Surrey Police pay out after photographer Peter Macdiarmid brings civil claim for false arrest.

A still from his own car dashboard camera shows Peter Macdiarmid having been arrested and handcuffed. ©Peter Macdiarmid

Back in September 2022 The BPPA posted a short piece on our website about the arrest on the 24th of August of multi-award winning photojournalist Peter Macdiarmid whilst covering a Just Stop Oil protest at Clacket Lane Services on the M25, south of London. He was handcuffed and detained for several hours by Surrey Police despite identifying himself as the holder of a UK Press Card.

The post reminded Police Officers that journalists have a right and a duty to report the news. Peter engaged the services of the law firm Bhatt Murphy who sent a letter of claim to Surrey Police. Eventually last December Surrey Constabulary offered to settle out of court, but they are not accepting liability and are refusing to apologise for their actions. The law firm acting on behalf of Surrey Police responded to Peter’s lawyers and denied that any of the Surrey officers did anything wrong, arguing that the situation that they found when they arrived was confusing and that they had acted within the law.

Peter said after the result: “I have been a news photographer for 37 years and have covered many events where tensions were running high and police were under great pressure, this Just Stop Oil protest was not like that – it was very calm and protesters were voluntarily giving themselves up for arrest when a police officer decided to detain me on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage. I was unable to persuade the arresting officer that I was a genuine working press photographer and my press card was ignored. Whilst I am glad to finally bring closure to this after many months, I am disappointed in the actions of Surrey police in handcuffing and arresting me and then dragging out the legal process during my civil claim. Another colleague was arrested in similar circumstances in December 2022 by Hertfordshire police whilst covering a climate protest, but after legal action was started the force very quickly admitted it ‘unlawfully arrested and violated the human rights of a photographer who was held while covering climate protests on the M25’ and the Chief Constable personally rang to apologise to the arrested photographer. The stark contrast between the actions of the two police forces is telling.”

Congratulations to Peter and his solicitors for their perseverance in pursuing this case – Handcuffing and arresting a press photographer is unacceptable behaviour by Surrey Police. We believe that the Police got it wrong on this occasion and that this is far from the first time this happened and it is likely to happen again. In the end Peter has received damages and his costs, but would rather have not had to go through a lengthy and stressful legal process to clear his name.

Just Stop Oil Arrests

Just Stop Oil Arrests

Two press photographers and a documentary film maker were arrested whilst covering protests by the campaigning group Just Stop Oil on Monday 7th November. 

Tom Bowles and Ben Cawthra, both members of The BPPA along with BECTU member Rich Felgate were handcuffed and removed from two separate locations by Hertfordshire Police. A member of The BPPA’s Board has spoken to both photographers and, based on their accounts, we can report the following:

Tom and Rich were detained by the police at 10.44am, accused of suspicion of conspiracy to cause a nuisance. Tom wasn’t given a chance to offer an explanation for being at the location, nor was his UK Press Card acknowledged.

He was taken into custody and held until 1.20am the following morning and was released with no further action. Whilst in custody and speaking to his solicitor he found out that his house had been searched. This turned out to be by three male officers from St Albans. His wife and 14 year old daughter were both anxious about what had happened as they were woken to be confronted by this. His release papers said that he had been detained as he had been “Intentionally/recklessly causing a public nuisance.”

During his custody Tom repeatedly asked that his UK Press Card should be verified and when they eventually complied they informed him that his card had ‘failed verification’ although the police officers involved did not ask for his verification PIN. We have since checked and his card would have passed had they used his PIN. We have raised this with the UK Press Card Authority.

Ben’s experience was very similar. He was arrested at 8.15am after showing his press card, and having broken no law was still placed in custody. On arrival at the station he was told that his partner would be called but this didn’t happen. He had to push them to call her and they finally complied around 3pm – at approximately the same time that he had his first communication with an investigating officer. It wasn’t until his lawyer contacted them that things started to move along, which he believes was around 5pm. He was finally released at 11.30pm.

This isn’t the first time in recent weeks that this has happened. The arrest of Peter Macdiarmid covering a similar protest is still an ongoing matter.

