TawNews

Posted By fotdmike on July 4, 2010

Associated Newspapers Ltd are up in arms about a spoof edition “Metro”, their solicitors claiming that “It is an intangible damage to my client’s goodwill, that is, it effects [sic] what people will think about its product.”

This, from Press Action, just received:

4 July 2010

The Metro has obtained a High Court injunction against “all persons responsible for the publication and/or distribution” of a Metro spoof paper that was distributed by campaigners at London tube stations on Friday morning. But since the spoof was produced and distributed anonymously, the injunction seems to have been served upon the wrong people, in what appears to be a guilty-by-association verdict.

The spoof paper, which has also been circulated on the web, has a similar masthead and layout to the free daily, with a zero instead of the O. The owners of Metro, Associated Newspapers Limited, claim this is an infringement of the company’s trademark copyrights, while campaigners argue the company directors “do not have a sense of humour” and have “gone too far in suppressing free speech to protect their commercial interests.”

Under the headline “Gordon Brown to be deported to Scotland,” the front frontpage story claimed the former prime minister was facing imminent removal back to his “home country,” as the new coalition government introduced new immigration rules that imposed further restrictions on “non-English nationals.” Alongside the article, a manipulated picture showed Gordon Brown being arrested by two policemen at a beer festival in Cambridge.

Tens of thousands of copies of the spoof paper were distributed by 50 or so people wearing white T-shirts bearing the Metro logo during rush hour at 20 busy stations around the capital. The ‘spoofing operation’ was apparently part of ‘two days of action against racist press’, called by a coalition of anti-racist and migrant rights groups under the name Press Action. A blog bearing the same name had been set up about a month before, with the aim of “exposing and taking action against racist and anti-migrant bias in mainstream media.”

The callout for the days of action, circulated around various campaign websites and mailing lists, had called upon “all concerned groups and individuals to stand up to counter fear with action on the 2nd and 3rd July” and “put the racist press in the spotlight” by taking “autonomous, decentralised actions and protests against racist press across the UK.”

Represented by Bird & Bird LLP, Associated Newspapers sought a High Court injunction until 10:30am on Monday, ordering the respondents to “not publish or distribute in any way (including by way of the Internet) any publication which purports to be ‘Metro’ or any other publication of the applicant.” The legal action seems to have stemmed from an assumption that the spoof might be distributed again on Saturday, which turned out to be unfounded speculation and a waste of judges’ time.

A copy of the injunction order was subsequently sent by Katharine Stephens of Bird & Bird to the people running the Press Action blog, presuming they were behind the spoof. A statement by Press Action, however, said they “had nothing to do with the publication and distribution of the spoof” and had merely received an electronic copy from the anonymous spoofers, along with a press release, which they then circulated and posted on their blog.

The blog has since taken the spoof down but it can be accessed on numerous other activists and websites. A statement by Press Action maintained that, “despite not being the respondents, we have complied with the court order as a gesture of goodwill.”

Metro’s official website had also been spoofed as part of the spoofing operation, with a similar layout but with the spoof paper’s content instead, and a web link (URL) substituting the O with zero (www.metr0.co.uk).

It is understood that Associated Newspapers has also contacted the US-based company that apparently hosts the spoof site, asking that they take it down, which they have refused to do, according to the injunction hearing records.

A Whois check on the spoof website shows that it registered under the name ‘Press Action’ and an address in Whitechapel, London, that belongs to a social centre known as the London Action Resource Centre.

LARC describes itself as a “collectively run building providing space and resources for different activist groups” and is, indeed, used by many people who do not necessarily know each other or know what the others might be doing.

A spokesperson for Press Action said: “It is very likely that whoever did the spoof was inspired by our callout and wanted to use our name and register the domain with a common address, such as LARC’s, to protect their anonymity. To argue that LARC is “clearly involved with the two days of action,” as the Metro solicitors did in court, is just a desperate search for a scapegoat that is guilty by association.”

Asked by the judge what damage the spoof had caused their client, the Associated Newspapers solicitors argued that the Metro “avowedly doesn’t take a political stance. The damage to the brand and goodwill [of the paper's owners] is unquantifiable. The people behind the spoof are avowedly political. They are piggybacking on the goodwill built up in the brand since 1999 to espouse their own political cause.”

