public lands. The bill was amended to clarify that “agricultural operations” is “private property” and passed with that language. However the bill is still problematic as it takes a crime- trespassing- and makes it subject to a greater punishment (a Class A misdemeanor vs. a Class B misdemeanor) because the added element of a First Amendment activity is involved.
A bill pending in New York, would criminalize the “unauthorized video, audio recording or photography done without the farm owner’s written consent.” Like certain proposals NPPA objected to in the last, there is not even a limitation in this bill that the photographer be trespassing. As written, it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison, or a fine of $1,000 to stand on the side of the road and photograph farm animals or farm.
Even bills which makes it a crime to take photographs on a farm while trespassing are problematic because an essential element of the crime is photography. It is a content-based restriction (with a specific list of what would be in the photograph that would convert an otherwise law abiding photographer into a criminal).
The application of these laws to photographic activity will be subject to constitutional scrutiny. NPPA will continue to monitor and oppose these bills as we have done in the past.
NPPA is drafting a model release for photographers in Utah and Iowa to bring to assignments on property that could be considered an agricultural operation, or otherwise subject to this law.
If you are aware of pending legislation that would affect photographers, please alert us at [email protected] or [email protected]
Posted in ag-gag, Cameras, contracts, First Amendment, Iowa, Legal, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, Newsgathering, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Recording, Regulations limiting photography, Uncategorized, Utah, video cameras | 1 Comment »
November 21st, 2011 by Alicia Calzada and tagged Access, first amendment, journalism school, national press photographers association, news industry, NPPA, photographers, photography, photojournalism, police, police relations, video
New York – The National Press Photographers Association was joined by several media organizations and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the PressÂ in a letter to the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, Paul J. Browne, to protest police mistreatment of the the media during the Occupy Wall Street protests last week. The strongly worded letter drafted by NPPA general Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher along with New York Times vice president and assistant generalÂ counsel, George Freeman, pointed out that “credentialed media were identified, segregated and kept away from viewing, reporting on and photographing vital matters of public concern. A press pen was set up blocks away and those kept there were further prevented from seeing what was occurring by the strategic placement of police buses around the perimeter. Moreover, there have been numerous instances where police officers struck or otherwise intentionally impeded photographers as they were taking photos, keeping them from doing their job and from documenting instances of seeming police aggression.”
The letter outlines several specific incidents in which members of the media were physically assaulted by police. It also describes how members of the media were ordered to leave public areas, stripped of their credentials, threatened with arrest, detained and arrested.
During an August 2011Â meeting Browne hadÂ promised to review previous media complaints regardingÂ other incidents involving police interference with the media and his agreement to considerÂ additional training to reinforce media guidelines, for newer officers on the force.Â Browne had agreed at the time that additional training for officers would be beneficial. The media representatives who authored the letter expressed their beliefÂ “that had such agreed upon training occurred, it may have helped avoid the numerous inappropriate, if not unconstitutional, actions and abuses the police heaped upon both credentialed and non-credentialed journalists in the last few days.”
A companion letterÂ was sent by the New York Civil Liberties Union to New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg making similar complaints. Both groups have asked for a meeting withÂ the police in order to address these issues.
Read the complete letter here:DCPI Letter – Signed 11-21-11
See articles by the New York Press Club. and the Associate Press.
Posted in broadcasting, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, law, Legal, mass media, multimedia, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, NPPA, NYPD, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Photography, Recording Police, video cameras | 2 Comments »
September 20th, 2011 by Alicia Calzada and tagged Access, first amendment, journalism school, Legal, Mickey Osterreicher, video
Click here for video
Police in Milwaukee arrested 68-year-old videographer Clint Fillinger, a former NPPA member,Â at a fire scene, even as the photographer was following a police officer’s illegal orders to move back while other members of the public were allowed to stay.
Fox 6, the television station where the journalist works reports that Fillinger “was shooting video behind yellow police tape alongside a small crowd that gathered to watch” when he was approached by the officer and ordered to move back. According to the station, the photographer put his hand up in a defensive manner as the officer was forcing him to move backwards, when he accidentally touched the officer and Fillinger was knocked to the ground, suffering bruises, and arrested. He was cited for resisting and obstructing an officer.
The station’s management has complained to the police department and the NPPA has also sent a formal letter of complaint to the department protesting the arrest. NPPA’s general counsel, Mickey Osterreicher cited the fact that the arrest violated the department’s own policies and added:
While in some situations the press may have no greater rights than those of the general public, they certainly have no less right of access on a public street. Sgt. Thomas Heinz pretextually stated he has moving Mr. Fillinger â€œfor his own safetyâ€ yet did not see fit to move any other persons back or to move the previously established police/fire lines….
NPPA stands ready to work with your department to help develop reasonable and workable policies and practices in order to avoid similar situations. If your departmentâ€™s vision is for â€œMilwaukee to be a place where all can live safely and without fear, protected by a police department with the highest ethical and professional standards;â€ we would respectfully request you commence a full and impartial investigation of this incident and bring disciplinary action against these officers if necessary. Additionally we request that all charges against Mr. Fillinger be immediatley dropped.
More details on the arrest can be found at Fox 6’s website:
For the full text of Osterreicher’s letter to the Milwaukee police department, follow this link: Milwaukee Police Letter 09-20-11
********** UPDATE ***************
On September 21, 2011, Milawuakee Police Chied Edward Flynn spoke to the mediaÂ and among other things blamed the 68 year-old news photographer’s failure to compy with the officer’s request as the cause of the incident. The NPPA responded with a second letter sent today.
