Photography at Traflagar Square

OMG.

Just when I was getting snapping...
http://www.demotix.com/news/1030523/gigantic-queues-penultimate-day-leonardo-exhibition-london

Thanks David, we'll be looking into this further and publicising it as much as we can.

I would like to see how this will pan out as both areas are always full of tourists let alone photojournalists.

Tom....please do keep us posted with feedback from your end.

To use a metaphor: if we have to use heavy handed cosmetics, how compromised is the face of national security?

I was there today covering the PCS strike & protest outside the gallery. Looking forward to this bylaw being enforced, should keep me both busy & amused for months to come.

Am glad i made the most of it on Sunday during the Chinese new year celebrations.
Next time got to get a permit

http://www.demotix.com/news/1025817/chen-brothers-perform-year-dragon-london

I wonder if any press photographers bring their own satellite trucks with them to block up both Squares. I can understand if it was broadcasters that were bringing their equipment

For me this new legislation affects the right to freely report the events that will be happen in the Squares.

A long lens, thousands of tourists & cunning will make a mockery of these bylaws, if they use them

AFAIK (I am not a lawyer) there has beed a requirement for a permit for photography/filming In Trafalgar Square for decades. This is nothing new. I think it was because at one time (swinging 60's?) a lot of people shot commercial and amateur stuff there.

I always took it that a law needs to be enforceable and not a drain on tax payers. It mind boogling. Though, it it applies to large scale photoshoots or filming, isn't there a requirement inplace already.

I guess event organiser would waive a permit requirement for their Offical Media.

Hmmmmm

Chris and some of you already mentioned that a permit is already required for commercial photography. the question is whether this new law includes news reporting. and as some of you say, what about tourists. you will remember the recent fiasco when tourists were asserted for taking photos of the palace. presumably if a permit is required for reporting then the only motive is to exclude freelance photographers like us at demotix.

"City Hall said that restrictions on TV and press photography was intended to stop the area being blocked by satellite trucks.", I mean really, who do they think they are kidding?

They told me it was because time travellers from the future use the Nelson Column as a beacon for their astral flow locator units. Apparently memory cards in professional cameras interfere with this & put the travellers lives in danger.

In my previous post that WAS NOT PUBLISHED I said that it was to exclude people like us who contribute to Demotix.

I have an idea that it was originally put in place in the 1960's when it was used as an Icon of the "swinging 60s" and being a large paved area people just turned up and did shoots there. I suppose it was difficult to sight obstruction as they would on a normal size pavement. Also it was often used for demonstrations of many kinds and of course it is at the junction between whitehall and the mall so local councils being what they are are wanted more control over the space. I don't think there was anything more sinister than that.

Indeed, there is absolutely nothing sinister about reducing the amount of public space available for the public to exercise their right to peaceful protest. Especially in the centre of the capital city, and in places whose up keep is paid for by the taxpayer and is close enough to Parliament and other major government offices, that said taxpayer can feel as if their voices are heard by those in power and then publicized by a free and dynamic press. History has shown us that people never boil over into revolutionary violence when the main platforms for their anger and discontent have been removed. Giving a platform to the taxpaying public, the labour movement and the unions is not how this great country of ours avoided both a socialist and a fascist revolution in the 30s.

It’s all absolutely fine. And just think in a hundreds of years from now people will look at the photographs and film taken of what was driving social change in the early 21st Century and... Doh!

Why is it the anonymous members on Demotix are the ones going on about sinister motives etc....

I take that back now there is an Avatar.

I did do a full reply but the spam bot took it... (it does that far too often) another reason have the forums out of site for members only.

Anonymous?

another attempt at posting the last message

Do not attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. AFAIK The original requirement to have a license to photograph in Trafalgar Square (which has been in force for decades) had no sinister motives nor any impact on demonstrations in the square. As we saw in the 60's, 70's 80's etc

The current legislation re Trafalgar square and Parliament Square is something else altogether. IT is as worrying as Google and Twitter quietly imposing censorship. (not to mention the Demotix spam bot

the spam bot keep eating my reply to your points above

Not having an Avatar does not make one anonymous? Surely a named profile and links to a few of my published articles and photographs makes me public. A quick google reveals the extent of by availability and acceptance of public scrutiny.

