New Years Eve Celebrations in New York City, USA (USA). December 2011 Contact for licensing. Photo © Jules Mattsson.

March in Central London as public-sector strike action takes place. 30/11/2011

Nightlife: Young couple cry after attack in Soho bar. 01/11/2011

Police line advances during clashes around the Pembury Estate in Hackney as disorder continues across London. 08/08/2011

Two women run from their burning home as disorder breaks out on Tottenham High Road in North London, following police shooting of 29 year-old Mark Duggan. 07/08/2011

Tottenham Rioting 07/08/2011

Tottenham Rioting 07/08/2011

News corporation boss Rupert Murdoch leaves his London home at the height of the phone-hacking scandal. 11/07/2011

Women arrested during protests in Central London as major public-sector strike action takes place. 30/06/2011

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrives at his extradition appeal hearing at London's High Court. 13/07/2011

Couple kiss during nighttime celebrations after the London Pride parade. 02/07/2011

Obama & Cameron families greet media at Downing Street during a visit by the US president on 24/05/2011.

Police officer attacked by demonstrators as clashes ensue during an anti-austerity march in London. 26/03/2011

And a couple from 2010:

Fish caught in Canary Wharf. 2010

Student protests, Millbank. Nov 2010.

And, finally, happy xmas 2011 Student Protest 09/11/2011

Some of the disgusting practices of ‘pap’ photographers described by witnesses are already illegal and require a combination of enforcement of existing law and wider changes to affect the market for unethical images. Creating tough, new draconian laws to appear to be taking action is not a solution.

Any such law, like a french-style privacy law that would have that effect, would obliterate news coverage, investigative journalism, street photography, photojournalism and many other areas of documenting visual reality. Numerous examples of photos that couldn’t exist with this sort of law have been put forward, from coverage of riots & disorder through to the 7/7 aftermath to Oliver Letwin putting documents in a bin, amazing crime pictures like this and many more day to day examples. Not to mention footage like the assault on Ian Tomlinson during the G20 or the beating of Rodney King in the US. A kneejerk legislative reaction here could have far reaching consequences…

The NUJ is continually consulting members to make further representation to the inquiry and the BPPA are asking for core participant status in order to counter some of the attacks on photography. Taking pictures in public either without permission of the subject or against the will of the subject is a vital right within a democratic country and nessercary for a free press. The concept of no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces is one we have to defend. If we were to only be able to photograph what people want us to, would we not become merely PR photographers rather than journalists? Would people be willing to accept superinjunctions or the need for approval from the subject before writing a critical article? Why accept it with photographs…

Here’s my small contribution to the debate, a few recent photographs of mine taken without any permission from the subjects, and where asking permission would either have been impossible, disrupted the moment or would not have been given.

You can see more of my news work here on my blog or in my portfolio.

I think the British Press Photographer’s Association are planning a large and amazing ‘Photos you May Never See Again’ set so watch for it.

Please do have a read through some of the blogs & articles i’ve linked to above. I leave you with this open letter from award-winning photographer Christopher Pledger:

“The testimony of witnesses this week at the Leveson inquiry has included damning condemnation of the behaviour of the paparazzi. Both the celebrity and ‘ordinary’ victims of phone hacking have told of being chased, spat at and terrified by photographers. These experiences could have fatal consequences for the news photographer, a vital part of a truly free press

There are important distinctions to be made between a paparazzo and a press photographer. A comparison of the two is like that between the cowboy builder and a professional tradesman. It is also important to distinguish between the paparazzi and celebrity photographers. Celebrity photographers work with the permission, and often to the benefit of, their subjects. This can range from red carpet premieres to organised and set up photo shoots of a celebrity out shopping or on the beach. I do not class them in my definition of paparazzi. Lacking moral or ethical guidance the paparazzi work with little respect for the law. The composition, quality, or origin of a photograph is a distant second to its commercial value. Paparazzi agencies will often employ people with little or no knowledge of photography. The agency will provide cameras with settings taped over so they cannot be changed. It is not a photographer that is sent out of the office, simply a man with a camera.