The BPPA is deeply concerned that police forces are ignoring the UK Press Card and, more worryingly, are ignorant of what it is and what it represents. By arresting news gatherers they are going against a long-standing tradition of allowing the media to independently report the news. We sincerely hope that this is out of ignorance of how to identify members of the press and not a new policy of blinding society.

Still image taken from a video courtesy of Rich Felgate showing press photographer Tom Bowles being arrested by a member of the Hertfordshire Police Force minutes before Rich was himself arrested.

UPDATE: We have now written to the Home Secretary, various Members of Parliament and other senior figures who have the power and/or influence to help make sure that this doesn’t happen again. See the letter here

Royal Parks Permits

In letters signed by The BPPA, the News Media Association, the Chartered Institute of Journalists, the British Association of Journalists and the Foreign Press Association in London and sent to the Editor of The Times and the Director of Communications, Marketing and Engagement for the Royal Parks the five organisations made it clear that restrictions placed upon news-gatherers excluding them from areas open to the public were unacceptable. The text of the letter to the Times said the following:

Sir, 

We are writing on behalf of professional photographers and journalists spanning the breadth of the UK news media industry.

This week, we have written to the Royal Parks to raise concerns about a clause in their news permits which prevents filming and photography at the back of No 10 Downing Street from Horse Guards Road or Horse Guards Parade.

This clause, which has recently been further tightened, unnecessarily restricts the legitimate activities of photographers seeking to report on hugely significant events happening right at the seat of power in this country.

The back entrance to Downing Street is an extremely important location for public interest news, particularly around a general election when a Prime Minister may change, or for reporting on activities taking place within Downing Street such as the Partygate.   We are asking therefore that the permits are updated to remove these restrictions. 

  • Owen Meredith, NMA chief executive;
  • Dominic Cooper, Chartered Institute of Journalists chief executive;
  • Matthew Myatt, British Association of Journalists general secretary;
  • Deborah Bonetti, director, The Foreign Press Association in London;
  • Paul Ellis, chair, The British Press Photographers’ Association.

The Times then followed this up with an editorial on page 9 of today’s edition (Thursday September 1st 2022). The letter to the Royal Parks made the same points.

The Royal Parks in London have (for a fee) issued permits allowing photographers to take pictures in their open spaces for many years. This always made it difficult for those wishing to cover the rear entrance to Downing Street but, in a recent revision to the rules, it became almost impossible.

The BPPA has been involved in several attempts over the years to sort out this issue and we hope that this latest effort will make the working lives of our members that little bit easier. In an ideal world the Royal Parks Permit would become a thing of the past and hope that this latest chapter in the long-running saga brings us into that world.

Quis custodiet IPSOs custodes?

That’s the Mail Online brush-off, saying after publishing Rebecca Reid’s profile picture without either permission or payment, that by making her picture ‘public and discoverable’ she has posted it ‘into the public domain’. This is arrant nonsense. The public domain has a very specific meaning in copyright law, indicating that copyright has either been forfeited or expired, and in UK law it does not expire until seventy years after the creator’s death. Until then publication requires permission and payment. As any editor knows. Including the character who ran an ( erroneous, © Twitter ) copyright notice under the published picture! Which, incidentally, has now been taken down ( we have the screengrab ), replaced with a grab of her twitter feed.

The charitable explanation for this misleading and misinformed policy painting an inaccurate picture of the law is that the writer genuinely believes it, in which case she really should not be holding any senior editorial position on a national newspaper, let alone responsibility for ‘compliance’. And she also seems unaware of the Mail Online’s own House Rules for comments

“You must not insert links to websites (URLs) or submit content which would be an infringement of copyright” (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-1388145/House-Rules.html )

The alternative is that the Mail Online, guilty of copyright infringement ( yet again ), instead of owning up and paying up is trying to avoid the consequences with pseudo legal twaddle. If so not a bright idea to try that on with the Digital Editor of Grazia.

But there’s more. It get’s worse. This is what the  Independent Press Standards Organisation, IPSO, which regulates most nationals including the Daily  Mail ( though not the Mail Online ) tells the public, most of whom will not be as clued up as Rebecca Reid:

“Journalists are normally allowed to publish photos, comments and information from social media profiles, forums or blogs if there are no privacy settings protecting them and they do not show anything private” (https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1510/social-media-public.pdf ).