Unconvinced by this argument, and repeatedly expressing his concern that “this is a case of make haste and repent at leisure,” the judge asks, “Are you seriously suggesting that your clients will suffer damage [as a result of the spoof]?” to which the solicitor replies, “It is an intangible damage to my client’s goodwill, that is, it effects [sic] what people will think about its product.”

-ends-

Press Action

The callout can be found here

The Metr0 press release can be found on Indymedia

=============

So who exactly are Associated Newspapers then? Well, according to their website:

“Associated Newspapers is one of the UK’s largest publishers of national newspapers and consumer websites. We publish two of the UK’s most influential paid-for newspapers, the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, as well as the country’s most-read free newspaper, in the form of the national title Metro. As well as the newspapers’ companion websites (including MailOnline and Metro.co.uk), our portfolio includes brands such as Loot, thisismoney and 7DAYS in Dubai.
Associated Newspapers, along with Northcliffe Media and Associated Northcliffe Digital, forms A&N Media, a division of DMGT.”

Ah yes. I understand.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Category: Citizen Journalism, In the Court, Press Bias | No Comments »
Tags: associated newspapers, injunction, larc, media, metro, press action, racism, spoof

Posted By fotdmike on June 28, 2010

A little while back, on my rather less-than-serious personal blog, I rabbited on a bit about incidents of alleged harassment of photographers by the cops, private security types, and even paranoid joe public.

My take on a lot of these incidents is that many of them may likely have escalated because of the attitude of the photographers themselves. Now that was purely speculation on my part of course, but based on a) having witnessed how some folk can react to such questioning, and b) my own experiences.

However, there’s definitely a more sinister aspect to all of this and, make no mistake about it, I come down firmly on the side of supporting the principle of photographers’ freedom to capture images in public places. Especially when it comes to “news gathering” type activities. Particularly those where the police are involved.

Protests and demonstrations and the like for example.

Vested interest here of course. Because photographically documenting such events tends to be my speciality. Why it has become my speciality is another matter entirely. The fact that I may be somewhat sympathetic to the protesters, or what the demonstration’s about, is totally irrelevant.

That may be why I came to adopt it as a speciality in the first place, but it doesn’t alter the fact that when I have my “photojourno hat” on my presence at such events is not to take part per se but to document what’s happening.
And, all too frequently, what’s happening is nasty doings by the police.

Based on stuff I’ve witnessed myself, I’ve long held the belief that so many protests and suchlike get a bit out of hand largely through provocations on the part of said police.

Case in point was last year’s Climate Camp at Blackheath in London, with one particular event springing instantly to mind… the march from the Camp on Blackheath Common into London (Canary Wharf to be precise) and subsequent demo outside Barclays Bank there. Noisy, yes. Seemingly a bit haphazard, yes. A bit of graffiti outside the Bank, yes.
But serious incidents? Real damage? Acts of violence? None! Not even a hint.

And the entire event was remarkable by the almost total absence (visibly at least) of the police. Which, naturally, I reported on at the time (well, shortly after actually, once I’d returned back home and marshalled my thoughts into some sort of order).

Moral of the story? No police… no nasty incidents, alleged “rioting” or whatever.

Undoubtedly this low-profile policing (almost to the point of non-existent policing) was the cops’ response to the huge amount of flak they’d received over the policing of the previous year’s Climate Camp, at Kingsnorth in Kent. On which, of course, I’d also reported.

But little of that would have gained so much attention from the mainstream media (the police tactics I’d witnessed at Kingsnorth not being particularly uncommon, although the mainstream media rarely report on them) had it not been for the violent incidents that occurred at the later G20 protests in London at the beginning of April ’09.

And here we come to the whole crux of the matter.

For those incidents, the ones at the G20 protests, would likely never have come to light had it not been for images (principally video as it happens) captured on camera. Incidents of undoubted police brutality… unwarranted and unprovoked.
Interestingly, it wasn’t mainstream media that had documented these incidents, but ordinary onlookers, “citizen journalists”, and alternative media. (Read what you will into that!)

