Monash University: Cops on Camera Research Project

Received this email and happily conducted an interview...

Dear Nick,

My name's Tanya Serisier and I'm working on a research project at Monash
University, provisionally titled Cops on Camera. We're researching
police misconduct caught on video camera, and especially the use of
video footage as a form of reverse surveillance, attempting to create
more police accountability. As such, we're interested in people's
experiences with filming police and police responses to that experience.
(I've attached a more detailed explanation of the project for you to
look at.)

I'm emailing you because of your experience filming police with your
blackberry and to ask if you'd be interested in participating in a short
interview, about 30 minutes either in person or on the phone, about the
incident, police responses and the outcomes. We're also interested more
generally in what people think are the uses/risks of filming police as
an accountability mechanism.

The ultimate purpose of the research is both to produce publications -
journal articles and hopefully a book, and to feed into wider police
reform efforts.

If you're interested in participating, or if you have any questions,
feel free to contact me either by email or my mobile (0410 140 176).

Best wishes,

Tanya Serisier

Please feel free to contact Tanya if you have any additional information to share

Solicitor charged after intervening in drug search at pub

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/solicitor-charged-after-intervening-in-drug-search-at-pub/2008/07/06/1215282652761.html

A SOLICITOR and civil liberties campaigner was arrested, handcuffed and allegedly had his rib broken by police after offering legal assistance to a man being searched in public.

Kristian Bolwell said police manhandled him and broke his rib last week after he displayed his solicitor's identification card to a man being searched in a pub and said, "Hi, I am a solicitor, would you like any help?"

The 36-year-old lawyer was eating dinner at the Cooper's Arms Hotel in King Street, Newtown at about 9.30pm on Thursday when eight to 10 police entered the pub with a sniffer dog and began searching patrons, he said.

After Bolwell offered assistance to one of them, he said he had a "short conversation" with police, who then pushed him and pinned him face-down on the floor. He was later charged with hindering police, resisting police in execution of their duty and failure to obey a police direction.

A medical report from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital on Saturday confirmed he had a fractured rib and moderate bruising on his left side.

He said the police actions were "unwarranted, disproportionate and offensive" and that he had behaved appropriately at all times "despite being provoked, assaulted and physically hurt by the police"

He said his experience, which he could not discuss in more detail due to legal advice, showed police had "too much power and too little training" and were not capable of managing the broad new powers covering much of Sydney's CBD this month.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has said it gets more complaints about police searches than any other issue. Last year the Premier, Morris Iemma, extended powers legislated after the Cronulla riots which mean police only need a "suspicion" of illegality before they can undertake an intrusive search.

Police to profit from "reality" TV, citizen coverage of the same "reality" a crime?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/police-profit-from-crime-tv-pays-up/story-e6freuzi-1111118423699

Police profit as TV pays up for reality crime shows

THE insatiable demand for reality-TV is proving to be a boom for NSW Police with the force signing an increasing number of exclusive deals with "true crime' style shows.

The force has signed contracts with at least four highly-rated shows, granting film crews exclusive access behind the crime scene tape in "user pays" arrangements.

The deals are being made as the force limits the amount of information being made available to the mainstream media, including The Daily Telegraph.

But police say the access being granted to shows such as Channel 7's The Force and Crash Investigations Unit, Channel 9's Missing Persons Unit and Channel 10's upcoming The Recruits, is an arrangement available to any media outlet that wishes to enter into a user-pays contract.

In return for signing confidentiality agreements and allowing NSW Police to vet their final products, reality-TV crews are ushered in by police film supervisors to crime scenes while other media are being kept back.

NSW Police - Its good to film crime in action, as long as its not police commiting the crime

Somewhat ironic that the NSW Police call for sydney citizens to suspicious activities and alleged crimes in action, however, if you film a police officer abusing their power or if you suspect them of committing a crime, then you can find yourself in hot water...

Assaulting Photographers

Although property owners may use "reasonable force" to evict people, they can never threaten violence ("assault"), detain you at length ("false imprisonment"), push you around and seize your camera or film ("battery"), or even force you to delete digital files ("coercion"). Rent-a-cops, supermarket clerks, shopping centre managers and even customers at a Haldon Street Cafe in Lakemba should take careful note.

