PhotoDude.com

Wed. Jul 13, 2005

More On PhotoTerrorists

Last year, I wrote an article entitled “PhotoTerrorists” about the suspicions photographers have often faced since 9/11. Over the course of this year, I’ve saved a few articles and news items about restrictions placed on photography in public areas. The reasons vary, from alleged protection of “copyrighted material,” to broadly defined “security concerns.” Though the recent attacks in London are what brought this issue to the front of my mind, rather than start with “the arguable,” we’ll start with “the ridiculous.”

How’s this: the next time you go to Paris, and have your photo snapped in front of the Eiffel Tower at night [*] (as millions have done), if you publish it (like, on your web site), you’ve broken the law.

The Eiffel Tower’s likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That’s the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that.

As a result, it’s no longer legal to publish current photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission. Technically, this applies even to amateurs.

Fast Company: Eiffel Tower: Repossessed

Need something closer to home than Paris? How about Chicago?

The Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist Warren Wimmer’s attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor’s sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as “the Bean”). When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot the sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding that they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying that it’s absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to photograph public art in a city-owned park.

Ben Joravsky, the author of the Reader article, attempted to contact park officials for an explanation and received a response from Karen Ryan, press director for the park’s project director:

“The copyrights for the enhancements in Millennium Park are owned by the artist who created them. As such, anyone reproducing the works, especially for commercial purposes, needs the permission of that artist.”

Hence, Millennium Park — a nascent destination for countless citizens and tourists that was built with $270 million in city funds — is slowly emerging as Chicago’s most privatized public space. Photographers beware!

New (sub)Urbanism: The Copyrighting of Public Space

So, you not only get a copyright on the creation, you get control of the copyright of any pictures of the creation, even when that creation is plopped down in the middle of a public park? That’s quite an extension of copyright, but I’m not sure how you’re going to enforce it. How far away do you have to be to say “I’m no longer photographing the sculpture, I’m photographing the part of the park the sculpture is in”? And what if I show up with a 400mm telephoto lens, and set it up 150 yards away?

In the earlier article I wrote on this topic, Noah Grey commented that a security guard had stopped him from shooting a building in downtown LA, due to alleged security concerns … in fact, it was the tallest building in LA.

How exactly do you take a picture of the LA skyline without violating those “security concerns”? Again, how far away do you have to be?

The attacks on the subway system in London brought all this to mind for a couple of reasons, one of which is the memory of what happened when they tried to ban photography on the New York subway system. It was May 22, 2004, when I wrote, “Imagine what will happen if they try to tell New Yorkers they can’t take pictures on the subway. There will be a web site created devoted to nothing but pictures taken on the subway. It will become a big joke.”

Within weeks, it was indeed a big joke. And the prophesied web site appeared. And it worked. The ban never passed, and today MTA regulations explicitly allow photography.

But that’s just the New York subway. In San Francisco, Muni authorities seem to make it up as they go along. This type of thing has become so prevalent, there’s a site about it: “FreedomToPhotograph.com was created to allow photographers to tell their stories about run-ins with law enforcement agencies.”

And it appears it was no different in London, judging by the comment Don Cook left last year: “When I was in London last may, I was waiting at the tube station nearest Big Ben to go back to the hotel. I took a couple of pictures, wide shots pointing at the ends of the station, and security approached and told me I couldn’t take pictures due to security reasons. Since I couldn’t be delayed, I didn’t protest. I sometimes wonder if the folks who make the rules like this really think through the logic of this.”

Perhaps they do, and we simply don’t get it. But I’m thinking the reverse is true. I’m no security expert, but I’m hard pressed to see how surveillance photography of the Tube targets would have [1] been critical to the attack plan, or [2] been very hard to get, regardless of criticality.

As for [1], we’re dealing with public facilities transited by tens of thousands daily, so there is literally no barrier to walking through the attack as many times as they wish, using nothing but their eyes, their memory, and perhaps a map of the transit system. Their plan was not complex … travel together to King’s Row station, depart in different directions, with timers set to go off fifteen to twenty minutes later.

More generically, photos are most helpful to any plan against a hard target; a government building, a military facility, etc. By definition, soft targets are vulnerable to nearly unlimited recon. Why, in many of these places, you’ll even find public benches where you can sit and consider your plan, without looking at all suspicious.

As for [2], technology has completely outstripped the ability to keep images from people. Paul asked jokingly in the previous article, “If you are using a digital device to sample the visual spectrum, are you any longer a ‘photographer?’” But it raises a serious point. If you stop the obvious PhotoBozo like me with a big black clicking 35mm DSLR and huge honkin’ lenses, you haven’t even melted the tip of the iceberg.

First, for any soft target you might imagine, even those where photography is allegedly banned, a little time with the Google image search engine will likely show you photos of it. Second, if you can’t find it online, even at those places where photography is allegedly banned … you can take your cellphone.

Everyone else does. And the attacks in London were a prime example of that:

The mobile phone photographers, the text messagers and the bloggers – a new advance guard of amateur reporters had the London bomb story in the can before the news crews got anywhere near the scene.

Minutes after the bombings occurred in London last Thursday, newsrooms around the capital were being deluged with pictures and video clips sent directly from the scene. The long-predicted democratisation of the media had become a reality, as ordinary members of the public turned photographers and reporters.

Claustrophobic videos shot in smoke-filled, bombed-out London underground carriages, photographs of the blasted No 30 bus and horrific scenes of body-strewn roads were among the most powerful images to emerge. All were shot by members of the public, and some of them became the iconic pictures of the day.

John Ryley, the executive editor of Sky News, says video from the bombed tube between King’s Cross and Russell Square stations was received at 12.40pm and was on air by 1pm. “It raises questions for the authorities but these devices allow a democratisation of news. News crews usually get there just after the event, but these pictures show us the event as it happens,” says Ryley.

One senior BBC broadcaster sums up the effect of mobile phone videos being used on the corporation’s news: “I sat down and watched the Ten O’Clock News last night and thought ‘this is a media turning point’. It was revolutionary.”

Guardian: We had 50 images within an hour

“It raises questions for the authorities.” Yes, it should. As Don’s personal experience shows, authorities don’t want you taking pictures of/in the Tubes. Yet last week showed that hundreds of people can and did, and every day, tens of thousands walk through those same stations with the same photo-broadcasting capabilities.

You simply can’t stop it.

You have to look at the numbers. 99.99% of people who are taking a picture in a public place have no ill intentions whatsoever. As we saw last week, those same people can provide valuable images in the heat of an event.

We now hear that the four bombers were seen together at King’s Row station … in pictures. Granted, they were government controlled closed circuit cameras, but there is a lesson there nonetheless.

Someday there will be an attack that will be solved in part by photos taken at the scene by random citizens, not from government cameras. You have to look at the numbers. 99.99% of people with a cellphone or camera want to help you stop the terrorists.

You might as well let them. Because you can’t stop them.