This is quite simply not true. Publishing without permission photos “from social media profiles, forums or blogs if there are no privacy settings”   is in flagrant breach of the law. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. And also in defiance of their very own Editors’ Code,  Point 1, Accuracy: “ The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information….”

Piracy with the blessing of IPSO!  Quis custodiet IPSOs custodes?
The answer to which is the law of the land. Which is also the last resort of creators. Photographers can and do extract payment for copyright infringement from the Mail Online. But, why, why, why do we have to deal with the lawlessness of national papers, and IPSO advice as baseless as that Mail Online reply to Rebecca Reid?

EU Copyright Directive to be debated in European Parliament

Tomorrow (26th March 2019) MEPs will vote on a controversial EU directive to copyright work used on the web. It sets terms and conditions for others to reuse content (posted by people like us) commercially.
The battle has been between the tech giants, whose business model is all about reusing other’s intellectual property without license or renumeration, and us ‘the creative community’.
Scares have included that ‘readers will be unable to share links’ (wrong) or ‘Wikipedia will collapse’ (nonsense). Many of us have had content stolen by others to market their photographic services from our clients’ own media sites, and now Publishers’ Right (Article II) in the directive will allow us to chase our payment, which should stop many thefts. It should allow a revenue stream that before was tricky to say the least.
As Angela Mills Wade, the director of the European Publishers Council is quoted, “a vote for the directive will be a vote for fairness, for culture, for creativity, and crucially, for the future of Europe’s professional, diverse independent press.”

Photography is not harassment

 
This is an open letter to the ITV management who have promoted their programme “Tonight: Harassment Uncovered” which, in places, confuses photography with sexual harassment. The programme aired at 7.30pm on the 23rd of February 2017
Dear ITV
Professional photographers are against any and all harassment of people going about their private and lawful business. To suggest or imply anything else would be disingenuous at best and libellous at worst. Street photography is a legitimate and entirely honourable form of documentary photography practised the world over.
Should any individual use this or any other art form as a cloak to hide their illegal activities then that is an issue that should be part of a Police investigation and not an excuse to demonise an entire genre of documentary photography and film-making.
The laws already exist to stop harassment and stalking and a blanket ban on any and all photography or filming without permission (amateur or professional, it matters not) would be to the detriment of society as a whole.
The BPPA

FREE MONEY!!!!

