Who owns video feed of Congress- You Do!

So, I am studying for finals, which means my mind often goes on short stream-of-consciousness vacations and sometimes leads to eureka moments. But usually, it just leads to semi-eureka moments. Like this one.

I have been researching the efforts to restrict coverage of high school sports by the state associations (state actors). If you take their argument to the extreme you would be accepting the notion that a city council could have an “official” photographer or videographer, and restrict other media in the manner and amount that the media broadcasts what it covers. That would be absurd, right?

Which made me think- what about C-SPAN? I have been to Congress, and there are not gaggles of live television crews there. Is the high school sports association just following the C-SPAN model? The short answer is no.

C-SPAN broadcasts the video feed of Congress, but they do not own it or assert any rights over it. The U.S. government produces the feed of Congress (which is somewhat problematic- but a different argument), and since there is no copyright in material produced by the federal government, the video feed is public domain. Neither CNN or anyone else has to pay a licensing fee to Congress, or to C-SPAN to use or broadcast the video.

To read about the video from Congress, C-SPAN and copyright, check this link.

Newark Cameraman assaulted by police is suing.

In general, I don’t do cartwheels when I hear about lawsuits. But this one makes me happy. A TV photographer in New Jersey has filed a lawsuit against a police officer who arrested him while the photographer was filming a peaceful demonstration. Apparently the only thing violent about this demonstration was the officer’s clash with the photographer.

This video shows the original event. Can you say “settle now.”

Dear Police of America: Stop violating the constitutional rights of journalists. We are journalists and we will get really good evidence.

SEC credential restrictions improved

The SEC has once again changed its credentialing policies for this season. This time it appears to be a much better change. According to the SEC, the new policy has “additional flexibility in internet news coverage, uses of photographic images, access to video images for television newscasts and special shows and clarification in the provisions of blogging”

The new policy can be found at this link:

http://www.secsports.com/doc_lib/0910_media_credential_policy.pdf

There is also a good article on editor and publisher website, clarifying the restrictions that were lifted:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004007242

Finally, it is worth reading this general article by the Associated Press Sports Editors group: “Here’s what you need to know about credential issues“

Also worth reading for freelance photographers is this post by John Harrington about the lesson that photographers can learn from the AP, who refused to give up its rights. The irony is painful. And yes, the rights are clearly valuable.

“Don’t shoot me! (while I’m in handcuffs)”

A couple of weeks ago, a defendent in Long Island, NY, actually had the nerve to ask a federal judge to bar the media from publishing photographs of him in handcuffs. The defendant, former legislatorRoger Corbin, was arrested on federal charges of tax evasion.

Among the things that Corbin asked for was an end to the “perp walk,” specifically:

(A) permanently enjoining, restraining, and stopping Newsday, News 12 and the United States Government from issuing press releases, mug shots or “perp walk” photos, videos or images of the defendant in handcuffs; and

(B) permanently enjoining the United States Government from conducting “perp walks” or issuing other information of the defendant aside from pedigree information and except as directed by the Court;

Needless to say, the motion to prevent perp walks, for either Corbin, or other defendants, was denied, as was the motion to stop publication of the images of Corbin in handcuffs. But as is the case with most rulings, the judge cannot just say “no.” He has to explain it.  The case goes through all of the motions of why, and for that reason it is interesting reading to anyone who wants to know the law behind perp walks or behind judicial restraint and the push-pull of fair trial vs. free press.

I thought it was interesting that the judge found the perp walk issue moot because it had already happened. Federal courts can only rule on “cases in controversy,” in other words, if there was about to be a perp walk, there would be a controversy, but since the time had passed, there was no “justiciable” issue. I was surprised by this ruling, even though the judge had good precedent. There are exceptions to this rule when the issue is something that will be repeated, and it ordinarily begins and ends before a case can reasonably be brought. This was the reasoning behind some desegregation cases, when the child had already graduated.

Also interesting to me, was that in Corbin’s efforts to stop the police from releasing information and photos to the media, the judge ruled that the media had rights because as the recipients to the information, their First Amendment rights were invoked. In other words, when it comes to restricting information, both the person communicating the information AND the recipient have first amendment rights. To quote a Supreme Court case, “W]here  [*29] a willing speaker exists, … the protection afforded is to the communication, to its source and its recipients both.” (case can be found at 425 U.S. 748). The fact that the recipient has as much right to recieve the communication as the speaker has to give it is not something that I was aware of. It is definitely useful.