In 2005/6 there were a spate of attacks on photographers, and in every case the assailants were charged with criminal offences:

• Feb 2006: Former politician Mark Latham was charged with assault, malicious damage and stealing after a press photographer snapped him and his children leaving a fast food restaurant.
• Dec 2005: A twenty-year-old was arrested and charged with malicious damage for assaulting St George and Sutherland Shire Leader photographer on Cronulla beach (in the lead-up to the pre-Christmas "race riots").
• Nov 2005: Five men were charged with affray and assault after attacking a Channel Seven TV crew, who filmed them leaving a Melbourne terrorist suspects hearing.

What is the law here? Threatening to damage your camera or equipment: s.199 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 — maximum penalty 5 years imprisonment. Threatening violence against you: s.93C of the same Act — 10 years. Even if someone tries to prevent you from contacting the police: s.315A or s.319 — 7 or 14 years.

The moral should be fairly clear: an unwilling photo subject may only ask you to stop taking photographs, that is all. No touching, pushing, shoving or grabbing. Even Police officers must institute legal proceedings (ie. detain or arrest you) if they wish to seize your camera, film or digital files.

Photography is not (yet) a Crime

Many photographers are fed up with being treated like perverts. In the last few years things have deteriorated to such an extent that JPG Magazine devoted an entire issue to it in February 2006:

[…] amateur photographers are the documentarians of real life. People with cameras bear witness to the everyday dramas of ordinary people. We capture our world to help us understand it. We are not terrorists. We are not dangerous. And we are certainly not a threat.

Likewise the lengthy article by John Reid and subsequent blog discussion, "Talking Pictures: Photography Is Not A Crime", on the Sydney Morning Herald website (Feb 2007). Ditto the UK "Not-A-Crime" website.

Rights activists see double standard in Twitter arrest (USA)

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/technology/6182153/rights-activists-see-double-standard-in-twitter-arrest/

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The arrest of a New Yorker for using Twitter to alert protesters to police movements at a meeting of world leaders in Pittsburgh last month would be deemed a human rights violation if it happened in Iran or China, rights activists charge.

Australians have the right to take photos and shoot video of people and public places

“Unauthorised” photography in Australia has in fact been authorised since the 1937 High Court decision in Victoria Park Racing v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 (at p.496).

This was reaffirmed recently in ABC v Lenah (2001) HCA 63, where the Court ruled that despite the passage of decades since Victoria Park, any concept of a “Tort of invasion of privacy” still does not exist in Australia.

As Justice Dowd put it with blunt clarity in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204:

“A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.” ... This includes police...

Source: http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

Compensation for lawyer after wrongful arrest for photographing police (AU)

After unjust arrest ... when Andrea Turner lodged a complaint, police records were falsified, the judge found Photo: Peter Rae

A LAWYER has won $40,000 in compensation after NSW police wrongfully arrested her and then falsified official documents, alleging she had committed a terrorist act.

Andrea Turner, 57, was arrested on December 30 last year when a senior constable mistakenly believed Ms Turner had taken a photograph of her conducting a routine patrol of a train with a junior colleague.

Ms Turner, a practising criminal lawyer, had been on her way to a bushwalk in the Royal National Park.

None of the police officers involved has been reprimanded over the incident and there has been no internal investigation.

''Don't take my photo. If you take my photo I will put you on your arse so fast it will not be funny,'' the junior officer had said.

The other told Ms Turner: ''You're obviously a bloke.''

Ms Turner was asked for identification and when she refused, was told to get off the train at the next station or be ''dragged off''.

The senior constable told her she was being arrested for taking a photograph of an officer in the execution of her duty.

Ms Turner denied taking a photograph and pointed out it was not an offence to do so. As was her legal right, she again declined to provide identification.

Ms Turner successfully sued the state of NSW for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment in the District Court, telling theHerald: ''How could I have backed down when I tell my own clients, 'That is thuggery, that is unlawful behaviour and you can't let them get away with it'?''

The state had admitted liability for the incident, but did not accept it should pay aggravated or exemplary damages.

Awarding Ms Turner $20,000 in aggravated and exemplary damages, Judge Anthony Garling found she had displayed no signs of aggression during her arrest and there was no suggestion that the officers had needed to use force.

Yet three police officers were called in as back-up before she was escorted off the platform. Another five - including two detectives - also arrived on the scene.

Despite several phone calls to their superiors, none of them knew which offence, if any, Ms Turner had committed.

''It was an unjust arrest, it was a wrong arrest,'' Judge Garling said.