Cash, £20 notes

Ok – now we have your attention.
Every year DACS ( The Design and Artists Copyright Society) collects millions of pounds worth of royalties due for use of our photographs from libraries, universities and other organisations. It is payment for lending books, photocopying and things like that.
They then redistribute this money to us through the “Payback Scheme” – and it usually comes to several hundred pounds each.
THIS MONEY BELONGS TO YOU – IT IS OWED TO YOU – BUT YOU HAVE TO CLAIM IT!!
You only have until September 30th this year to make your claim – but it only takes about half an hour to do – and you will get a decent payout just in time for Christmas.
We realise that many photographers are daunted by the prospect of making a claim – but it really is very simple – and can all be done online.
To help you with this – here is a beginners run through of what you will need to do…
REMEMBER DO NOT ALLOW AN AGENT TO PERSUADE YOU TO ALLOW THEM TO DO IT FOR YOU – IT’S YOUR MONEY – DON’T GIVE AWAY SEVERAL HUNDRED POUNDS FOR NOTHING!
So – here’s what to do.
Firstly you have to get together some info.
(Yeah – I know this sounds like a drag – but look at it this way – Its a couple of days wages for half an hours work)
1. Get together the title and date of three (thats all!!) books that have used your pictures in the whole of your career – it doesn’t matter what they are or when they were published , just so long as they have an ISBN number.  You can look up this info via Google or maybe find it on Amazon.
2. Now find the same info for three magazines that have used your pictures. Not in the last year – but in your whole career.  I’ll say it again – thats three pictures used in magazines EVER!!  All you need if the title, date and the ISSN number of that magazine – again you can get this info with a google search.
(If you don’t have cuts or are struggling to remember dates then maybe you can work backwards – go through your picture archive and dig out some pictures you know made it into a magazine, and then check magazines shortly after this date?)
3. Finally – Have you had any pictures used on TV in the last year? Make a list of these too – although these have to have been during 2015
Thats it – you’ve done the hard part.
4. Now go to secure.dacs.org.uk and register.
Fill in your relevant details; that you are claiming for photography, how many years you have been working as a ‘visual artist’, what organisations you belong to, etc.
Now make your claims…
Firstly books.
You are claiming for all uses throughout your career up until the end of the relevant claim year, in this case ending 31st December 2015 – but you don’t have to list them all!
As we said earlier DACS cannot identify specific secondary uses of your work, so all you need to do is prove that you have had pictures published in books at some point in your career. They only ask for the ISBN number, title and year of three books included in your claim.
Then they then ask you to estimate how many times, throughout your career, your pictures have been used in books.
Finally then ask you to tick off all categories into which these uses fell – Academic, Art, etc.
And that’s it.
Next – Magazines and Journals.
Its an identical procedure – asking you to list three magazines where you have had pictures published – including their Name, issue number or cover date and
ISSN, ISBN or barcode number
Then – Television.
In this case only your claim is restricted to uses in the relevant DACS claim year, for now 2015. You are asked to enter how many uses in specified TV channels. Skip this if its not relevant or you can’t remember.
Thats all they want to know about pictures published.
Really.
It’s that simple.
After that all you have to do is read and accept the mandate authorising DACS to act on your behalf, which you sign with a tick. Then enter your bank details, tax status, and VAT detail. And finally you are asked to accept their Payback T&C’s.
(Please read the mandate and T&Cs – make sure you understand and are happy with them!!)
That’s all you have to do. Job done. Sit back and wait for a few hundred quid to drop into your bank – just in time to buy xmas presents or to pay for the xmas party!!!
But, do it now, before September 30th!
NO, REALLY – DO IT NOW – DON’T PUT IT OFF!!
Do not allow your agency to claim on your behalf – they take a big commission and in some cases even an admin fee too. Whatever they say, it’s your choice. Beware any new agency small print you may not have read authorising them to claim instead. They cannot do this without your express permission.
Do not give it – it’s your money. Not theirs.
(If they have in the past claimed in your name, and are now being a bit difficult about releasing the necessary sales info, you may well find DACS accepts the details provided in those previous claims as evidence for your claim today).
Finally, if any of the above is unclear, go to DACS FAQ’s:
DACS FAQ’s
Or ask us via the BPPA members Facebook page.
DO IT NOW – AND DON’T LET ANYONE TELL YOU THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HALF – ITS YOUR MONEY!!!

Our Draft Code

 
Immediately after the Leveson Inquiry we started to think about how a code of conduct could be drafted for The BPPA that would help prospective members and the British public understand what our profession is all about.
We looked at similar documents from all over the world and we looked at the various codes of conduct and practice that our clients have already signed up to. It has been a massive task and we are proud to unveil what we are calling the “Final Draft” which was approved at a Board meeting last week. Here is the code in full:
The British Press Photographers’ Association Code of Conduct
Members of The British Press Photographers’ Association are professional photographers concerned with taking, editing and distributing news, feature, sports and other editorial photographs. Their work is predominantly for the British news media. The photographers take every care with their work, but it remains the responsibility of publishers to carry out checks concerning accuracy, damage to reputation, and the will of the Courts.

Press photographers should:

  1. Observe the highest ethical, technical and creative standards. They should conduct themselves in a manner reflecting those standards and be aware that their actions, both positive and negative, reflect on the profession as a whole
  2. Not materially alter their images, or edit them in such a way as to give misleading impressions of news events
  3. Provide accurate and comprehensive caption information
  4. Resist any offers of payment or other inducements from third parties involved in the story to change the way they approach the coverage of news events
  5. Remember they are subject to the laws of any country they work in
  6. Always be aware of the codes of conduct observed by their employers and clients and act appropriately when working on their behalf
  7. Treat people they meet in the course of their work with respect and dignity, giving special consideration to anyone suffering the results of war, crime or other difficulty or hardship
  8. Protect their own intellectual property and respect the property of others
  9. Defend media freedom, and the right to work in a fair and unfettered manner
  10. Feel able to refuse any work involving excessive or unnecessary risks to themselves or others

