Press Credential Limitations

Ok question in what situation is it OK for the police to confiscate your gear if you are NOT a ID'd or credentialed member of the "media". Answer - NONE. Theft by force uner the color of authority is still just as illegal as if it were done by a common street thug.

The images any photographer takes are still the property of the photographer NOT the government. We just had a horrible shooting here in the Bay Area where a BART police officer shot and killed a man that was handcuffed and laying on his belly, no threat to anyone. There were dozens of cell videos and even stationary cameras that caught the incident. The policed tried very hard to squelch those videos, and even took some from private owners. But they did not get them all...

Actually there are very few jurisdictions in the US that issues press credentials. If the government is issuing credentials to a select few, then they have some say over who actually becomes the press. So to me other than high security areas like the white house or other potential targets, the government needs to stay out of that business all togeather.

LBaldwin wrote in post #8069657
Ok question in what situation is it OK for the police to confiscate your gear if you are NOT a ID'd or credentialed member of the "media". Answer - NONE. Theft by force uner the color of authority is still just as illegal as if it were done by a common street thug.

The images any photographer takes are still the property of the photographer NOT the government. We just had a horrible shooting here in the Bay Area where a BART police officer shot and killed a man that was handcuffed and laying on his belly, no threat to anyone. There were dozens of cell videos and even stationary cameras that caught the incident. The policed tried very hard to squelch those videos, and even took some from private owners. But they did not get them all...

Actually there are very few jurisdictions in the US that issues press credentials. If the government is issuing credentials to a select few, then they have some say over who actually becomes the press. So to me other than high security areas like the white house or other potential targets, the government needs to stay out of that business all togeather.

Whoa. lol.

**Edit to clarify**

The police can only take your images in two ways. Obtaining a court order, or if you have committed a crime. The level of crime committed can be argued.

Yes, they can seize your memory card for evidence if you photograph a crime scene and are not identified as working press and they arrest you. They are not committing theft by force if they are claiming images for evidence--you will eventually get your gear back. Law enforcement officer's have the right arrest you as a citizen the same as they can arrest a member of the press. The difference is that they cannot seize the working products of a member of the press. As a citizen, your film or memory cards can be filed as evidence. Try and get around that one, I've seen it done--google it buddy.

Calm down about the government intervention. As for what you said about the few jurisdictions in the US that issue press ID's, pretty much every state has a press association. Including yours: http://www.cnpa.com/ The application for ID's comes through them and some of them, such as New Jersey, issue ID's in collaboration with the State Police. The State Police do not say who and who is not press. They work in collaboration with the press associations to correctly identify people that are working press from the people who aren't working press. Basically all they do is put their seal of approval on the ID somewhere, they don't do a background check or anything. If you work for a publication that fits the requirements of a media outlet, then you get ID. The application process is only to weed out people that apply who aren't actually press.

If you'd like to see what a real press ID looks like, I can show you. I have a bunch that have stacked up from year to year.

I do think the "ad hock" freelancers do now, and will always get less of a break. I would assert that there will always be a "getty or AP or AFP" or some organization that is an image/news service company. That as people get cut from small locals and even larger locals or regional companies they may start their own companies but as for "slots" the big companies (whatever their names may be) will always exist and it will be a toss up for the smaller papers and freelancers.

I don't ever think it is supposed to be "all credentials get treated the same", in fact I think that would be the "worst" thing for most press issues.
You could argue a "free press" and that would be all well and fine but not everyone comprehends the responsibility of a free press. Bias is a HUGE problem...even now...imagine it with just random writers with no concept of fact checking or journalistic responsibility?

LBaldwin wrote in post #8060183
Again I think it is situation dependant. For events with a PIO, big names will probably get recognized, but for the beat cop on perimeter even the mighty can get turned away. But the way it is supposed to be (as opposed to reality) is that all credentials get treated the same way...

I have an interesting question though... with news orgs and papers folding on a daily basis, those staffers are now becoming either unemployed or freelancers so... they are not going to have the luxury of a big name any longer to front. What happens then if they still want to work within their field?

They will resort to creating a PJ persona just like the rest of us...

If I start a licensed business and take pictures and supply them to news orgs as an independant, does that make a me less of a journalist? Those letters you used above USED to hold weight, but for many those days are numbered. Everybody cannot shoot for them regardless of talent.

Case in point the mighty Getty having been in serious financial straits for sometime.

Sorry for the sidebar, to a very real extent I am glad to see some of those letters take one to the chin. They were very arrogant for a lot of years.

SOT wrote in post #8074013
I do think the "ad hock" freelancers do now, and will always get less of a break. I would assert that there will always be a "getty or AP or AFP" or some organization that is an image/news service company. That as people get cut from small locals and even larger locals or regional companies they may start their own companies but as for "slots" the big companies (whatever their names may be) will always exist and it will be a toss up for the smaller papers and freelancers.

I don't ever think it is supposed to be "all credentials get treated the same", in fact I think that would be the "worst" thing for most press issues.
You could argue a "free press" and that would be all well and fine but not everyone comprehends the responsibility of a free press. Bias is a HUGE problem...even now...imagine it with just random writers with no concept of fact checking or journalistic responsibility?

No argument at all, but the conglomerates take over and control the flow of in fo, so the "news" is what they say it is. I think the more sources the better we have an understanding of what happens.

But it is not just small papers going out, in fact many of the smaller papers are doing well here in CA. But the large city papers are falling off the cliff. All your awards in a box along with your coffee cup, stapler and now you are a freelancer. But fact checking? Never happens lol..

cheers,