Braniff747SP
Service Attendant
The guy was perfectly friendly -a far cry from others- and I don't think he cared; I think that he just did not want to let it be obvious that I was taking pictures.
Photo Policies of Amtrak and other Transit Agencies
- Thread starter Ryan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
darien-l
OBS Chief
I'm happy with Amtrak's photography policy except for the following:
This makes no sense, because for the vast majority of Amtrak stations, platforms are public spaces and do not require a ticket to access. There are a handful of exceptions, all in large cities, but at hundreds of smaller stations platforms are not limited to ticketed passengers, and, in fact, in many cases it's not even possible to purchase a ticket, except by mail or onboard the train.
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
How is taking a picture engaging in threatening behavior? Once again people of the badge abusing their power just cause they can get away with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
George Harris
Engineer
Hey! Get the chip off your shoulder. There are quite a few people that do not want their faces in random pictures by strangers, and I think that is quite reasonable. It is a personal privacy issue. That is likewise true for employees at their jobs. Their are so many nit-picking rules that it very easy to be caught violating one in a picture. A very simple example: Take off your hard hat to wipe sweat off your head. It would be off for less than a minute and done in a location and at a time where there would be no real danger, BUT it would violate a rule. While it would probably be a non-issue to any management on the site, if caught in a picture, there would be no way of knowing if the hat had been off for 30 seconds or 30 minutes or all day. Rules violation! Get off the site and pick up your paycheck.
Ryan
Court Jester
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
As usual, I think the best policy is to let common sense prevail. If you intend to use a person as the primary subject, it is good etiquette to ask for permission. OTOH, if the person is incidental to the photo and the absence of said person will not in any way diminish the core purpose of the photo, then it is fair game. At least that is the rule that I generally go by, and even more stringently when I have the intention to publish the photo somewhere public.
For example, over Memorial Day weekend I was at Liberty State Park taking some pictures, specially of the Empty Skies Memorial and the new Freedom Tower as appropriate subjects for Memorial Day. In my photographic endeavors I captured a very poignant shot of a young lady scanning the names of those who perished on 9/11 on the Empty Skies Memorial, and it turned out that she was a significant part of the subject matter of the photo. So I walked upto her and mentioned the fact that I took a picture and it came out rather nice with her as a significant subject in the photo. I mentioned to her that if she minded I will delete the photo. She looked at the photo and loved it, and asked for a copy. Oh well....
However, such is not always possible, e.g. I have many photos taken from a speeding train in which there are human subjects. I tend not to publish them too widely.
Last edited by a moderator:
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
In theory if you're out in public then you are fair game, so in that sense Ryan is correct. This is especially true for wide angle shots or shots of objects that are simply in the vicinity of strangers. However, there is no reason I can think of not to ask for permission when a stranger is to become a substantial and identifiable portion of your photo. This is especially true for photos you intend to publish in some way, even just to a public blog or forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
Oh, absolutely. I don't go around taking pictures of random strangers, but the "You can't take a picture in public because you might inadvertently snap a picture of someone that doesn't want to be photographed" crowd needs to get over it.
I wouldn't knowingly publish a picture depicting someone identifiable in the midst of a rules violation, but I'm not going to let the possibility of taking that picture prevent me from snapping away at whatever I can see.
I wouldn't knowingly publish a picture depicting someone identifiable in the midst of a rules violation, but I'm not going to let the possibility of taking that picture prevent me from snapping away at whatever I can see.
In some Asian countries, it is essential to get permission before shooting photos of people. And in many cases, the subject of the photo will ask for a little $$$ as a condition of that permission. I just stick to scenics whenever possible.
As for the platforms and areas, I think it's a matter of security, although in the case of a train platform, probably a little misguided, since the "general public" normally has access to the platform. I mean it's not like the "secure/airside" areas of an airport, or the TSA or CBP station(s) (where photography is most definitely prohibited).
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
hes not talking about taking a picture of a person. hes talking about taking a picture of a train or interior of a station and people just happen to be in the background. Those that have issues with it better not go shopping cause you could be recorded on security camera. It's not like we walked right up to a person and snapped there picture were taking pictures of the inside of the station and they just happen to be in the way.
