Taking Photos at US stations?

[NozomiFan]

So can I legally? Is there some sort of rule in place to prevent this?

Station wise, Union Station in Portland OR.

[Mudkip Orange]

I've personally shot photos at PDX Union Station and not had any problems, although that was several years ago, so things might've changed.

 

Even if the station security decide to be dicks, you can still shoot from the pedestrian overpass to the apartments on the other side of the tracks.

[Guest ___]

If it is an Amtrak station the general policy is "ticketed passengers only" on platforms, and in NYC, NYC they generally carry out that policy with a heavy hand. If it is a small local or rural station or any non-major station along a corridor, you're not likely to run in to any problems. I have found stations like Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Johnston, they're not all too nice about it and will ask you to leave unless you have a ticket. DC and NYC will detain and run background checks before kicking you off entirely. Smaller stations still like here in the DC area, like Rockville, Harper's Ferry or Martinsburg won't bother you at all. General rule of thumb is, in major cities, transit operators are operating under a heighten sense of security.

[CaptOblivious]

Funny: Here in STL the railfans are always at one of the two stations here with cameras and camcorders setup recording everything that passes through (Amtrak and UP). Oftentimes the station master will be sitting out on the platform with them, chatting it up.

[KenS]

There have also been a number of incidents of railfans both in and not in stations being harassed and/or detained by police who believed it was illegal to photograph trains (it's not, with the possible exception of government/military facilities or movements, although a transit agency may be able to impose restrictions within stations). I think there are fewer now than there were a few years ago, but "fewer" does not mean none.

 

See this article for one of the more extreme cases involving Amtrak.

 

And here's a Trains Magazine article on railfan rights.

 

And another, by an attorney, with a printable page on photographer's rights.

 

However, trespassing on railroad property is a crime, and carries a fairly high fine in many places (and possibly a trip to the local police station), so it's important to be sure you are on public property.

[bikkuri bahn]

Stuff like that explained above makes me thankful I do my railfanning in Japan (a pure pleasure), but it also makes me frustrated even more by the reckless behavior of some "fans" here- they are threatening to make the environment for railfans more restrictive if they continue their selfish and immature actions.

[miyakoji]

I've often wondered about this.  Can you imagine this being disallowed in Japan?  Canon and Nikon would instantly go out of business!

[bikkuri bahn]

I've often wondered about this.  Can you imagine this being disallowed in Japan?  Canon and Nikon would instantly go out of business!

 

Haha, probably

I doubt this will ever happen in Japan, for a number of reasons (knock on wood...).  In the case of stations, platforms are not just places to catch  your train as in the U.S., they are really living spaces in a sense- you can find shops, waiting rooms and other amenities there- "loitering" is a given, while in the U.S. it is tantamount to a crime in some cases/locations- "why are you here? how come you're without a ticket? what business do you have with the railroad?"...well, sir, I just like to watch trains, I didn't realize it was a crime or a suspicious activity.  If station staff ever treated the public like this in Japan, there would be tremendous backlash- company presidents bowing in apology etc.

[Eliphaz]

The one and only time I ever took out my camera in Bostons MBTA (Blue line car in my Avatar) an MBTA dick marched right up and told me "no pictures on T property!" supposedly for security reasons.

Yet there are hundreds and hundreds of great photos of T stops and trains on numerous rail fan web sites.

[Guest ___]

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/29/i-was-attacked-by-a-metrorail-security-guard-for-shooting-video/

[cteno4]

not the best foot forward by either side there. guy should not have struck back like that or used the language he did, just ends up making it look provocative.

 

so silly as cheap spy cams could get all the shots you would want to do something bad and security would be none the wiser.

 

i guess the term public property gets skewed when it comes to rail transport like this.

 

jeff

[Eliphaz]

this topic came up in another forum with respect to Boston's MBTA.

since my experience cited above, the T has promulgated a policy-

http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Police/Photo%20Policy%201.pdf

[cteno4]

At least this seems a bit more reasonable with the need to identify ones self if taking pictures. bit obnoxious though to be put on yet one more list potentially... of course like all the other stuff its worthless as anyone doing this to do something bad would have no problem of having fake id for purposes like this...

