Erosion of photographic freedom in London

[Rob C]

What utter, utter nonsense. Just because press photos don't appear on your TV in a different country does not mean they do not appear in the press or in online media.It should also be pointed out that the Mets controversial handling of protests has lead to serious trouble and conflict. And the press have caught them at it. The police even killed Ian Tomlinson, an innocent man on his way home at a G20 summit and were only taken to task because of the presence of people able to film and photograph the incident.
Not to mention that many a peaceful protest will get hijacked by neer do wells who like to take advantage of crowds to cause mayhem.

I get the whole SKY thing (I prefer Aljazeera) on satellite; all the UK papers are either flown here or published directly in Spain.
Thanks to SKY et. al. I see the hordes of lensmen at every event; in my view, it's quite obvious that their very presence makes things worse, not better, on site; they become the audience to which the players play.

The hijacking takes place in front of the tv cameras as it is; I really do believe that the presence of stills snappers only provides motivation and platform for the protesters. In other words, they form part of the problem and not of the soliution. But hell, I'm perfectly willing to accept that my view may be unique. Doesn't make it mistaken, though; ask Galileo Galilei if you doubt the possibility.

Rob C

[jjj]

Going slightly off topic, but why do there appear to be so many Jeremys in photography? I rarely come across the name, other than on photography forums or if I meet other photographers. There are three in this short thread for example.
BTW I mix in lots of other non-potographic circles too.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Going slightly off topic, but why do there appear to be so many Jeremys in photography? I rarely come across the name, other than on photography forums or if I meet other photographers. There are three in this short thread for example.
BTW I mix in lots of other non-potographic circles too.

It's the name to have, I suppose; we're just lucky.

You may remember one of the early privatisations (BT, perhaps), which had the slogan "If you see Sid, tell him". A later, and allegedly more sophisticated, privatisation led to a headline in The Times "Seeking Jeremy, not Sid". I have the cutting, somewhere.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

As I said, in the US such a statute wouldn't ever apply to the press.  I guess I just take that for granted.

I had thought the UK had similar protections, but if a simple London city ordinance can take precedence, that is surprising ... to me.

Have you now actually read the passage in question? ... your initial response gave hints that you may not have actually read it ...

I'm interested in your assumption that it wouldn't apply to the press. I wonder why you think that. Over here, the law would be valid. Since it's secondary legislation (that is, a rule made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament), it could be quashed by the High Court as being, perhaps, outwith the ambit of that Act (ultra vires) or disproportionate. It would take someone with sufficient interest (by which I mean involvement) to apply for judicial review.

Of course I read it: first thing I did. I'd never comment on someone's interpretation of something like that without reading it for myself.

What I was getting at in the last paragraph of my first response was the underlying reason for the byelaw. There have been several "camps" of one sort or another set up in London. The most recent was of the "occupy" series, but there was a long-standing one which made an area near the House of Commons a real eyesore. I strongly suspect that it was felt that if the camps couldn't be photographed, and hence were deprived of what Mrs Thatcher described in relation to the IRA as "the oxygen of publicity", they probably either wouldn't start in the first place or wouldn't last long.

Jeremy

[jeremypayne]

I'm interested in your assumption that it wouldn't apply to the press. I wonder why you think that.

In the US, it would be clear that such a law would not apply to the press.  The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is pretty clear: 

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... "

Of course I read it: first thing I did. I'd never comment on someone's interpretation of something like that without reading it for myself.

I asked because you said: Read the byelaw: it says nothing about "commercial shoots"

It absolutely does ... it says: "Unless acting in accordance with permission given by the mayor ... no person shall ... take photographs ... in connection with a business, trade, profession ..." 

That's why I thought you may not have read it ... it clearly talks about photography for commercial purposes.

[jjj]

In the US, it would be clear that such a law would not apply to the press.  The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is pretty clear: 

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... "

Yet Republicans can simply ignore that law it seems

Sod the 1st amendment

Also US food companies have the unusual powers to restrict the press and limit freedom of speech, yet at same time want to be able to make false claims about the health benefits of food. They claim they are not being allowed freedom of speech. i.e. not being allowed to make shit up.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I asked because you said: Read the byelaw: it says nothing about "commercial shoots"

It absolutely does ... it says: "Unless acting in accordance with permission given by the mayor ... no person shall ... take photographs ... in connection with a business, trade, profession ..." 

That's why I thought you may not have read it ... it clearly talks about photography for commercial purposes.

Absolutely correct; but it covered all commercial purposes. I intended to point out that your assumption that its provisions were restricted to commercial shoots was unwarranted and that they were in fact much broader than you were implying. I thought the rest of my post made that clear. Perhaps I expressed myself less well than I might have done.

Jeremy