The judge’s ruling on the motions can be found at United States v. Corbin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46241 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009).

A Disturbing Equation

I have been seeing several trends over the past few years. I hope that others are doing the math.

2+2=4. And that’s what scares me.

So here is what I am seeing:

- Fewer and fewer staff photographers and reporters at newspapers across the country = less independent reporting = more reliance on “self-reporting” by subjects. This is often seen in the form of handout photos, whether from the government or from PR agencies or from corporate communications offices.

- Media acceptance of “press passes” as a permissible means of the government deciding who gets a right to report the news, even in a public place + More restrictions on granting of press passes by the government, especially by non-traditional media + the closing and reduction in coverage of many newspapers = Fewer watchdogs of the government and more control of the message by the government.

- More restrictions on access by government and corporate entities + media cooperation by accepting “hand-out” photos = more and more cases of photos appearing in traditional media that are actually manipulated or staged or, at a minimum, edited to make the subject look favorable.

Don't be a dunce! © Alicia Wagner Calzada

If you add up these three things, then you have this:

fewer independent journalists

+ more restrictions on access

+ more news provided by the newsmaker

+ more manipulation of the “news” by the newsmaker

_____________________________________

= a deeper walk down the slippery slope of control of the message by the subject, AND a steep decline in truthful, accurate, reliable information available to the public.

How can a nation make decisions about it’s government without accurate, truthful information. It can’t.

So who’s fault is it?

It is natural for anyone in power to want to control the message. But it is the job of the media to not cede that control. The media is failing. Furthermore, citizens are failing in demanding this of their media and of their government.

I’ll be looking to see how the Obama administration treats access. I am optimistic, but this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is something that happens with power. I challenge journalists everywhere to take a bigger stand.

It is our jobs. Don’t be a dunce.

Videographer Detained by Police

I thought this was worth watching. It is a terrible example of the abuse the media often faces simply while doing their jobs. In this instance, it was a school district chief. Thank goodness no charges were filed, but that doesn’t change the fact that another photographer has been hassled for doing something expressly protected by the Constitution.

(caution: expletives)

Photographing Elections

Every election, there seem to be issues about shooting pictures at the poll. This year, with the citizen journalism movement, it should be particularly interesting.

A couple of things to keep in mind:

- While a law banning photography inside the polls might exist, poll workers should not be able to keep you from photographing lines from the street, or from beyond the protective zone (usually 100 feet). If you stand by campaign signs, you will know that you are past the zone.

- If the public is allowed to take pictures, the media cannot be discriminated against simply because they are media.

- If you are working with a news organization, rely on their expertise and their lawyer for advice if there is a conflict.

- I have often found that even if poll workers at one site don’t allow photography, another location might not be so strict. Leaving and going somewhere else might be easier than staying and arguing.

- If there are irregularities, the case is more compelling for arguing to get in. But ultimately if you are ordered to leave, you should do so.

- Here is an interesting legal discussion on bans on photography and both prior restraint and controlling things by the “least restrictive means” which usually are violated by a complete ban on photography.

- Finally, and I confess I should have written this before, the best time to confront a bad law on election photography is BEFORE election day. There is not much you can do about it on the day, but the legal process can assist you if you plan ahead. I, know, this doesn’t help you now, but remember this in the future. After all we will face “the most important election in our lifetime,” again in four years.

Reminder: this is not legal advice. For that, consult a lawyer.

RNC/ DNC arrests

It was not a good first day for journalists at the RNC, and hopefully not a taste of the week to come.

There were many arrests at the Republican National Convention during protests yesterday, but the ones that concern me are the arrests of two photographers, Matthew Rourke of the AP and another photographer, a freelancer whose arrest has not been widely reported.

Rourke has been released as has Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now who was arrested when she inquired about the arrest of two of her producers and asked to speak to a supervisor.

Here is the AP story.

These charges must be dropped, obviously. But more importantly, the police need to be more careful.

If police can’t tell the difference between a violent protester/rioter, and a journalist who is covering breaking news, they need to be re-trained. If there was violence or vandalism, those guilty of it should absolutely be arrested. But arrests of clearly identifiable journalists who are not participating in the activity, but documenting it, is unconstitutional and absurd in this country.

How clear was it that Rourke was a journalist, you might ask? Well, considering the fact that he was loaded down with camera gear, which he passed off to a colleague before he was take in, as shown here in these photos on the RCFP website I would think it would be obvious.