 

they also still have the caveat in there as long as it does not pose a security risk, which is not definitive and could be pushed all over the place by the local authority. looks like aaron wont be booted with his press badge out as well!

 

cheers

 

jeff

[bikkuri bahn]

Hey, with action like this, I think the oddball railfan with camera is at the bottom of the threat list for transit police:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/07/AR2010080700075.html

 

i.e. get your priorities straight!

[Guest ___]

not the best foot forward by either side there. guy should not have struck back like that or used the language he did, just ends up making it look provocative.

 

so silly as cheap spy cams could get all the shots you would want to do something bad and security would be none the wiser.

 

i guess the term public property gets skewed when it comes to rail transport like this.

 

jeff

 

The journalist in question was ejected and banned from the station a month earlier, after having been granted permission by Metro. He also had a printed proof of the policy stating photography was legal at the station and at the property. He was deliberately trying to prove a point. The journalist who was assaulted, (I forgot his real name at the moment, as I only know him by his handle on the NPPA (my photographer's union) forum had not intended to strike back or use the language he did, but at the point he was assaulted, lost his cool to which I could understand if I myself had an eight thousand dollar video camera taken from me, and then was assaulted.

[cteno4]

granted its easy to loose your cool in a situation like that, but if you are reporting like this and knowingly going into a situation to provoke a response you have to take the high road and not use language like he did or strike back as it just neutralizes what you were attempting to do.

 

if he looses his cool like this, might he have lost it the first time he was ejected?

 

I dont mind folks doing a civil disobedience type thing like this, its just if you are you have to be really trained and committed to do it right and not just end up in a brawl.

 

the 60s civil right movement was a great case in point on this. most all the large non violent protests were done with folks that got serious training in how to protect themselves, but not fight back. anyone that was not able to resist striking back physically or verbally was not used in the frontline protests. worked well as then their side was totally seen as the victims. most folks dont know the history of those events and how carefully orchestrated they were to keep them from turning into riots (which did happen a lot when spontaneous protests erupted at the time).

 

reading his account then watching the video gave two different impression to me. while he kept his cool pretty well in the beginning his ending behavior gave me the impression he wanted some payback.

 

again i think its great folks are pushing this issue. i think that if someone intends to push back that it be done in a cool head, nonviolent way that does not purposely try to provoke to the point of violence. that usually degrades into something that does not get you anything positive out of the affair.

 

i have personally a couple of times took pictures of amtrak locos and container trains in ca from sidewalks and had police drive by me a couple of times. i was ready to try to be civil but firm if questioned and ready to push it as far as i could if needed. never got to that, but i tried to think through my reactions if they did try to grab the camera, push, etc and my decision was to not fight back and do everything to keep pushing w/o giving them any ammunition that i was resisting or being belligerent.

 

just my 1.5 cents

 

cheers

 

jeff

[Guest ___]

granted its easy to loose your cool in a situation like that, but if you are reporting like this and knowingly going into a situation to provoke a response you have to take the high road and not use language like he did or strike back as it just neutralizes what you were attempting to do.

 

if he looses his cool like this, might he have lost it the first time he was ejected?

 

I dont mind folks doing a civil disobedience type thing like this, its just if you are you have to be really trained and committed to do it right and not just end up in a brawl.

 

the 60s civil right movement was a great case in point on this. most all the large non violent protests were done with folks that got serious training in how to protect themselves, but not fight back. anyone that was not able to resist striking back physically or verbally was not used in the frontline protests. worked well as then their side was totally seen as the victims. most folks dont know the history of those events and how carefully orchestrated they were to keep them from turning into riots (which did happen a lot when spontaneous protests erupted at the time).

 

reading his account then watching the video gave two different impression to me. while he kept his cool pretty well in the beginning his ending behavior gave me the impression he wanted some payback.

 

again i think its great folks are pushing this issue. i think that if someone intends to push back that it be done in a cool head, nonviolent way that does not purposely try to provoke to the point of violence. that usually degrades into something that does not get you anything positive out of the affair.

 

i have personally a couple of times took pictures of amtrak locos and container trains in ca from sidewalks and had police drive by me a couple of times. i was ready to try to be civil but firm if questioned and ready to push it as far as i could if needed. never got to that, but i tried to think through my reactions if they did try to grab the camera, push, etc and my decision was to not fight back and do everything to keep pushing w/o giving them any ammunition that i was resisting or being belligerent.