Without explanation, Ms Turner was freed without charge.

But what happened next was even more serious, with Ms Turner falsely accused of a ''terrorist act'', Judge Garling found.

Police had decided not to pursue the matter or formally record the incident in the police COPS system. But later the same day Ms Turner called the police station to complain about her treatment.

''The police officer then decided to lessen whatever complaint could be made against her by falsifying a public record, that is, by alleging that the plaintiff committed an offence which is related to railway property, not to photographing the police officer,'' Judge Garling said.

The senior constable had written in the falsified COPS entry: ''It should be noted that at the time of dealing with the person of interest police were unaware of the exact offence. It is an offence to take photos on railway property under the new terrorism laws.''

The judge said: ''This lady was sitting on a train going for a bushwalk when the police mistakenly did what they did. In no way could [it] be suggested that it related to terrorism.'' He criticised the police force for not removing or amending the falsified COPS entry or apologising to Ms Turner.

In a statement NSW Police said it would treat the judge's comments seriously. ''The matter will be investigated and any issues identified as a result of that investigation will be addressed.''

What is the law on filming in public? (UK) Big brother hates being filmed?

Photographers Rights And The Law In The UK - A brief guide for street photographers.

Know your rights when you're out with your camera.

Despite the law being clear on a citizen's rights to freely take pictures in public places (with a few restrictions) there is growing evidence of the police, police community support officers (PCSOs), security guards and general jobsworths failing to respect the rights of photographers going about their lawful business.

Street shots
If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely).

Property owners have no right to stop people taking photos of their buildings, so long as the photographer is standing in a public place (e.g. the road outside).

However, if you're standing on private property and the landowner/occupier objects, then they have every right to request that you stop immediately and ask you to leave if you refuse.

Shopping Centres
Most shopping centres and malls stand on private land with many gaining a notorious reputation for speedily dispatching stroppy security guards demanding that you stop taking photos.

The irony that they're already busy filming you from every angle via a flotilla of CCTV cameras is generally lost on them.

Deleting images
Security guards do not have stop and search powers or the right to seize your equipment or delete images or confiscate film under any circumstances.

UK POLICE STATE WITH STOP AND SEARCH

http://intmensorg.info

The London Met are stopping thousands under section 44 of Terrorism Act.That act gives masonic cops stop and search powers that has turned the UK into a police state.
The act was supposed to be used sparingly.But the latest figures show 54,693 were stopped between 06- 07 rising to 157,290 between 07- 08. Of all those
stopped only 1222 were arrested.

AU: BlackBerry seizure an 'abuse of police powers'

A MAN detained and threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for filming police on his mobile phone has alleged police abused their powers.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24844476-952,00.html

Sydney resident, Nick Hac, stepped outside his apartment. A group of police officers went rushing by armed with video cameras. Since the police were filming in a public space, Hac decided to film them. He put his Blackberry into video mode and started shooting.

When members of the New South Wales police force spotted him doing this, they confiscated his Blackberry and threatened Hac with arrest under the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act.

The abuse of power by the cops included taking it upon themselves to go through the contents of Hac's Blackberry.

Tech Wired Australia:

“They also interrogated me, and told me that they would be deleting the video I had taken. They also went through all my contacts, photos and emails before returning the Blackberry to me. They even had to ask one of my business partners how to delete files on the Blackberry as they wouldn’t let me do it”

“I told the two Police women repeatedly that I did not consent to them going through my mobile. They embarrassed me, I had two of my business partners with me”

“The world we are living in is becoming too restrictive, I was just being a citizen journalist capturing video in a public place, the public need to know their rights, and so do the Police”

Hac described the two female officers who verbally accosted him as "drunk with power." When he asked what crime he had committed, they told him to shut up.

The Blackberry is Hac's private property. The cops had no right to seize it without his permission ... certainly not without a warrant or probable cause.

Under law Australians have the right to take photos and shoot video of people and public places. On the comment thread attached to the Tech Wired article Nick Hac points out the following:

“Unauthorised” photography in Australia has in fact been authorised since the 1937 High Court decision in Victoria Park Racing v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 (at p.496).

This was reaffirmed recently in ABC v Lenah (2001) HCA 63, where the Court ruled that despite the passage of decades since Victoria Park, any concept of a “Tort of invasion of privacy” still does not exist in Australia.

As Justice Dowd put it with blunt clarity in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204:

“A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.”

