Here’s a quick round-up of some stuff I’ve been reading by way of information and entertainment for your weekend. Whatever you have planned, I hope you find it enjoyable.

Guardian Article - Are Photographers really a threat?
We already know the answer to this question but it’s good to see the Guardian speaking with a reasonable voice on this one.

Look3
James Nachtwey featured at last week’s Look3 event and PDN are running excerpts of an interview he held with Mary Anne Golon together with a video round-up of the festival.

Julian Love - Getting started as a Travel Photographer
Julian’s blog post is a couple of weeks old now but it’s refreshingly free of an false encouragement for budding Travel Photographers. There’s also my own FAQ page if you’re seeking advice and guidance.

Matt Brandon’s vlogging a dead horse
Trying to get an Indian visa in San Francisco can be a problem but at least it gives us a chance to see Matt’s first video blog entry.

How to be creative
The Gaping Void guide to creativity is something that I return to occasionally, if only to remind myself of the first of the 36 steps to creativity: “Ignore everybody”


Mark Tuschman in Bhutan
Lastly, I’ve been looking forward to my Bhutan trip in October (I know, I’ve only just arrived in Bangkok, what can I say, I’m a rolling stone) and enjoying Mark Tuschman’s photos from there. Click on “International” and then “Bhutan” on his site.

Tags: guardian, matt brandon, creativity, bhutan, photography in public places

The debate about photography in public places continues in the UK and it seems to me, through anecdotal evidence, that the perceived level of suspicion of photographers shooting in public places is, if anything, increasing. Thank goodness then for Austin Mitchell and the common-sense Early Day Motion that he's raising in Parliament.

It's reassuring to hear that photographers have such a level-headed champion in the halls of power and refreshing to hear a down-to-earth approach that overcomes the argument of the reactionary and alarmist voices. We all have a right to photograph in public places without being harassed and it if it's true that photographers are increasingly being interrupted, quizzed, questioned and bothered then that's something that we should all be worried about.

Add Photography in public to your page

Tags: politics, photography in public places

When I first saw this poster on the EPUK web site I thought it was some sort of joke, a comment on the apparent desire of a few people in power to increase the level of suspicion in what has become known as the "climate of fear". But I don't think that it is a joke. It seems that this is an actual poster used by the Metropolitan Police. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

Firstly, how is the responsible citizen supposed to decide if a photographer looks "odd"? The poster fails to offer a description or definition. I know quite a few photographers and believe me, if there's one thing we could accurately be described as, it's looking "odd". We're often nerdy types with spectacles and woolly hats and, most suspicious of all, we carry large rucksacks around. So should we prepare to be swooped upon by anti-terrorist forces when we lift a camera to our eye in London these days? Perhaps so.

There's the obvious Orwellian parallel and it's a comparison that's been invoked so often recently that I hope it's not losing impact because it's a valid one. I can't remember who said this on Question Time recently but it's a worryingly accurate observation: "George Orwell's '1984' was written as a warning, not an aspiration".

So I took a look at the Metropolitan Police web site and in particular the page about anti-terrorism, it makes for frightening reading. Examples of "suspicious activity" are listed and here are just three of the things that alert citizens are being asked to report. I quote:

* Mobile phone – Terrorists need communication. Anonymous, pay-as-you-go and stolen mobiles are typical. Have you seen someone with large quantities of mobile phones? Has it made you suspicious?
* Suitcase – Terrorists need to travel. Meetings training and planning can take place anywhere. Do you know someone who travels but is vague about where they are going?
* Padlock – Terrorists need storage. Lock-ups, garages and sheds can all be used by terrorists to store equipment. Are you suspicious of anyone renting a commercial property?"

I realise with some trepidation that not only do I have a garage with a padlock but that I also own a suitcase and am frequently vague about where I'm going. Sometimes that's because I don't know but increasingly it's because I've forgotten. I think it's my age. What was I saying? Oh yes! Luckily, my phone is on a contract, which is a blessing because with a pay-as-you-go mobile phone I'd have hit the triple-whammy and be on my way for interrogation in a windowless room beneath a swinging light bulb. Having said that, I do also possess a passport and credit cards, two more things that the Metropolitan Police would have us view the owners of with suspicion.

Seriously, this stuff is ridiculous and perhaps it's just too easy to point fun at but there's a precedent being set here that we should at least be aware of. Increasing the level of suspicion in our society is surely not the way forward. The product of such behaviour can only be a tendency towards mistrust and further breakdown in the relationships between different sections of our community. I hope I'm not being too simplistic when I wonder if that isn't exactly part of what terrorists aim for?

I've gone on a small rant here, which I hadn't set out to do and clearly there's another side to the argument but it does worry me that the police force are asking people to look at me with suspicion when I do my job. I'm a photographer. It's a worthwhile job that serves the community and, knowing that I use my powers for good, I resent people being asked to look at me suspiciously because I'm carrying a camera. If my ethnic origin were Asian or African I might worry even more about being seen out with a camera in London. Is the kind of society where that's the case really one that we'd be proud of creating?

For the sake of a little balance (not a lot, admittedly) I have been stopped by plain-clothed police in London when I've been working and they were polite and didn't interfere with what I was doing. That's my only personal experience and I should report that. However, at the risk of being terribly predictable, here's the well known Benjamin Franklin quote that I think should be repeated every time we see evidence of a ratcheting up of the "climate of fear" in which we are being asked to live:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither"

PS - having written this "rant" I did a bit of Googling and there's a gaggle of similar blog posts on the web so my apologies for the lack of originality but I feel better for having ranted ;o)

PPS - I wonder what the correct collective noun for "blogs" is? A "boggle" of blogs? A "wibble" of blogs? Answers on a postcard please.

Tags: epuk

The lure of impressive prizes for winners of big photographic competitions can be incredibly tempting and there seem to be an increasing number of competitions appearing that are designed to attract photographers.

The Pro-imaging group has recently announced a campaign to raise awareness of the fact that not all competitions are alike and the terms and conditions that entrants agree to when they submit their entries can see their copyright being grabbed by the competition organisers.

It's known as a "Rights Grab" and can be as innocent as allowing the organisers to use your images to promote the competition to a full-blown transfer of copyright from the entrant to the competition organisers. It seems reasonable to me that competition organisers should be able to use submitted images to promote and publicise their competition but there can be no justification for asking for entrants to give up the copyright to their work.

So, be sure to check out the Terms and Conditions of any competitions that you're thinking of entering and if you're required to give away your copyright then think again. The Pro-imaging campaign has introduced a Rights Off List, featuring those competitions that might be considered to be little more than Rights Grabs and, for sake of balance (we like it when there's a yin and a yang), there's also a Rights On List showing those competitions that "respect photographers' rights". When I checked this evening the Rights Off List was four pages long and the Rights On List was... err... empty.

Sadly, two of the worst culprits at Rights Grabbing are the BBC and the Guardian. Two organisations that one might expect to be a little more ethical in their approach to contributors. Indeed, the Guardian used to have a reputation for respecting its journalists and photographers but it's a reputation that's been looking increasingly tarnished of late. A temporary state of affairs no doubt.

So, if you're a photographer, then Pro-imaging asks you to lobby any trade or pro organisations that you're a member of in an attempt to get more bodies behind the campaign. And if you're tempted by big prizes in a photo competition, read those Terms and Conditions thoroughly and carefully consider the implications before sending off your best images.

Tags: competitions