To be fair there was also an outrageous arrest during the DNC of an ABC reporter who was on the sidewalk in front of a hotel. He was working on a story about lobbyists and VIP donors, on a public sidewalk when a cop pushed him into traffic, then arrested him. The video is almost unbelievable.

If you are at the RNC, please see my post below about important information in case of arrest.

Covering the Conventions? — Write this down

If you are covering the conventions, you should know about a wonderful resource that the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press has every convention cycle: 24-hour convention legal hotline for journalists. According to their website, the RCFP has provided this service for every convention cycle for the last 36 years.

Credentialed journalists who face detention and arrest can call the hotline for legal help. There are different numbers for Republican and Democratic Conventions, but both numbers, and an informative flier that definitely should be printed out and brought to the convention is at this link:

http://www.rcfp.org/conventions/index.htm

The flier is jam-packed with useful notes. Please print it out and bring it with you. Read it on the plane. It has great insight into the arrest procedures, bonding, etc.

Why all the fuss about journalists and arrests at conventions? You can read this story about journalists arrested in the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City.

Hopefully we won’t see a repeat of that mess. But whether you are credentialed media, traditional, student, freelance, blogger, be aware of the potential for problems and be prepared with a way to deal with it. Above all, remain calm and professional- annoyed cops often go overboard and being legally right doesn’t matter much if you miss the story because you are stewing in a jail cell.

Here are the hotline numbers:

Democratic Convention Hotline: (303) 376-2404

Republican Convention Hotline: (651) 238-1884

More info from the flier:

• The MEDIA HOTLINE should not be used for disputes over credentials or problems unrelated to your news coverage of the convention. You may call the Reporters Committee’s regular hotline, (800) 336-4243, if you have other credentialing or access issues.
• Non-credentialed reporters and protestors who are arrested may not use this MEDIA HOTLINE, but may instead contact the People’s Law Project of the National Lawyers Guild at (303) 830-0277.
• Questions about civil rights and liberties issues will be fielded by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado at (303) 777-5482, ext. 118.

Photography in National Parks- a local look

With my attention focused on the national discussion of photography permits in the national parks, I thought I would check on my local national park. I have done photo shoots at the San Jose Mission National Park many times, for both editorial shoots and for individual clients.

What I found was proof that there are major contradictions out there and a definite need for the national system to give more specific recommendations.

Here is what is listed at the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park website (new policy effective in 2006). Instead of having one straightforward policy, there are four different policies stated that contradict each other and might each be interpreted by a park ranger in their own way:

First, on the FAQs page:

“I want to use the missions as backdrops in my family and wedding photographs. What do I need to know?

• “If you or a family member is taking pictures, there is nothing special you need to do… If you are using a professional or commercial photographer, you or the photographer must apply for a permit at least 14 days in advance. There will be a fee involved.”

Ummm…. Aaack!!!

But then, clicking on the more information button and the “commercial filming” link:

“Commercial filming includes capturing a moving image on film and video as well as sound recordings.

Still photographers require a permit when

1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.”

(this is more in line with what we at the NPPA have been saying. Any permit should be based on the level of interference, not what the photographer will later do with the image.)

But if you read further on down the same page, you see this lovely chart …..

Commercial Filming/Videos		Still Photography
1 – 2 people, camera & tripod only	$0/day
1 – 10 people	$150/day	1 – 10 people	$50/day
11 – 30 people	$250/day	11 – 30 people	$150/day
31 – 49 people	$500/day	Over 30 people	$250/day
Over 50 people	$750/day

If I was a ranger, I would see the column on the right and assume that a photographer with 1-10 people was responsible for paying $50.

Finally, further down the page, the link to Appendix 13,exh.1: still photography pulls up a document that says:
“The NPS will not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit. This is true whether or not the photographer uses tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. Coverage of breaking news never requires a permit but is subject to restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources, public health and safety, and to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources, values or purposes.”

“A permit is required if the superintendent determines there is a potential of a photography project’s harming or having an impact on the park’s natural, cultural or recreational resources, or creating unacceptable health or safety risks, or disrupting visitor use and enjoyment. A permit is also required pursuant to 36 CFR 5.5(b) for persons taking photographs of vehicles, other articles of commerce or involves the use of a model, set or prop for the purpose of commercial advertising.”

This is a fine policy. I just wish I got there sooner.

-A