That the mainstream media (led by The Guardian as I recollect) decided to jump on the bandwagon only after having received a video clip sent to them by a member of joe public is somewhat revealing.

This is why (or at least, one of the main reasons why) it is so important that the freedom of photographers to go about their business (using that word in a figurative sense, for I don’t just mean professional photographers, accredited photojournalists and the like; but anyone wielding a camera) in public places should be rigorously defended.

A freedom that many “in the trade” so to speak were fearful of losing following the introduction of that ambiguously worded (deliberately, one wonders?) Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. A piece of legislation that theoretically could be used to prevent anyone from photographing the police in any situation whatsoever.

A large part of living in an allegedly “free and democratic” society is the concept of freedom of information. The right of the public to be informed, and to be kept informed, of events happening around them.
That role, of informing, is largely served (or should be) by the media. Be that mainstream, alternative, or whatever. But not exclusively by the media. It can also and quite rightly be served by ordinary joe bloggs… documenting, recording, and communicating.

Any attempt (whether through legislation, police abuse of power, or whatever) to suppress or censor this flow of information, this documenting of events, should be challenged and opposed wherever possible.
And those seeking to implement such suppression or censorship should be called to account, visibly, publicly, and with consequences.

That’s my opinion anyway.

So it was with some glee that I read this latest bit of news on not entirely unrelated matters in the Press Gazette…

Police pay damages and apologise to photojournalists

The Metropolitan Police has apologised and paid damages to two photojournalists after its officers prevented them from covering a protest outside the Greek Embassy.
Marc Vallée and Jason Parkinson were prevented from capture images [sic] of the protest in December 2008 by officers from the Met’s diplomatic protection group.
The London protests were a reaction to an incident in Greece where a young boy had been killed by the Greek police force.
Vallée had his camera pulled away from his face and the lens of Parkinson’s video camera was covered by officers.
The two men were then told by officers they were not permitted to film them.
The Metropolitan Police last week admitted the pair were unlawfully prevented from reporting by its officers and accepted liability for breaching both journalists’ rights to freedom of expression – as detailed in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Each man was paid legal costs by the Met and damages of £3,500… Read more

Quite right too. All that remains is for me to try to get myself stopped from photographing police at the next event I attend. Cos a few grand would come in mighty handy!

[Article also posted at "Adventures of an Idiot"]

[Edited 28-06-2010 23:17hrs to add the following: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that all protests and demonstrations develop peacefully absent a police presence. That's a nonsense, for clearly some don't. But all too often the presence of police employing a heavy-handed approach exacerbates rather than pacifies potentially explosive situations.]

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Category: Citizen Journalism, Cops | 1 Comment »
Tags: censorship, damages, harassment, metropolitan police, photojournalism, photojournalists, protests

Posted By fotdmike on June 8, 2010

This, from Viva Palestina…

Viva Palestina founder George Galloway, speaking to a crowd of around 20,000 protesting outside the Israeli Embassy in London (on Saturday 5th June) revealed the latest plan to bring about the end of the siege on Gaza.

Two simultaneous convoys – one by land the other by sea – will set forth on Sunday September 12th bound for Gaza. Viva Palestina, the International Committee to break the Siege on Gaza and any allies who will join us will organise the two convoys.

The land convoy will leave from London and travel across Europe to Turkey Syria and ultimately through the Rafah Gate into Gaza. Co-operation will be offered and sought with all relevant governments and agencies.

It is expected the convoy will pick up vehicles and volunteers in each country through which it passes. The target is to enter Gaza with 500 vehicles.

The sea convoy will travel around the Mediterranean gathering ships, cargo, volunteers from each country. The target is to enter Gaza with sixty ships.

The aim will be to arrive on Gaza’s frontiers at the same time. And to enter with the world’s largest ever aid convoys. And to thereby render the siege null and void.

For further information on how to join the ‘Viva Palestina’ September Gaza aid convoy by land and by sea, sign up to receive emails through the Viva Palestina website www.vivapalestina.org and through its sister website Viva Palestina Arabia

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Category: Antiwar, Campaigns, Events | No Comments »
Tags: convoy, gaza, george galloway, humanitarian aid, israel, siege, viva palestina