Ten clauses that sum up how we should behave rather than a set of absolute rules. This is important because we live in an age where there are lots of blurred lines and where each of us may well be doing a wide range of work for which each of these clauses will have greater or lesser significance. PR and hard news are very different and it is important that you read the Code with that in mind.
You will probably have questions about the wording and why it does and doesn’t feature X or Y and we are more than happy to answer those questions. We anticipate the most common query being about why it doesn’t have more specific rules and the answer there is in clause 6:
“Always be aware of the codes of conduct observed by their employers and clients and act appropriately when working on their behalf”
This is important because it refers to the IPSO Editor’s Code for those working for newspapers and other codes for magazines, broadcasting both in the UK and around the world.
According to our constitution this code can come fully into force once it has to be approved at a General Meeting and the next one is scheduled for the 4th of June in London.

What's going on at DACS? Part 2

Sir John Tenniel

In this second part of his assessment of what is happening with DACS, Andrew Wiard explains why the current situation is not something that photographers should accept.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Insisting on ALL secondary rights – does it really matter? Is it such a big deal?
Yes it is, but first, what exactly are these secondary rights everyone is talking about? Fact is you will not find a concise legal, or any precise, definition anywhere (or if you find one, please let me know). They can be defined negatively – they are those rights which are not primary. And primary rights are? For want of a better definition, the rights we exercise directly ourselves.This is how DACS describes, not defines, but describes secondary rights: those “ it would be impractical for you to license……. on an individual basis ”. At first sight all sounds plain common sense. Our primary rights  are those we exercise individually and directly (or through our agents) and as for photocopying, well, that’s best left to DACS. That’s secondary. 
But hang on, who decides what rights it is impractical for us to license, and how? What’s secondary and what’s not? Photocopying is pretty obvious, but where is the line drawn and can we trust those who draw it?
Take the strange case of the European “Memorandum of Understanding”.  I first wrote about this for the Stop43 website.  The point here (and I’m afraid you really do have to plough through all that to get it) is that the signatories to this European memorandum were plotting to consign our *primary* rights to collecting societies (you should also read DACS’s reply). The idea behind the MoU was  to republish out-of-print works, for the benefit of humankind of course, if the authors or publishers do not do so themselves. Their rights would have to be taken into account, but then what to do with embedded works, works embedded on the printed page?
Embedded Works? – photographs, to you and me. Ah, the solution is obvious – collecting societies!
Why? Why? If any publisher, any publisher, whoever they are, wishes to produce a new edition of a book containing a photograph which I have already licensed directly once, all I have to do is – do it again. Negotiate a further licence. Directly. Any photographer who supplies books for a living will do this as a matter of course. By any definition, we are not talking secondary rights here. These are primary rights. Our rights. Not secondary rights, the rights which according to DACS, are those it is “impractical for us to license on an individual basis”. But the rights we know perfectly well how to license directly ourselves. No doubt the publishers of out-of-print works will find dealing with us tiresome. All publishers find licensing any works tiresome. But however secondary rights are defined, they are most certainly NOT those rights which publishers find it oh so inconvenient to have to license on an individual basis! And we have no idea what other rights of ours will be considered secondary in future. This is why it is so important that any secondary rights agreement spells out precisely what rights are referred to, and any additional rights to be collectively administered thereafter are specified, negotiated and agreed in advance, and agreed without the threat of money being withheld.
A gang of European collecting societies agreed to this. And our UK rep there? – yes, you guessed it, DACS. Which is why, in their reply referred to above, they are so keen to make out that the memorandum doesn’t say what it means when it says what it says – or rather, as DACS puts it, it is all subject to consultation: “ a collective management organisation for visual works (such as DACS) would be obliged to consult with rightsholders prior to any agreement being reached “. DACS would consult. But that doesn’t explain what on earth they were doing going along with all this in the first place. Consult, over our *primary* rights? And, anyone remember being consulted?
DACS, consult? Really? The way they consulted about this new agreement of theirs? It went like this. First they got a small number of important figures into a room, told them all about the forces of darkness (true) but that none of this could be publicly revealed for fear of (legal?) consequences. Utterly false. It’s all coming out now, but nothing we couldn’t have been told right at the start. These figures were then to go out and tell all photographers, without going into  details, that they must sign up. Which, BAPLA  excepted, they then did. The one thing DACS did not do was consult their contributors. They represent us individually. They were after individual signatures. They should have talked to us, individually.
Instead, a series of inducements, “prizes”, to get people to sign up before the annual deadline. I was offered a prize draw, where I “could win up to £250 in vouchers to spend on art and photography materials” . And if I were to recommend Payback to a friend, “we’ll offer you both the chance to win £150 to spend at on art or photography materials at Jackson’s Art Supplies or Metro Imaging”. Talk about desperation!
Are we adults or kids to be tempted with sweeties?
No mention, of course, in these emails, of the new contributor agreement which had to be signed as the last stage of completing the claims form, or of its significance. Those discussions were only for the chosen few. If you doubt that, look at what happened to the NUJ’s NEC member for photographers Pete Jenkins, who dared to ask them what was really going on. DACS first offered him a meeting before the signature deadline. Then withdrew the offer, refused to meet him, saying they’d be holding a meeting for a wider group after the deadline. After the deal was done and it was all over! And, after the deal? Pete naturally asked to come along but was then told no, they were full up, and they had what they thought was a wide enough range of interested parties already.
Translation – no awkward squad, thank you.
Just before Christmas I received an email from DACS.