Press photographers by contrast are skilled professionals with years of training and experience. They work within the strict guidelines of both the Press Complaints Commission and their newspaper or news agency. These guidelines include respecting both peoples right to privacy and the boundaries of private property. A good news photograph will be technically excellent and able to tell the story in a single frame. In contrast to the paparazzi financial rewards are low.

This is not to imply that all press photographers are angelic super-humans working to expose the truth to an unwitting public. Like any industry there are a minority of ‘rogue traders’ who are prepared to bend or break the rules to get a picture.

The problem for legitimate press photographers is they are seen as no different from the paparazzi. Regardless of the assignment they are covering all press photographers now experience regular abuse from strangers in the street. When photographing something as mundane as a the outside of a high street bank it is not uncommon to hear shouts of ‘pap scum’ or ‘leave them alone’ from passers by. If a group of press photographers are gathered outside a court or government building the first question asked by curious passers-by is not ‘what’s happening?’ but ‘which famous person is coming?’.

The problem of public perception stems from two different sources, celebrity magazine culture and television news. The dominant celebrity culture makes it hard to avoid a constant stream of images cataloguing the daily lives of the A to Z list. It is no surprise that the general public perceive the primary role of photographers as being to feed this machine. The problem is complicated by disreputable publications being prepared to buy pictures on a ‘no questions asked’ basis. This makes it hard to distinguish between photographers working in a professional way and those who aren’t.

Television news coverage is the other major factor in the problem of perception. During most stories a clip of press photographers is included as a ‘cut away’ shot to add visual interest. If the clip includes the subject of a story being surrounded by the media reporters will often refer to a scrum of photographers. This ignores the numerous TV cameras both in the scrum and filming from a distance. This has been demonstrated during TV reports on the Leveson inquiry. Press photographers have been working from an official area behind a barrier to give witnesses arriving space. TV reports have consistently referred to ‘hordes of photographers’ while ignoring the seven video cameras surrounding witnesses as they arrive. By using these tactics TV news aim to draw a distinction between the dirty press and the clean media. In doing so they may perhaps be driving the Leveson inquiry toward concluding tough privacy laws are required, privacy laws that will include a ban on photographing people in public without their permission.

A ban of this type would be the death of the free press in the UK. Current guidelines require that individuals should not be photographed while they have ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy’. In practical terms this means anyone in a public place can be photographed without permission, as they cannot expect privacy in a public space. If laws were introduced requiring the written consent of an individual before they were photographed, it would mean press photographers would have to ignore events unfolding before them. Some of the biggest news stories in the last year could not have been reported. Pictures of Charlie Gilmour swinging from the Cenotaph would have been taken illegally, likewise pictures of Oliver Letwin disposing of government documents in a park bin. Press photographers would be as ham strung as reporters prevented from covering stories of public interest that are subject to super injunctions.

The problem of finding a solution that avoids this type of privacy law is extremely difficult. Legitimate press photographers already have licensed press cards that are required to be shown to work in places like Downing Street. This system has not stopped any of the behaviour reported this week, or prevented the use of faked press cards. Digital cameras are cheap and easy to use making it hard for anybody to distinguish between professional and amateur, press photographer and paparazzo. If 99 out of 100 photographers comply with a code of conduct, one will always break the rules and tar the rest with the same brush. Introducing government or police regulation and control over licensing of press photographers would affect impartiality and freedom.

It would be very hard to argue that there can be no changes following the Leveson inquiry. We must be very careful what these changes are and where they will take us. Press photographers are in danger of being so restrained by regulation that we become like the fire fighter who cannot enter a burning building for fear of breaking health and safety regulations.

These are my personal views and are not intended to be representative of any organisation I work for as a freelance photographer. Christopher Pledger.”