Making the forums members only, would go against the principles that Demotix sells itself on. Nothing sinister about wanting it all out of the public domain though.

Anonymous means 'without a name'........All names are showing here.

I took it the context not identifiable. Which you are not from a label that may or may not be your name or some one else's name.

I agree with Pete that the forums should be private to members only. Said this many times before.

That is my name, it's not a label.

Chris, I was using the lowest form of wit with the members only thing. I am more than happy for Demotix to remain as open to scrutiny as is possible. You refered to the Avatar as being the reason or you would have mentioned the label thing initially.

Like Mario, my name is really my name, not a label. As I have already pointed out, a quick check on google and the links that take you directly to a few of the publications that I have written for and have photographs in, are provided and remove any trace of anonymity from my me. I often work around dangerous people in sometimes dangerous situations, but pride myself on being honest and open at all times. I think that is the best way to conduct ones self and gains the respect of those I focus my camera on. Nobody likes to feel deceived.

The main point I was trying to make, with humour, is that any law or bylaw that is brought in to restrict both protest and the freedom of the press is an afront to the value system we as a society both aim for and at the same time attack the rest of the world for not aiming for. This is sinister and it is wrong on many levels.

It has started already judging from this story by a member of Demotix

http://www.demotix.com/news/1040202/trafalgar-square-wardens-flex-potential-photography-law-london

Also saw on the Metro (07/02/2012) Pg23, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre claimed that the 'haphazard press card system' needs an overhaul.

http://e-edition.metro.co.uk/2012/02/07/

Where did my previous comment go?

Demotix *spam bot* ate it up or what. Moderator???

Hi Elsie, sorry about that - you should be able to see it again now.

We're going to be writing to the DCMS before the objecting period for the Byelaws is up, and we're keeping a close eye on the press cards situation.

Hi Tom,

The Demotix press card is a really handy blagging tool but it is not officially recognized by the police or the Heritage Wardens, so I am not sure what keeping an eye on the situation will do.

So perhaps rather than keeping an eye on the situation, you could put together a petition to be signed by all of us contributers, or at least the ones who see this as a genuine and sinister threat. We could then hand it in to to the Mayor or Downing Street.

Not only would this be a show of your support and appreciation of what we contributers do, it would also be a great photo opportunity (For those of us that can get up Downing Street that is).

I would be happy to help.

Pete

Hm, I see these as two separate issues - the fact that we issue press passes has been a back-and-forth with the UKPCA for some time. We are still talking to them regularly trying to work something out.

If, however, some new press card system is instituted as a result of the Leveson enquiry, we will be fighting hard to be involved in that. It may well be that some provision is made for a more official form of identification for non-NUJ freelances and citizen journos.

The urgent thing for now is that we push back hard against these byelaws for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square before the deadline.
The NUJ/LPB has already written to the DCMS about them.

We thought that composing our own letter/petition and getting as many signatures from organisations and photographers and we could would be a powerful way to oppose them, especially if we could get a national newspaper interested in publishing it as an open letter.

What's news to me is that the 2000 Byelaws already contain very similar provisions to the ones here (thanks to Pete Riches' story here) - I know some of you will shout at me for not knowing, which is probably fair.

So, we need to write a letter that opposes all of the provisions in the new Byelaws, while recognising that some of them have already been in force for some time, and that similar objections were doubtless ignored when they were first introduced.

I'll get right to it!

Tom. I have written at length about the press pass. my view is that a nuj card is a membership card to a trade union and therefore has nothing to do about being a bona fide journalist. what is required is a press card for such journalists. Not to give them access where the public cannot go, but to protect them from illegal acts such as being blackmail with arrest when doing their legitimate work.

The NUJ have a well established code of conduct & are trusted, recognised & respected by the police & various authorities. To say that it is merely membership to a union is absurd.

