The European Court of Human Rights had ruled that police powers to stop and search had ‘not been curbed by adequate legal safeguards so as to offer the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference’. Or in other words, it allowed the police to pick on whoever they fancied without having to explain their reasons.

Following the ruling by the ECHR, the UK Government disagreed and asked for an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the Court but as of yesterday this has now been refused, making the January judgement final. So can photographers in the UK finally expect to be treated with respect? Unfortunately maybe not!

Amateur Photographer reports that a Home Office spokesman told them: ‘The Government has already committed to reviewing counter-terrorism legislation which will include the operation of the Section 44 stop-and-search provisions.’ In theory this means that police may continue to conduct Section 44 stops for the foreseeable future. Despite the ruling.

That said, the “I’m a photographer not a terrorist” team are holding a flashmob outside New Scotland Yard this coming Saturday. So if you’re in London and fancy joining them to celebrate this victory (and perhaps see if section 44 harassment is indeed a thing of the past) then check out the details here.

Digital Economy Bill Passed

The controversial Digital Economy Bill in the UK has passed its final reading in Parliament and will now shortly become law. Whilst the entire bill was controversial, there was a specific clause which photographers were fighting against as it would in theory allow anyone to use your work without payment (more here).

Thankfully the provisions for Orphan Works (Clause 43) were removed from the bill in the final discussions and so these will not become law. I suspect they will now be considered at a later date and hopefully during these discussions the issues raised by photographers will be addressed.

Section 44 Stop & Search Law Appealed

Back in January, the European Court stated that the use of Section 44 to stop-and-search people is illegal and that the powers lack proper ‘safeguards against abuse’, finding that its use was therefore illegal.

The Home Office had until 12 April to appeal the ruling, and according to the British Journal of Photography, an appeal was indeed lodged last week with the European Court.

If the court rejects the Government’s appeal, then the case will become final on that very same day when that decision is taken. This would force the Government to revise its anti-terrorism policies and the use of the controversial Section 44.

Adobe Photoshop CS5 Announced

This week Adobe announced the next version of its creative software suites, including Photoshop. The latest version includes many new features that will appeal to photographers. These include:

• Content aware fill
• New HDR tools
• Painting effects and realistic brushes
• Automatic lens correction
• Improved RAW image processing
• Enhanced black and white conversion

Photocamp Bradford 2010

And finally, for those of you in Yorkshire, the dates for the next Photocamp have been announced. The event will take place at the same venue as last year – the National Media Museum in Bradford – on the 2nd and 3rd October 2010.

Watch this space for more info!

The first is part of the Digital Economy Bill and relates to orphan works usage rights, which will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified. Assuming most people are not going to try and find the owner for images they download online, that’s potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.

As the Copyright Action site indicates:

Copyright in photos is essentially going to cease to exist, since there is no ineradicable way of associating ownership details short of plastering your name right across the image.

One of the more galling aspects of the UK Digital Economy bill is that it has been specifically drafted (at the behest of the music and movie industry) to further protect music and movie copyrights but then seems to strip any need to worry about copyright for Photographers. What is worse is that despite the Lords Select Committee stating that the definition of an “orphan work” should be included in the bill, Lord Mandelson (who is the one pushing this through) refused on the grounds that:

“the need for flexibility in specifying what comprises an adequate search makes this difficult. That what is an orphan work will change according to evolving methods of determining its status.”

If this is passed it means that any image that turns up on a Google image search or personal website could be used commercially with the user just claiming they tried to find the owner and hoping they aren’t caught out. Time to dust off the watermarks I think, however this is a shame as ultimately watermarks go against the idea of showcasing your work on personal sites or places such as Flickr!

The other half of this story is that the Information Commissioners Office is proposing a new code for personal information online. It should be noted that the proposal is still in consultation, but should it be passed, as well as the obvious personal data items it also includes new rules that will all but prohibit photography in public places where anyone who’s in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed. However in order to avoid impacting tourist photos, this new ruling will only apply to pro photographers. Without even getting into definitions around who is pro and who isn’t this still poses massive problems.