Ryan
Court Jester
Exactly.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about:
Dome_Trip_060 by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr
I took the picture to show that the dome car was being well utilized by a large number of folks. Just about everyone in there had a camera (at least one), there were easily thousands of pictures taken in the car that day. Not a good place to be if you're camera shy.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about:
Dome_Trip_060 by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr
I took the picture to show that the dome car was being well utilized by a large number of folks. Just about everyone in there had a camera (at least one), there were easily thousands of pictures taken in the car that day. Not a good place to be if you're camera shy.
Ryan
Court Jester
That depends greatly on the employer and the location of the company property.
Generally speaking, if you can see them from public property, they're fair game.
Generally speaking, if you can see them from public property, they're fair game.
Tracktwentynine
OBS Chief
George may be correct that some people do not want to be photographed. However, that does not make it illegal or improper for a photographer to take pictures in public.
However, an employee on employer property can be "public". It depends very much on the setting.
For example, let's say I'm standing on a public sidewalk adjacent to a public street, entirely within the public right-of-way. I take a picture of a construction site, and in that picture I capture a worker. Whether that worker is the subject of the picture or is merely incidental to the photograph does not matter for legal purposes. He or she may not want to have been pictured, but that does not matter because he or she is visible from public space and does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In the United States, "speech" in public spaces cannot be infringed by the government, except in certain circumstances. Photography is considered a form of speech, and it is almost always legal to take pictures from public spaces. Exceptions include military bases and places where national security is an issue. The courts have ruled that photography of people in public spaces is legal when they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, would be in a stall in a public restroom, or in a bedroom or hotel room visible from the street. If you walk out into a public square or transit platform, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and you have no power to stop someone from taking pictures.
In publicly accessible private spaces, like a shopping mall, the owner or an agent of the owner (security guard), can ask you to stop taking pictures. If you do not stop, you can be asked to leave and if you refuse, you can be arrested for trespassing (not for photography).
In private spaces, you do not have a right to take pictures, but you can certainly do so if you have the permission of the owner.
As far as transit systems and train stations go, those are generally considered public spaces. Sometimes they can be publicly accessible private spaces. At any rate, no one in a public space or a publicly accessible private space has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and photographers can take their pictures.
You may not like that, but that does not matter.
Ryan
Court Jester
Excellent explanation.
lthanlon
OBS Chief
I'm sure nobody here wants to be intrusive while taking pictures or make people uncomfortable. I know I don't.
In a different context, I'd have agreed with the Amtrak employee's admonition about not photographing faces if, say, the employee had been chatting with a family of Mennonites when one remarked that he always feels like a photo opportunity on Amtrak, and the employee mentioned this to a photographer zooming in on the family. I think that's fine; that's a kindness I can appreciate.
Maybe something like this is what the employee had in mind, but just didn't explain well enough.
In a different context, I'd have agreed with the Amtrak employee's admonition about not photographing faces if, say, the employee had been chatting with a family of Mennonites when one remarked that he always feels like a photo opportunity on Amtrak, and the employee mentioned this to a photographer zooming in on the family. I think that's fine; that's a kindness I can appreciate.
Maybe something like this is what the employee had in mind, but just didn't explain well enough.
A couple of things to say if approached by a police officer or other personnel if they threaten arrest:
"What am I being arrested for?"
"What are you going to charge me with?"
That last one makes it very difficult to arrest someone, when they have nothing to charge someone with.
"What am I being arrested for?"
"What are you going to charge me with?"
That last one makes it very difficult to arrest someone, when they have nothing to charge someone with.
lthanlon
OBS Chief
They're the ones with the guns, the handcuffs, or at least the authority to throw you off the train. They'll think of something.
NY Penn
OBS Chief
In NY at least, there have been many cases of police officers who believed that it is illegal to photograph in the subway system, and no amount of rule-printouts could change their opinion. Some of these cases have resulted in arrest, at least once of an MTA train operator( ! ).
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
the MTA police take the no pictures so seriously that one pulled a gun on his own co-worker cause he and bunch of other co-workers took a picture of him sleeping at the desk. he woke up and drew his gun saying there would be no pictures today. Do not argue with the man in blue. You could suggest that its not and say i have rules to prove it but if he doesn't listen then just stop taking pictures and leave. Not worth going to jail over a picture.
Last edited by a moderator:
Never said you should be impolite or disrespectful. And even if you made it the jail, it would never hold up in court. Stand your ground.
