On World Press Freedom day photographers held a flash mob protest outside City Hall calling for an end to the growing restrictions on photography in areas normally open to the public, delivering a letter for Mayor Boris Johnson. London, UK. 03/05/2011
The protest was called by 'I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!' (PHNAT), "the campaign group set up to fight unnecessary and draconian restrictions against individuals taking photographs in public spaces" and supported by the NUJ London Photographers Branch, the British Press Photographers Association (BPPA) and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. It attracted many of the photographers who work daily on the streets of London.
Around 50 photographers came to the event, although getting all of them in a picture at the same time proved impossible, as whenever a group formed for a picture they were faced by a scrum of photographers taking it. Some of them had brought tripods, even though like me they may have had to spend a while searching for one.
Grant Smith, who made headlines after being stopped and searched for photographing St Paul's Cathedral, and whose image of a security guard holding up a hand to prevent him taking pictures was used on the mini-placard for the event, read out a letter to Mayor Boris Johnson from PHNAT, which as well as expressing concern at the increasing and often illegal activities of security guards also depreciated the role of the police in encouraging them to harass photographers. It ended:
"We are bringing this issue to the attention of the general public to highlight the creeping restrictions to press freedom and the right of the citizen to photograph in a public place."
A group of photographers then took the letter in to City Hall.
Security guards for the area were unusually thin on the ground during the protest, though one did walk up to the group and scratch his head while reading the banner which listed a number of activities - including photography - or persons that are or might be banned because this was private property. In part ironic, too much was unfortunately true.
In an interview about the protest I said:
Huge areas of London which the public walks through and enjoys are being turned into "no go" areas for photographers, patrolled by security guards and under continous observation by CCTV cameras. Almost every new development built in the past twenty or thirty years is now a private public space where we are now often stopped from taking photographs. It is a restriction on our freedom of speech and action and on the reporting of events, and one without sensible justification, largely based on a misplaced paranoia.
I've been prevented from taking pictures or hassled by security many times over the years, but the areas involved have now expanded greatly and there is now much greater surveillance, and photographers need to take action. I fully support this protest on World Press Freedom Day. The public need to reclaim these city public spaces and their right to enjoy them - including the right to take photographs.
Among the better-known places were such restrictions apply are the whole Canary Wharf estate (where I've been stopped on several occasions), Broadgate (ditto), Paddington Basin, and the site chosen for this protest, More London and the Thames Walkway along its river frontage, as well as many more smaller sites around the city. If the buildings around you were built in the last 20 or 30 years and you are in a pedestrianised area, there is a very high chance that you may be asked to stop photographing.
Many of the plans for these developments were granted on the understanding that the public would have access to and through them, and in many cases they include areas that were formerly public highways. The owners of these sites depend on public access to them for their commercial success, with many having shops and other commercial premises open to the public as well as offices. Yet they often try and prevent legitimate reporting related to public events on the grounds that it is private land.
Even the Mayor of London has in the past tried to restrict news photography, for example in Trafalgar Square, where heritage wardens have harassed some photographers. Last year I and other photographers were approached while photographing several protests in Royal Parks and told that we needed a licence to take pictures there, although that may have simply been a few ill-trained and badly informed employees, as on further enquiries the need seemed to evaporate.
There is of course a difference between commercial photography and news/reportage or fine art photography, but it is one that is largely self-policing. A commercial image that made more than incidental use of a building or location would generally now be required to have a building licence - in the same way as a model release would be needed for an identifiable person in it. Neither is a legal requirement, but both act as a protection against possible legal actions that could prevent or delay the use of the image.
As PHNAT was formed to point out, we are photographers, not terrorists. No terrorist is going to walk around with large cameras or even tripods to openly photograph sites they wish to attack. Almost certainly all the information they need is already available on the web from satellite imagery and Google StreetView, and if they want to add to that, a discreet walk around with a mobile phone or miniature camcorder seems considerably less likely to escape detection.
What we are seeing is an inappropriate and at times illegal assertion of property rights (often security guards also try to prevent photography from public land) and it is possibly unenforceable as there is generally no element of financial loss to the owners. Next will they try to ban us from breathing "their" air?