“ With the introduction of a new Payback membership, we are now able to formally consult with you on issues concerning your rights, and importantly, safeguard your existing and future royalties.”

What nonsense. They’ve been able to consult us, formally or not, for months. Before, not after, we had to sign. They just didn’t want to.
Let’s be clear what they did. They announced a new agreement. They said they would consult. But not, of course, the individual photographers required to sign. They then stuck to what they said in the first place. The DACS take it or leave it discussion, followed by their take it or leave it agreement.
And what if we did not sign? The payouts last Christmas were for sums collected before last year, that is before this new agreement which has only now come into force, collecting for future payouts in Christmas 2015. DACS was clearly saying, no signature, no payout. You couldn’t complete your claim for this year without it. In other words, they were applying this agreement retrospectively, to enforce compliance. Signing under duress – legal? – well, which one of us had the time, the energy, and most of all the money, to find out?
So, there you have it – consultation, DACS style.
This is serious. DACS say they will consult in future about collecting any other secondary rights. I think I now know what that means. We have given them the power not only to interpret that word as they see fit, but to collect whatever they think falls into that category, and regardless of what we think. They say we can always withdraw our signature at a future date, but so what? Because what we have signed up to now will now in all likelihood give them, under the new ECL regulations, the power to collect the “secondary” rights of all photographers, whether signed up or not. So you can unsign if you like, but you’re going nowhere as DACS will just carry on collecting.
What to do? The law is an expensive but no longer the only way to bring collecting societies to heel. Under the new ECL regulations they have to behave. So the CLA thinks it can collect for pictures but not pay photographers? Time to shop them to the Secretary of State. That’s one way.
There’s another. It will become increasingly practical for us to collect directly. Cue Paul Ellis of Stop 43: “ The solution is obvious – the Copyright Hub, which when implemented will suddenly make a load of ‘secondary’ rights ‘primary’, because it will no longer be impossible for individual photographers to manage them.” The future should indeed lie with the Copyright Hub, see here: http://www.copyrighthub.co.uk/ .
That however is still under development, that is for the future, and today we are already trapped by our signatures. And did we really have a choice?  For there’s no doubt whatsoever that the  vultures are circling. This from DACS earlier this month:

“ In DACS’ view, the CLA is trying to use its market power to reduce the existing 8% share of its revenues that go to visual artists and possibly risk the future of the Payback scheme. DACS has insisted that the existing arrangement should continue until the end of September 2017. This will help manage the transition to any new arrangements and protect our members’ incomes in the interim. To date the CLA has not accepted this.”

The latest is that DACS has now, using the authority we have given them, forced the CLA to accept this – temporary – deal. Only a temporary deal, but a deal none the less.
For this we have paid a heavy price. Let’s be clear. DACS may be on our side. But we have just given a hostage to fortune.

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”