Imagine a demonstration through a city. There are bound to be pro documentary/news photographers there shooting the crowd. However unless the photographer walks around and collects consent from every single individual in the crowd they will now not be allowed to take a photo of the event!

Again, as the Copyright Action site puts it:

Minor considerations like journalism, history, social documentary, freedom of expression – and even the simple logic that if you can eyeball it in public, it can’t possibly be private – all are just collateral damage. At a stroke, ICO is redefining allowable photography to exclude all that contentious street stuff that has made the record of the last 150 years so insightful.

Visit the link to the Copyright Action site below for a far more extensive post, along with links tot he relevant bills. If you’re in the UK then I also urge you to write to your local elected representative about the Digital Economy Bill and the orphan licensing rights expressed within it.

Copyright Action (for photographers and photography users): UK Gov nationalises orphans and bans non-consensual photography in public

Section 44 gives police officers the power to stop someone without reasonable grounds for suspicion that they are engaged in a terrorist activity. Many photographers in the UK, both professional and amateur alike have complained about being stopped under this anti-terrorism legislation.

Lord Carlile continues in the report to specifically addresses photographers’ concerns over the introduction of a law (Section 58A) that makes it a potential offence to photograph a police officer. On page 39 of the report he states:

A number of professional and amateur photographers have approached me to complain that this provision is being used to threaten them with prosecution if they take photographs of police officers on duty.

The report comes just days after police stopped the editor of a photography website (PhotographyBLOG), using Section 44 powers, in central London. Mark Goldstein, who edits PhotographyBLOG, said:

It seemed I was booked under ‘Section 44/J’ of the Terrorism Act simply because I didn’t fit into any of the other available categories. Despite the officer taking about 30 seconds to ascertain that I wasn’t a threat to national security, I was still issued with Form 5090 (X).

Rupert Grey, a leading photography rights lawyer from Swan Turton solicitors, agreed that Section 44 of the Terrorism Act puts police officers in a ‘very privileged position’. He told Amateur Photographer:

If they abuse that privilege, by using the power in plainly inappropriate circumstances, relations between the police and the ordinary citizen will be damaged. Worse, the trust between the press and the police will break down, with serious consequences for objective and accurate reporting on what happens on our streets. Lord Carlile’s warning must not be ignored.

More on this from the Amateur Photographer site:
Stop and search: Police under fire over ‘unnecessary’ terror stops
Carlile warning ‘must not be ignored’, says photo rights lawyer

The scheme, initially to be piloted in four London boroughs (Newham, Brent, Southwark and Tower Hamlets) from this month, will involve police officers being told to use Section 43 of the Terrorist Act which requires them to have reasonable grounds that a person is involved in a terrorist activity, before stopping them.

They will still be able to use the more general Section 44 (which contains no requirement to have any reasonable grounds to conduct the search) to conduct Stop-and-Search but only for previously agreed sensitive areas/targets.

So what does this mean for us photographers? Well if the Police do want to conduct a Stop-and-Search, under Section 43 they will have to have a better reason to believe you might be involved in terrorist activity than just the fact you were taking a photo. Whether, in reality, this will make much of a difference remains to be seen so keep an eye on the pilot in London.

You can view the entire MPA report, including recommendations, by following the link below.

Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 – tactical use review

Normally I wouldn’t have an issue with this. National Trust properties are not public, so if photos are taken on their property I see no problem with them asking for them not to be used commercially.

What I do have a problem with is this. A quick search through the Amateur Photographer archives shows that just last year, the National Trust was accused of a rights grab with rather excessive T&Cs on their photography competitions. The competition rules stated: ‘By submitting your photograph… you agree to grant the National Trust, free of charge, the right to publish and the right to license others to publish the photograph online and in all media as required.’ Checking the National Trust website, it appears that even their current photo competitions (such as “Picture Yourself“) still contain rather harsh terms such as this:

If you submit any material to us, you agree to grant The National Trust a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive licence to use your contribution in all media. This includes the right to copy, edit, publish, grant sub-licences and exercise all other copyright and publicity rights over the material.