All images © Jules Mattsson. No part of any material may be stored, reproduced, manipulated or transmitted by any means without permission. All rights reserved.

All images © Jules Mattsson. No part of any material may be stored, reproduced, manipulated or transmitted by any means without permission. All rights reserved.

Firstly, disclaimer; I am not a lawyer or copyright expert, I am not qualified to give legal advice and what you do with this information is in no way my responsibility. Secondly, I am writing this specifically around twitter pictures which are so widely stolen, but the basic principles are universal. And finally, this is by no means a substitute for legal advice, you’re always best off talking to a good lawyer.

With the proliferation of phones capable of taking photos and sharing them instantly via social networks has come an attitude from news organisations that these images are somehow not subject to normal copyright. This is completely wrong, and you can do something about it.

A quick twitter picture of mine, lifted without permission by a news organisation to illustrate a story. (Along with several others). The organisation has an annual budget of approximately €80 million, and initially refused to pay.

This practice by some reporters and editors has it’s roots in eyewitness collects, where a photographer or journalist tries to get photos of something from bystanders after arriving on the scene. This is legal as the creator is agreeing to the use, giving a ‘license’ to the organisation, sometimes in return for a one-off payment or a percentage of sales if spec, sometimes for free. However in an instant age many people are likely to take a photo on a smartphone and immediately tweet or otherwise share it, rendering the traditional collect outdated.

The process has unfortunately mutated into something wrong, dishonest and based on legal fallacies on the part of the organisations. Many reporters & picture desks routinely take photos from twitter-centred hosting services such as twitpic*, yfrog etc. and use them (mostly online) without consent. Some ask permission and do things legally but many more show a flagrant disregard for copyright. As a news photographer, I often live-tweet when covering major events, and have seen these pictures appear without permission in a number of outlets. While these images are not my main sellable work, they are by no means copyright-free and I chase them the same as any other infringement.

(* I will use twitpic as a general term through this piece, but mean all similar sites)

Why do they continue to do this?

The only reason news sites use these mobile photos, which are often of a poor quality, over the many legal sources of licensable news images (freelancers, agencies, wire services) which usually aren’t far behind in terms of speed is because they view them as free. This has a knock-on effect on professional photographers as demand for their work is dented by the proliferation of apparently ‘free’ content.

The continuance of this process is a vicious circle and harmful to everyone involved. It harms the content creator who’s work is taken illegally, it harms the professionals who cover news events as they’re undercut by free content and, finally, it harms the public as they are presented with low quality visual journalism without a guarantee of professionalism or ethical sourcing. It only benefits the profits of the company.

How do I know if my photos have been taken?

Google search by image. It’s magic! Ping a photo through this and if it’s been used anywhere on the web, it’ll probably find it.

Checking your photos with this is a good habit to get into, and made even easier with the right-click browser plugins.

Alternatively, a similar service called tineye exists, but personally I find google much more effective.

So, what do we do?

Well knowledge is power, if you’ve had one of your twitpics etc. nicked and want to do something then you need to arm yourself with the facts. Firstly, an image (as with any other work) is copyright from the moment of creation and there’s no need to register it or anything in the UK (If you’re a serious photographer, you may what to consider registering them in the US to protect against infringements located there). An image is copyright unless specifically stated otherwise, ‘assuming’ it’s free to use is not a defense. The main law that applies to copyright infringement in the UK is the Copyright, Design & Patents Act (CDPA), your photos are defined by the act as ‘artistic works’.

Often an infringer will claim ‘fair use’ or ‘public domain’ when challenged on stealing an image, or will claim it is a mistake rather than matter of custom & practice, refusing to pay. Firstly, it’s very unlikely the image is fair use, and much more likely they’re pulling excuses out of nowhere . Fair use is detailed quite well here, and the main point is the ‘news reporting’ exemption does NOT apply to photographs, leaving most infringers without a legal leg to stand on. Secondly, unless you have specifically put the image in the public domain, it is not. Simple as that. They may feel that because they saw the picture on the internet/flickr/twitpic type site etc. that the rules are different, they are not.