********** UPDATE ***************
Two additional groups, the Radio Television Digital News Association, and the Wisconsin News Photographers Association have also protested the arrest. Read the letters below.
Posted in Access, broadcasting, Cameras, First Amendment, First Amendment rights, Milwaukee Police, National Press Photographers Association, News Photography, NPPA, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism, Police, Public Photography, Recording Police, video cameras, violating | 1 Comment »
August 25th, 2011 by Alicia Calzada and tagged Access, copyright, first amendment, Legal, national press photographers association, news industry, newspapers, photography, photojournalism, sports, video, WIAA
In a long awaited ruling, the Seventh Circuit on Wednesday held that the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) was within its rights to grant exclusive broadcast rights to a private commercial vendor and to charge news organizations a fee for the right to broadcast games. The court held that such arrangements do not run afoul of the First Amendment.
Addressing only the issue of the broadcasting of the entire event, the court held that a sporting event was a “performance” and the right to broadcast an event in it’s entirety is a proprietary right that a governmental entity may exercise. The case, WIAA v. Gannett began when The Appleton Post-Crescent, a Gannett newspaper, broadcasted several state championship football games online in their entirety, believing that it was within their First Amendment right to do so. The WIAA sued.
The court first rejected the notion that this case was a copyright case and then proceeded to make intellectual property analogies to the sporting events, repeatedly calling the sporting events “performances,” (performances are protected by copyright) and comparing sporting events to concerts, plays and patents, all of which have protectable intellectual property elements. No court has ever held that a sporting event is a copyrightable performance, and this court did not either. A sporting event is not a work of authorship like a concert or a play. While the court fell short of explicitly holding that a sporting event has intellectual property rights, it basically upheld the assertion of intellectual-property-like rights by the WIAA (while insisting that no intellectual property rights were involved). The underlying basis for the court’s holding was the Supreme Court case of Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard, which held that a television station misappropriated the property of a human cannonball performer by broadcasting the performance in its entirety.
A bright spot in the ruling is that the Seventh Circuit rejected the lower court’s finding that sports reporting deserves less First Amendment protection than political reporting, and held that “[t]here is no basis for a rule that makes the press’s right to coverage depend on the purported value of the object of their coverage.” This is a win for the First Amendment.
Importantly, the ruling is limited to the single issue of whether or not the media has a First Amendment right to broadcast an entire event sponsored by a state actor. But the reasoning is broad enough to be interpreted to support a multitude of restrictions. For example, within the restrictions imposed by the WIAA under the exclusive broadcast agreement, news organizations don’t have a right to “live blog” the events. The court took no issue with that aspect of the exclusive agreement, leaving the live blog restrictions in tact.
The court specifically didn’t address issues in the conflict related to still photography, such as reprint sale restrictions, because they were not raised by the parties on appeal.
It will not be surprising if this case is followed by further restrictions on coverage of government events. The fear is that municipalities and sports associations alike may interpret this ruling to mean that a city can sponsor a public event and then restrict who may broadcast the event. This ruling could extend to restrictions on broadcasting parades, marathons, and city-sponsored festivals. Several years ago a Los Angeles District Court ruled that the city could not grant exclusive rights to an “official” television station.
The result is a disappointment to the NPPA, which joined several other news organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of the newspaperÂ last year.
The entire Seventh Circuit ruling can be found here: WIAA v. Gannett Seventh Circuit Opinion, No. 10-2627
An extensive legal article that I wrote on the issue can be found here:
An earlier NPPA article on the conflict can be found here.
Posted in Access, blogging, broadcasting, copyright, Federal Court, First Amendment, Legal, News Photography, photojournalism, students | No Comments »
August 4th, 2011 by Alicia Calzada and tagged Access, D.C. taxicab commission, first amendment, Mickey Osterreicher, open meetings, photography, photojournalism, social media, video
Five weeks after the NPPA sent letters to the D.C. Taxicab Commission, andÂ U.S. Parks PoliceÂ protesting an incident in which two journalists were arrested for taking pictures and recording a public meeting, the Commission reports that it has revised its policy on public attendance, photography and recording at meetings.
The new policy states, in part,
A member of the public, including any representative of the media, may record or photograph the proceedings of the Commission at an open meeting by means of a tape recorder or any other recording device so long as the person does not impede the orderly conduct of the meeting, by, for instance, creating excessive noise that impairs the ability of others to hear the proceeding or using excessively bright artificial light.
The Interim Chairwoman of theÂ Â taxicab commission, Dena Reed, Â notified the NPPA of the change in a letter this week. Reed was quoted in JuneÂ in a Washington PostÂ article as stating that the commission had banned videotaping of its proceedings because it was disruptive.
The entire “Open Meetings Policy and Protocol,” can be found on the DC Taxicab Commissions website at this link.
NPPA’s Letter to the Taxicab Commission
Washington Post article about the incident.
Second Washington Post article about the incidentÂ and copy of a statement by Reed after the incident.
Carlos Miller’s article and videoÂ regarding the original incident.
Posted in Access, blogging, First Amendment, Legal, photographers, Photographers' Rights, photojournalism | 1 Comment »