It seems strange that on one hand the National Trust are saying the images can’t be used for commerical purposes, but then on the other hand are still using such bad terms in their competitions. The ability for them to sub-license images submitted to the competition is particularly galling. It seems the National Trust can make money out of your images without compensating you, but you’re not allowed to make money from your photography skills.

The National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) is looking to train 60,000 volunteers – including security guards and council workers – to act as local look outs for potential terrorist activities in areas such as shopping centres, hotels and stations. The civilians are being told to be on guard for people carrying cameras and zoom lenses as part of anti-terrorism seminars being rolled out nationwide and the Home Office insists that there is no alternative as Britain continues to be on a state of high alert for a possible terrorist attack.

Of late we’ve had MPs raise the issue of the right to photograph things and people in the House of Commons and despite a weak response from the Government they did indicate Police needed to be educated on the matter of photography in public. However it doesn’t seem to have changed anything (see recent article on German tourists being asked to delete their photos).

Then there was the amendment to the Terrorism Act which has the potential to make it illegal to photograph the police and emergency services going about their business. Of course moments after that was passed we have the incident with Police aggression potentially causing the death of an innocent man. Would this be getting the coverage it is (and which it deserves) if no one had filmed or photographed the police?

So the issue I have with the NaCTSO course (codename: Project Argus) is that I’ve seen very little evidence of terrorists using sophisticated camera equipment to recce their targets. As Bruce Schneier often mentions on his blog these are movie-plot threats. Things we have seen at the movies but which have little in the way of real-life antecedents.

The other worrying issue is that the NcCTSO is relying on ordinary civilians to identify terrorist threats. Serious amateur photographers such as myself, and professional photographers are going to appear as major threats to these people coming off this course. I may see a nice building in the city that I think will make a good photo. They will wonder why on earth is that person taking a photo of that rather boring building? Before you know it the Police will have been called and everyone’s time has been wasted.

So what action can you take? Well education is one route. Make sure you’re aware of your rights under a stop and search request. Knowing the law on photography (as it stands) is also good. Finally, don’t forget there are several photography related ePetitions on the UK Government website. Make sure you’ve signed up to one or the other (or both).

Recently the issues around photographers being stopped by the Police under anti-terror legislation was rasied and discussed at length in Parliament.

Conservative MP John Randall, a keen photographer, drew MPs attention to several incidents from his Uxbridge constituency, including the case of a 70-year-old man who was stopped by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) while taking pictures in Windsor.

Amateur Photographer

Other MPs joined in the debate and agreed with John Randall who also suggested a Police should be issued with a Photography Code (as proposed by Austin Mitchell last year) and he also raised concerns about section 76 of the newly introduced Terrorism Act 2008 which makes it a potential offence to take a photo of a police officer.

Amateur Photographer has a full account of the discussions over on their website which you can read by following the link below.

Parliament debates amateur photography and terrorism (Amateur Photographer)

The bill’s text says that Congress has found that “children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.” The Alert Act proposes that all mobiles with cameras made in the United States must emit a “tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone.” The legislation would also forbid manufacturers to program an option that would allow consumers to disable the noise.

You can read more on this (very silly) subject at the link below:

Ars Technica: Congress gets bill to make cell phone cameras go click

The law, an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Act, changes the rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, to target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’. Anyone found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The situation in the UK between photographers and Police has been tense for some time and was not helped by the launch of an advertising campaign by the Metropolitan Police in early 2008. Following this there have been numerous reports of both professional and amateur photographers being hassled by Police for innocently going about their jobs or hobby.

More worryingly, once this law comes into effect, it would also dissuade public documentation of the Police. For example, if it had happened in the UK those citizens who filmed San Francisco BART Police Officer Johannes Mehserle killing Oscar Grant could also be thrown in prison.

Despite attempts to clarify the law on photography, and the Government’s recent weak response, things seem to be deteriorating. Whilst I admit the wording of the law is vague (which is a problem in itself) I urge you to write to your local MP to object about this as it is bound to increase the hassle and number of stop and search requests we photographers are getting in the UK.