I'll join this conversation later on when I'm back from the Chinese embassy. I'll just say that I'm heartened by the reaction to this spontaneous story. I think the issues here are terribly important, and there's a long history of attempts by various Conservative governments to quash political activism in Trafalgar Square. Preventing the recording of events by 'commercial' photographers is just one facet of their desire to silence our voices. the fact that breaking these bye-laws is no longer a civil matter. It is now going to be a criminal offence, and we should all be very angry at this authoritarian abuse.

I know it still isn't officially in law yet, but the fact of the matter, on the ground, is that these petty, megalomaniac officials behave as if it is. They verbally inflate their powers to intimidate people. I have witnessed first hand a press photographer on the day of the Nov. 30th strike being harrassed and ordered off the square by the police at the behest of an annoyed "Site Security Supervisor". The photographer had been photographing two "Heritage Wardens" who had been illegally videoing people (from their vantage point up amongst the lions at the base of Nelson's column) and who tried to hide from view when they realised they had been caught in the act. The man in the cheap suit who started ordering the press photographer off-site was even more angry because the photographer challenged him to produce any official document to prove that he had any authority whatsoever. He couldn't, of course, so he called the police and made a completely false accusation against the photographer, accusing him of using threatening behaviour and of swearing at him.

Anyway... got to go. Back later.

Nobody asked your opinion Riches. See you at the Embassy.

Damn your eyes, Maclaine! I'm on my way now. Thought I'd get a corporate coffee first.

"Tom. I have written at length about the press pass. my view is that a nuj card is a membership card to a trade union and therefore has nothing to do about being a bona fide journalist. what is required is a press card for such journalists. Not to give them access where the public cannot go, but to protect them from illegal acts such as being blackmail with arrest when doing their legitimate work."

Lawrence, you may have written about this at length in the past, but you clearly have a miniscule understanding of the UK system of accreditation, particularly with reference to the legal concept of a 'bona fide' journalist. There is no such thing as an NUJ card. There is however a UK Press Card issued to recognised journalists and associated media workers by the UKPC Authority via the 17 nominated Gatekeepers, one of whom is the NUJ.

Tibiryans? Double Booked? This seemed the evil work of the Petermen empire. Anon!

So now there can be no argument that something Sinister is involved.

Yes there can be...

Sinister is as Sinister does

Mark I apologies for the technicality (a case of act in haste, and repent at leisure on my part). I must make it clear that I have nothing against the NUJ per se; I'm old enough to remember the NUJ being a synonym for journalist. But as you point out, "....UKPC Authority via the 17 nominated Gatekeepers." It is this concept of "17 nominated gatekeepers" that I object to: the concept that a cartel can be created to determine not only the commercial functions of an industry but to offer no clear mechanism on how new entrants can join the industry is totally unacceptable whatever the law maybe. And even more unacceptable is the idea that the state can decide who are "bona fide" journalist and by direct implication who are the press. The state and the law-and-order authorities have no business negotiating and agreeing with anyone who is a journalist or who is the press. That function is for editors and the courts - the main criteria being: is your work being published and do you follow and practice a reasonable code of professional conduct. The Reductio ad absurdum of the UKPCA is that two photographers taking the same image in a public place and both publishing them on a website, the one with the UKPCA press card has a legally obtained photograph whilst the other person without such press card is engaged in an illegal activity and is in possession of property derived through a criminal activity. We usually associate this sort of thing with Iran, China and the ex Soviet Union. But one thing is for sure, being a bona fide journalist has nothing to do with whether one is deriving any income or not from the activity. Hence, the gist of my previous argument still stands.

Pete please see my reply to Mark, thanks. Lawrence

@Moderator, can you pull my last comment out of the spambot?

"We usually associate this sort of thing with Iran, China and the ex Soviet Union."

Welcome to UK PLC

Argh, sorry Mario, I accidentally deleted all of your comments, rather than all but one. Do you have those links handy still?

Talking of press cards and not meaning anything, here a couple of logs for that fire.

http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2400

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/115143

I have posted them again..

Erm... where are Mario's comments? Can we see them, please?