Some of the public domain claims around twitpics stem from people misunderstanding twitter’s terms of service and how it applies to linked content such as images. The license you grant to your ‘content’ by posting it on twitter essentially allows complete re-use for any purpose, which means that taking the content of your ‘tweet’ and quoting, copying, displaying, broadcasting etc. is probably not a copyright infringement. However, the key point, is what is content? Content is the text contained in the ‘tweet’ post, and photos on twitter are mostly linked to and hosted by other providers.

What does this mean? Those terms for twitter apply to the text, not things linked to. By the logic some organisations use to claim this applies to photos hosted externally; it could be claimed that anything linked to by a twitter user becomes subject to twitter’s conditions. Thankfully, this is completely false. Depending on which photo host you use (yfrog, twitpic, MobyPicture* etc), the terms in place on your images will differ. (*MobyPicture comes highly recommended for clearest terms and caring most about user’s IP rights).

The terms of service:

• Yfrog; Other than the option to link to the yfrog page of your image, the only other allowed use is

Third parties may request permission to use your content by contacting you directly.

• Twitpic; Huge rights grab for them to use your pics, which should concern you, but pretty clear that anyone can’t just take them

All content uploaded to Twitpic is copyright the respective owners. The owners retain full rights to distribute their own work without prior consent from Twitpic. It is not acceptable to copy or save another user’s content from Twitpic and upload to other sites for redistribution and dissemination.

• MobyPicture; Clear, concise and very ethical. Highly recommended.

All rights of uploaded content by our users remain the property of our users and those rights can in no means be sold or used in a commercial way by Mobypicture or affiliated third party partners without consent from the user.

That’s the three main ones. And what about images uploaded directly through twitter with their new-ish built in photos feature? The photos are not hosted by twitter, and once again are not part of the ‘content’ but rather an externally hosted file that’s linked to, even though that’s done through twitter’s interface. The images themselves are hosted by Photobucket. Their conditions are also an awful rights grab in terms of what rights you give them to your pictures, but does that still mean anyone can’t just take them? Well, see the links. To me, i’d read this and run a mile, it’s so open to interpretation. But if it’s too late and you find an image nicked from there and used commercially, and the infringer comes back quoting this, you need proper legal advice. These are just a few of the photo hosting providers, all will have their terms online somewhere.

We have the facts, what now?

So, now we’ve got the basics of the copyright status of your work, the different excuses you’re likely to hear and what the applicable laws are, we’ll move on to what to do if you find an image stolen and used commercially? You have to decide what redress you want from it, do you just want the photo taken down and an apology or do you feel the organisation should pay you the licensing costs for the infringement? Personally speaking, I don’t think infringement should ever be a cheaper route to use than a proper license, and if people don’t hit infringers where it hurts then they’ll just keep doing it as a matter of practice due to the financial risk being so low.

What to charge?

If you want to go ahead and charge them for the use, you need to work out a figure. This is where the NUJ Fees Guide comes in to set established industry rates, and explains to the infringer where the amount you’re asking for has come from. Assuming it’s been used online and in news reporting, the editorial section here is what you need. Then, double it* for infringement. (*The advice in this link mostly applies to NUJ members & pros but principles are the same).

Making them Pay

Once you’ve taken a screenshot of the infringements for evidence and got your facts in order, next step is to approach the infringer regarding the theft. A polite but clear email, linking to their use of the image, where you put it online/they took it from & the terms and conditions applicable to the image, stating that they used it without your permission and you’re treating it as copyright infringement, is a good start. Make sure you attach any screenshots etc. showing it and mention in your email that you want the content taken down immediately and you will be charging them for the use. You can either draw up an invoice and attach it, with what you’re charging and what it’s based on, or include it in the body of the message. They will most likely ask you for an invoice at some point in the process, but you don’t have to start with it. Try to send this to a general contact email, the picture desk/editor/accounts department are good to CC in if you can find their details.