 

just my 1.5 cents

 

cheers

 

jeff

 

I don't think he expected to be assaulted. Nor can I image when being attack most people standing there and taking that either, journalist, cop, soldier, or man-on-street civi. On a sad note, in MD, what the reporter did was illegal as it is illegal in Maryland to film or record police on duty, or to even record them with audio or video equipment without written consent. I myself have had several run-ins at Union Station, DC.

 

Recently, a local kid who was being be beaten and baton by two cops hit record on his iPhone during a protest. During the trial he played back the recording and was subsequently charged under MD wire-tapping laws and convicted despite being the victim of police brutality. My union, NPPA and the ACLU are aggressively fighting, but appear to be losing the battle on this one though. Additional information from NPPA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/metro/caught-with-a-camera/?sid=ST2010072503132

 

Here's another MD case, A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing. (http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns)

 

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

 

The case is disturbing because:

 

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

 

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

 

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

 

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

[cteno4]

Arron,

 

I think he clearly went there to get a confrontation with the security folks. he had a film crew in tow. they also were filming the whole event so his use of the iphone here was definitely a get in their faces move.

 

i am not saying you should not be allowed to do things like this or film in public, its an important freedom and check on power.

 

all i am commenting on is that i dont think this guy's actions were the best way to bring this to the surface. he entered into the situation knowing it was going to be a confrontation and potentially escalate in to a physical fight. in that case to get the best journalistic and civil disobedience results would have been to keep his cool and not swing back or use the language he did of wanting a fight. I dont feel he was treated properly in the start of it, but when he began to fight back it ends up negating what he started out to do.

 

i just dont see him as a shining example in this debate.

 

the other incidents you site are disturbing. these are situations where folks are fliming on public areas and getting a bogus use of wiretapping thrown at them. i guess then all the police cruisers with video cams in them are wiretapping as well!

 

i see them as related, but not what i was pointing out here that this guy went for a confrontation to demonstrate the situation and blew it by striking back.

 

cheers

 

jeff

[Guest ___]

Regardless of the reporters way of handling it, the fact that security even confronted him to begin with after Metro clearly stated that the video/photo was legal, clearly shows that security-LE has no clue or training in the legality of the public. The subsequent links just goes to show what us journalists/ photogs have had to endure over the past nines years, and even though it has been nine years the situation for us only is getting worse and worse despite more and more laws on the books protecting our rights. I myself even when on the clock for the wire services are encountering this more and more.

 

Just this past Sunday I stopped to take a picture of a no parking sign in front of a newspaper box on a county road only to have a minivan roll in to the middle of a four way intersection get out and question which I was, and what I was doing. This person did not identify himself as LE, or anything, and as obstructed traffic to a point where a tractor trailer started blowing his horn at him, as did another passenger car on the opposing lane. Even doing something like photographing ducks at a public park on a lake has the park ranger stopping to detain me. I'm to a point when people approach me now instead of having any form of conversation I find myself preparing to bark, "leave me the eff alone.", "go away", or I don't go band bother you when you are at work, so leave me be." And, I can tell you a hell of a lot of my colleagues in the forums share the same sentiment. It use to be people would bother me at the park to have me get a picture of their kids feeding the ducks for the paper, now it's people asking me why am I even at the park at the first place.

[Eliphaz]

another good repost is "I have a job, do you?"

[ShinCanadaSen]

A Little Different but topical, I was at the Rogers Cup (Men's Tennis) on Sunday with 2 of my Friends and we are kinda Photography buffs. Between the 3 of us we were walking around with 1. Rebel XS w/ 70-300mm IS USM, 2. 7D w/ 1.4x Teleconverter and 70-200 F4L IS and I had my Rebel XSI w/ 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS. We were following the site rules posted at the entrance (Personal Cameras Allowed, No Tripods, Monopods,Glass containers.. basically the usual in crowded venues) and security had screened our bags and Camera Gear. About 2 PM after walking around on site with our cameras out for 4-5 hours a rogers cup staff member who identified himself as a site supervisor drove directly up to us and stated in a gruff and confrontational manner "Uless you have media credentials, you better put that camera away before I have you thrown off the Grounds". When I tried to clarify what was going on as we had not done anything wrong. he stated that it was againt the "rules" to have "professional Camera Equipment" on site without Media Credentials. I tried to talk to him to Find out where these rules were posted and how they defined "Professional Cameras", but he just threatened to have me kicked out, Oddly he did not seem to care about my friends camerad / lenses enven thought the 7-200 withthe teleconverter was larger than my lense stowed. To avoid a confrontation I put My Camra back in my backpak.

