1. Rob, I would sincerely like you to explain how you would look at a photographer and designate him as a serious news photographer, a serious artist, a street snapper, a total goof, or a guy who's running down the street with a stolen camera, or whatever, without having the government do that. And if the government does that, guess what? The only "snappers" you'll see are those that the government likes.
2. You're reflecting a little of what I describe as the European taste for authoritarianism -- you apparently want some authority to tell you who can do what. In the US, at least in theory, we reject the idea that the government has the right to tell us what to do, unless that is sanctioned by the people through their legal representatives. In other words, our default position is that we can do what we wish, and there may unfortunately be some restrictions on that. The European position seems to be that the people have no rights in particular, except those defined by the authorities. That's why the queen is called a sovereign, and the Brits in general are called her subjects. (We all know it doesn't work exactly that way in reality, but that's the historical basis for the all-powerful sovereign that reigns over the people, whether it be a king or a parliament.) The US Constitution, on the other hand, says (Amendment X of the Bill of Rights) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
3. As far as the order/chaos thing goes, Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That's been redone over the years by a variety of pundits, and now is most often seen as "Anyone who'd give up a little freedom for a little safety will soon have neither." That's also our default position here: we'd rather have a little chaos from time to time, as we are having now, than a police state, however warm and cuddly that police state tries to pretend to be.
1. The government's pronouncements on a photographer's status seem the last things I seek to guide my own definitions; I can hardly imagine any government having the least interest in such definitions except for one thing: access to the shooting of official images of kings, queens, presidents etc. where some hope of good photographic quality is the least that can be asked, along with the expectation of some decent personal behaviour while in the presence of the subject. As an aside: I must say, those holding positions of office that deserve respect should themselves respect that position they temporarily hold, and not confuse themselves with the office: dressing like slobs does not uphold the dignity of office.
A news photographer is a guy who gets paid to shoot news pictures as a full-time job. A photographic artist is a guy who expresses his artistic bent through images made via cameras; he may be a recognized professional in this endeavour. A simple, amateur photographer may be an artist or he may not; not all photographers have the ability to create works of art. So-called art photographers don't always create art either: some of their works are total failures whether they see that or not; the label doesn't always guarantee the contents of the tin when they appear on the plate.
If you are speaking about propaganda photographers, then yes, but they are already in the commission of political parties; their power is facilitated or limited by the owners of the media wherein their work may or may not be published. The media owners are key, and partly why so dangerous: witness Brexit. That media ownership is always at least as powerful as government and may, in certain instances, actually dictate government action or reaction.
2. That supposition strikes me as odd: in the course of my life I seldom give a thought to whether a thing is or is not legally listed as allowable or not - it's almost always a matter of common sense. Of course, when it comes to taxes, contracts etc, that's an entirely different world to normal living, and a great deal of care should be exercise to get it right and not screw up. It's why we need lawyers and accountants. When one is breaking the law, as is happening all over American cities today, seems to be a fairly obvious: folks running riot and looting shops because of the opportunity afforded by genuine protests at the killing of a black prisoner by police provides nothing but ammunition for those who declare that all blacks are criminals. It requires no listing on a piece of paper to brand it criminal behaviour.
Regarding who decides what can be considered legal or not: I think that in general terms Europe resolved most of that (again, in terms of daily life) a long time ago. I think your American preoccupation with such matters is nothing more than a result of the newness of your country, the trashing of what went on before, and of trying to catch up and get yourselves a new set of observable, liveable rules: I think you are still trying to settle what works best for the majority and what does not. Your national status quo (where you are stuck with some relatively recently penned guidelines some hold sacrosanct) is far from the final version. I am convinced, for example, that the day will come when public opinion finally does decide, and more strongly than vested business interests, and brings into being the banning of guns as the commonplace playthings and sometimes "final solutions" of Joe Soap.
I can think of no official list that Europeans have where is listed the things that Europeans are allowed to do, nor of a European mindset that seeks one or believes in one. (Obviously, I do not include here lists of international agreements as to what is or is not permissible.) The only lists I can think of are those where things are specifically prohibited as criminal activities. I imagine you have the latter in America too? You do have traffic laws, traffic lights? Thinking that Europeans are any different in their expectations of freedom is either a mistake, the result of misinformation or simply a conceit of imagined US superiority in such matters. As for "sovereign" John, a flippin' collector's coin is a sovereign too!
Actually, British jails are overcrowded too. I hardly think that reflects a society of conformist, spiritual slaves. A society of many morons, and/or some examples of miscarriages of justice, yes.
3. Why do you see things as possible only in such extremes? It doesn't even reflect life in America or Europe: all it does is permit the choosing of some political decisions and the branding of them as essential freedoms or the opposite. It's an invitation to simplistic thought.
Rob