I won’t tell you what to write, or how to say it, as that would be legal advice and it all depends on the circumstances. If in any doubt, consult a lawyer. Run off a checklist in your head before to send it to make sure that all the necessary information is there (what, where, when, what you want done, how much you’re charging and what this figure’s based on etc) and your contact details. It may also be worth stating that you wish the invoice/amount to be paid within 30 days. If you set a fair time limit, you have the right to charge late payment fees.

Wait…

If you don’t hear anything back within a couple of days, it may be worth following up with a phone call/email to the picture desk or editor to confirm their receipt. They will most likely come back with one of the excuses above, or they may apologise but still refuse to pay. They have broken civil & criminal law with their actions, so they’re very much on the back foot. If you correct any false statements they make and continue to insist on the payment of the amount invoiced then they will most likely pay. If they say something like ‘we don’t pay that much for photos, we’ll pay you £x’, it’s worth remembering that the value of the work is determined by it’s creator, not them, and you have the backup of basing your figures on industry standards. They wouldn’t take a product, use it, then when made to pay the cost back insist on paying what they feel it’s worth in any other area of life, why let them get away with it here?

If they refuse?

If they adamantly refuse to pay, issue a final demand for payment, stating that you will commence legal action for the amount invoiced plus late payment fees, court & legal costs and any other damages the court may see fit to award. If they still refuse, it’s time to get a lawyer.

But I don’t want to go to court!

Don’t worry, even if things have gotten this far and they’re not moving, as soon as they receive a scary Letter Before Action from a lawyer, they’ll probably pay (and your legal cost of getting the letter drawn up). If they don’t and you want to take it forward, don’t be scared of taking legal action, your solicitor will guide you through the process. Cases for payment are generally quite straightforward and can often be dealt with in small claims, as long as you can evidence the infringement and explain the reasoning behind the amount of money you’re asking for.

Complications:

• They won’t take it down without a DMCA notice? You can do this yourself with a little research, or get a solicitor to send one.
• The infringer’s in another EU country? They’re covered by European Small Claims procedures.
• The infringer’s in the US? Unless the image is US © Registered, it may not be worth it. Get legal advice.
• The infringer’s somewhere else in the world? May not be worth it. Get legal advice.
• Anything else? Get legal advice. This applies to any confusion, complication or just generally as a good idea.

Have I missed anything? Drop a comment below, same applies if you’ve found the piece helpful etc.

I can’t and won’t offer legal advice in your specific case, talk to a solicitor. IPP* come highly recommended if they’ll take your case, but any solicitor should be able to handle a simple case and specialist ones aren’t hard to find. (* At the time of writing, their site appears to be down)

All images © Jules Mattsson. No part of any material may be stored, reproduced, manipulated or transmitted by any means without permission. All rights reserved.

The piece is not complete, I will add to and edit the images shown on this page as time goes on. New updates will be tweeted. Some images are also up on flickr and 500px. All images © Jules Mattsson. EDITORIAL USE ONLY, NO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

Contact for rights-managed editorial licensing.

Images not available for licensing.

The photograph, from March 26th protests in London, was incidentally widely infringed during recent riots; published under claims that the image was taken in Birmingham, August 2011. This infringement by a major news agency is an ongoing matter.

This photograph, that was removed from the work album on my account, allegedly violates facebook’s ‘rights and responsibilities’ statement.

The only sections of this statement that seems to possibly apply are:

“5.1 You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.”

“3.7 You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.”

Except, UK law is clear: there is no right to privacy in a public place, especially not whilst involved in a news event. Furthermore consent is not required for editorial & journalistic publication. This image neither violates any individual’s personality or privacy rights nor any known law.