Anti-terrorist measures have been used in both the US and Australia as a pretext for reining in people's rights under the law. This is an example of a cowboy-like response, with cops using bullying tactics on a citizen who was operating within his rights. Incidents like this need to get more media coverage, if only to signal to the watchers ... that they too are being watched.

UK: Woman 'detained' for filming police search launches high court challenge

Gemma Atkinson claims she was handcuffed after recording search of boyfriend on her mobile phone

A woman is to challenge the Metropolitan police in the high court, claiming she was handcuffed, detained and threatened with arrest for filming officers on her mobile phone.

Lawyers for Gemma Atkinson, a 27-year-old who was detained after filming police officers conduct a routine stop and search on her boyfriend, believe her case is the latest example of how police are misusing counterterrorism powers to restrict photography.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court

Don't Talk to Cops...

Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.

Handy Statement if arrested in UK

I talk about the right to silence in the UK and your rights on arrest if your are photographing...

LA Sheriff Threatens To Submit Photographer to FBI's Hit List for Legally Photographing LA Metro

LA Sheriff Threatens To Submit Photographer to FBI's Hit List for Legally Photographing LA Metro

ArtsLaw - Street Photographers Rights in Australia

Can I take a photograph in public that contains images of people I don’t know?

Can I take a photo of a famous landmark or of the front of someone’s house and later sell it?

This information sheet aims to provide you with the answers to these and other questions that may arise when you are taking photographs in and of public spaces. It also aims to provide those you encounter with a statement of your rights to minimise the possibility of harassment or threatened legal action. So carry this in your pocket and be prepared.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp

DPPhotoJournal: Photographers’ Rights in the US, the UK and Australia

We have all seen the scene of the photographer being surrounded by the heavies, the camera being confiscated and the film being thrown on the ground. Makes for great dramatic footage but in most jurisdictions such behaviour is illegal unless accompanied with a court order.


Essentially if you are in a public place, you can shoot away to your heart’s content. Even in the paranoia of post 9/11 and officers from security forces both private and government saying otherwise. But do use some commonsense, taking pics of military installations is just dumb as with any other sensitive government building.

http://www.dphotojournal.com/photographers-rights-in-the-us-the-uk-and-australia/

Photographers Rights, General Privacy, and Copyright in Australia

Overclockers.com.au

http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Photographers_Rights,_General_Privacy,_and_Copyright_in_Australia

I had to deal with another one of those "HEY, YOU CAN’T TAKE MY PHOTO" people the other night. Needless to say I responded with "But the law says I can". Several minutes of back and fro followed before the person finally walked off in a huff and I got back to doing what I was doing. Taking photos of people in the street, a public street.

The question pops up from time to time about what rights do we have as photographers so I though I would gather together whatever information I could find and post it here for your viewing pleasure. I found lots of information and disinformation as well, so I decided that I would post only those articles which have some basis in Australian Law.

What you will find listed below are articles which are freely available and I am sure some of you will have read as least some of them. Some of the following documents are not the complete article as they often drifted off into areas which have little or no relevance to photography.

Disclaimer First: I am not a lawyer. The information contained in this document has been sourced from Government magazines and websites etc and has not been independently verified. Most of it is of a general nature and is not intended to be legal advice but rather as a general guide. The information is provided without any Warranty as to the accuracy of the information it contains. Readers are urged to consult a solicitor in respect to any legal problems they may encounter.

Ok, on with the post.

Listed below are links to the posted articles. The articles themselves are in the following posts...

1) Photographing in a Public Place, by L. Barry Daniel.]]

2) Your right to take photographs, by Andrew Nemeth BSc (Hons) LLB.

3) Do Australians have a legal right to privacy?, Parliamentary Library Research Note Dated 14 March 2005.

4) Do I need permission from people I photograph?, Copyright Council of Australia.

5) Unauthorised use of your image in a photograph, The Arts Law Centre of Australia.

6) Copyright for photographers, Copyright Agency Limited Australia

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear...

"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" ?


There are police and security cameras all over Australia, if they have the right to film us, surely we have the right to film back?

This blog is to document police abuse of photographers rights and the promote civil liberties and police accountability in Australia.

Filming in your own backyard, and get threatened with arrest? (UK)

Film-maker Darren Pollard was clearing up flood rubbish from his front garden when he noticed the police and a teenager opposite his house. Darren retrieved his camera and this is what he filmed!