 

I was quite taken aback at this manner and the level of hostility about something as minor as a camera at a "Family day tennis event". I decided to check into this silly rule as I doubted that it existed. i went to guest services and explained what happed in detail and they confirmed that there was a rule that camera lenses brough on property could not be longer than 20cm when extended. I indicated to them that I though that this was a little on the ridiculous side as I had been inspected by Security on the way in and had been granted access to the site. I asked them where this information was displayed and they said on the Sign at the Entrance. So they called over the Security supervisor from the entrance about 50 feet away and she took one look at the lense and said that there had been a mistake and i should nat have been let in with it. So once again I asked where this rule was written and she escorted me to the front entrance and showed me the sign stating what could be brought on site and said "Here it is". I took a minute to read the sign Carefully. As indicated the only thing relevant to cameras was No Tripods or Monopods and the sign clearly stated that personal Cameras were allowed. I told the Secuirty Supervisor that this was my personal camera and I did not see any information on the sign that would prohibit me from bringing it on property. She said " No No it says right here...." and then went completely silent as she read the sign. She then appologized to me and said that I was free to Continue My day on site with my camera as the sign did not say anythiing about lense size etc... I Have already made a formal complait to the Rogers Cup office on site and I'm planning on persuing this up the chain as this was ridiculous.

 

Anyon else have similar stories at other venues or in public?

[Guest ___]

I thankfully have creditably for both the AP, and Reuters as well as my union NPPA, but all these ever did for me was invite the police to ask what I Was working on, my deadline, my editor's name, and blah, blah, blah. Of course editor's are extremely busy, and will never answer the phone, and anytime it is the police, it is typically to harass the editors over something already printed, or published. I find the press pass invites more questions than anything else. But to respond to the last post, I have encountered people who think they are suing "common sense" to procedures that they do not know for the start, so they improvise on the fly as most people will just roll over and grin.

 

You'll find this is normal among underpaid untrained security and customer service personnel. I had such an encountered at Union Station when I got a shot from the top of the parking deck. Amtrak police (not a private company) had told me threat photography was not permitted and told me it was posted on the signs. I responded to them to show me, which they did, only to find there was no such posting. At which point I was threatened for arrest under a 10-200, identifying police stupidity. One of the reasons I want to go to shooting with a rangefinder. I was also stopped in DC Union for taking pictures of a flag, handhold with a Nikon F4s with a 50mm lens, but the same police ignored the guy with the consumer D70 mounted on the tripod taking the same pictures despite tripods being banned from the concourse.

[Guest ___]

Note, I'm going to the national Horological Museum in Columbia PA tomorrow, and plan to shoot Amtrak pix along the NS line from a public park. Let's see how badly, I get harassed tomorrow.

[cteno4]

I have never been hassled with point n shoots at us train stations or around us trains. couple of times in oakland i was shooting amtrak and container trains from public sidewalks with 20D and 300mm and had the police cruise by each time a couple of times. i never noticed a lot of police presence in these areas in the past and 2 passes probably meant someone called it in. they never stopped, but the first time the slow, glaring drive by happened i started thinking fast of how to respond if they did come hassle me. i was definitely being looked at as a person of interest!

 

only place i have been jumped on for photography around trains was new delhi subway and they were on me really fast with a S3 doing a couple of very fast tourist shots! India has some intense security at times and none at others that never made much sense where or when (this was pre mumbai)...

 

cheers

 

jeff

[Eliphaz]

... At which point I was threatened for arrest under a 10-200, identifying police stupidity. ...

 

 

 

a bit of schadenfreude, sorry , but that made me LOL