As for the description of this image as ‘graphic or gratuitous violence’, I take issue. In comparison to many photojournalistic images, this could hardy be described as graphic. And if accurately reporting on violence that occurred during a major news story is to be considered gratuitous then I would suggest their priorities are somewhat skewed. Their individual moral judgement regarding what’s taking place in the image has nothing to do with it’s publication. All the photograph is doing is reporting what took place comprehensively and accurately, in full accordance with clause one of the american NPPA‘s code of ethics:

“Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.”

After seeing this message, I continued and was made to re-agree to their terms as well as being threatened with account suspension if I repeated my actions.

This bemuses and worries me. A piece of accurate journalistic material that has no legal issues has been deleted without warning, hardly the great firewall and yet a form of internet censorship I find hard to swallow.

I was annoyed and immediately phoned the Facebook UK press officer to express my concerns, following up with emails to the press team in the UK and the abuse reporting team in the US, requesting the image to be restored along with an apology. I still await their response in writing.

I’d consider this to almost be a form of censorship, incompatible with freedom of expression and accurate reporting principles. The photo was in a public place, reporting news and shows what happened. Just as removing a factual paragraph from a news story prevents the piece from reporting events wholly and accurately, the removal of one image from a set presents the same issue.

If visual news is to be sanitized in this way, with the distasteful elements considered inappropriate, surely it is impossible to present an accurate record of what takes place in situations of any disorder? Whilst Facebook is not a major outlet of my work, but rather one of several social networking websites that I use, like most, to share & display small samples of content with friends & colleagues, this still concerns me.

To describe this image as somehow too graphic or violent for public consumption is an insult both to the abilities of the public to understand news and to the photojournalists who document far more unpleasant and serious situations in their day to day work. This picture is nothing more than a factual, visual record of what took place; reporting on a news story using a photographic medium. There would be rightful uproar if web hosts and social networks deleted written accounts of news because they objected, so why is it acceptable to destroy visual journalism? Social media is arguably part of the fabric of communication and society, companies have responsibilites to their users and the public. Are they properly taking them into account when making this sort of decision?

Photographers and the police have often been at odds in the past, especially the targeting of newsgatherers working in public order situations. However, the targeted suspicion of public photography in the name of preventing terrorism is a worryingly new phenomenon.

Section 44 became a battleground for photography campaigners as the extent to which it was being used as a catch-all to target people using cameras, who had broken no known law, became evident. This search power, along with the ambiguous and controversial Section 76 offence under terror laws and police adverts targeting cameras as suspicious led to what some described as a ‘war on photography’ by the state. A combination of wide legislative powers and misunderstanding/unclear briefings to officers the ground has led to major problems.

Over 100,000 people have been searched under the Sec.44 Terrorism Act powers, that required no reasonable suspicion and were later ruled unlawful and changed. Not a single person was ever arrested for terrorism offences after being subject to a section 44 search.

These events and the reaction of authorities have not only made photography a suspect act but have also made frontline newsgathering more difficult, with journalists unlawfully treated covering protests, local news and even a wedding as police continue to misunderstand and misuse the law, in a wider climate of hostility towards photographers. These incidents are but a small sample of a wider problem.

The issues are broad, from ‘hostile reconnaissance‘ fears and police powers to unlawful prevention of photographers from covering news, police attacks and surveillance of journalists in public order and ridiculous fears of pedophilia affecting the right to document news and the world around us. The battle between the photographic community and a combination of clueless cops and a draconian legislature still continues, and while the scrapping of S44 was a great step in the right direction, there’s still a long way to go for press freedom campaigners.

On the subject of the ‘suspicious activity’ reporting that photographers often fall afoul of, this is a very good video from the US:

Blair is right when he says the 9/11 attacks ‘changed everything’, as a result of legislative reaction here and in the US we now have legislation on the books that’s incompatible with basic civil liberties principles,  more fearful and controlled societies and are we any safer for it?