is it illegal to take photos of train station / people?

[limens]

Today I was on a bridge taking photos of metrolink train station, train tracks, a few people from above and surrounding factory.

Security guard came to me and said that I cannot take photos of people (and that she saw me taking photos of her from from), I said I didn't, i was using a wide angle lens. Then she said she is going to call the sheriff to get me cited if I don't leave. And that I can't take photos of the station unless i"m incensed by metrolink.

What da hell? can I really get in trouble for taking photos of things like this?

[400dabuser]

Where are you from?

In the UK, you can take pictures of people, but most of them might come up to you and ask you if you have taken a photo of them, they legally can't do nothing. Metrolink, well I would of gone to the people who work there, and asked if they would allow you to photograph the place first, it maybe public transport, but it is still private property

[limens]

California.

Going and asking for permission for just a few snaps is too much hassle, really.

[ChrisRabior]

Depends on whether it's public or private property.. who owns the bridge, etc.

Your best bet (and the one that will likely back off a security guard in a heartbeat) is to comply, and then start collecting information:
I'm sorry, I must've been mistaken. Who owns this property? Ok, thanks. Now, what's your name? What agency do you work for? What's your supervisor's name and how can I reach them?

And when they ask why, you can tell them that in addition to photography, protecting your civil rights is also a hobby of yours.
Don't shy away from unarmed wanna-be rent-a-cops on a power trip. Granted, there are some places you can't take photos from (active crime scenes, special military installations, etc) then you should back down. If you're on public property, chances are they're FOS, and you should in the least call them out on it and make sure they know they may have been in the wrong.

Lots of links on photographers rights, search for Bert Krages.. and you'll get a nice summary.

[limens]

Thanks, great idea

[Nathan]

If it's a public train station, it depends on laws and regulations.

In Boston, the MBTA subway station regulations disallow tripod assisted photography. The concern is partly linked to terrorism, since there is a worry that photographs can be used to plan attacks. It's also linked to use of images in commercial product and their proprietary interest of maintaining the rights themselves. Other concerns include safety of the photographer who might get too close to the tracks or who is not paying attention and the safety other users who might try to avoid getting in the way of a photographer. Of course, there is the question of other users' privacy rights.

The public, though, has 1st amendment interests in being able to take pictures in public areas. To strike a balance and because it is otherwise difficult to enforce, they allow non-tripod assisted photography. A lot of employees, including security personnel, are misinformed and have tried to prevent me from taking photos. What I do is carry around the regulations in my camera bag and I show them that I'm allowed to and all I have to do is provide them with some form of id if asked.

[dmmiller]

I think since 9/11, that there are some places they dont want people taking pictures.
Public transportation being a biggy... Too suspicious kwim?

[Nathan]

For those interested in the MBTA policy, here is the link:

http://transitpolice.us/Photo%20Policy/Photo%20Policy%201.pdf

[JeffreyG]

Yes, If I was a notorious terrorist the first thing I would do is set up a huge tripod with a dSLR....scratch that.....a large format view camera in the middle of a train station or airport. I can't imagine a way to be less conspicuous while planning an attack.

For sure I would not use a pocketable little digicam or the ubiquitous cell phone camera. After all, terrorists all need to enlarge their planning shots to 20x30 or larger and then pixel peep the edge resolution.

Will common sense ever come to Homeland Security and the legions of rent-a-cop pretenders?

[dave kadolph]

Will common sense ever come to Homeland Security and the legions of rent-a-cop pretenders?

It's the government ;)

[gjl711]

...Will common sense ever come to Homeland Security and the legions of rent-a-cop pretenders? No :(

[400dabuser]

California.

Going and asking for permission for just a few snaps is too much hassle, really.


Oh, sorry, you were on a bridge, right, it was on a public place, so it should of been fine to take a few photos, but since you are in California, and I am in the UK, it is a different kettle of fish. I don't know anything about the laws regarding public places in California.

In the UK it would be fine to do so

[PicBug]

Limens, here in Arizona, FYI, I was told one cannot go downtown and take photos of the buildings without a permit. Particularly government or finance buildings. I was stopped by 4 or 5 rent-a-cops stating something about homeland security, like my G9 photos may somehow be going to be used for planning a terrorist attack. Ug. They would not have bothered me with my cameraphone. While researching "photography and terrorism" I came across information about the London train, after the bombing there, and the officials there giving photographers a hard time.

Here's a great BBC article I found, and the comments at the end are interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm

[Ridebmx]

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

good photographer's rights page to give a good example of what goes and what doesnt go. of course diffrent towns and states have diffrent laws, but this gives an understanding as to whats legal in most places.


if a person is out in public, they are fair game, if the place is public, its fair game, if your taking pictures of girls and selling them to businesses, you need a model's release. if your taking pictures of a private building to sell the photo, you need a property release.

most places are fair game where you can assume no privacy


I ran into a similar incident at the county fairgrounds during fair time. I was walking past some games with my camera out, 70-200 with a flash ontop, and a carney threatened to break my camera and gear for walking past? he came charging at me and i rattled off 6 shots with flash. he tried to grab my camera so i walked away hiding it while calling my friend (retired cheif of police, cheif of security for fair) and hes also a photographer. carney was in the wrong, saying i need a models release to take a picture of him, security said hes in public so i can take pictures of him without consent and hes in the wrong. he also tried to break the tripod i was borrowing from friend^^ so it didnt fly too well, having a carney try to break my camera gear and the cheif of security for the fair's tripod... he was fired, charged with disorderly conduct, vandalism, destruction of private property and harassment, the tripod was scratched from dropping it and my flash lcd broke on the rocks when he came running at me grabbing my camera.

[Persephone]

Yes, If I was a notorious terrorist the first thing I would do is set up a huge tripod with a dSLR....scratch that.....a large format view camera in the middle of a train station or airport. I can't imagine a way to be less conspicuous while planning an attack.

For sure I would not use a pocketable little digicam or the ubiquitous cell phone camera. After all, terrorists all need to enlarge their planning shots to 20x30 or larger and then pixel peep the edge resolution.

Will common sense ever come to Homeland Security and the legions of rent-a-cop pretenders?

Yeah, I know. If I wanted to do some quick reconnaissance I would blow $1000 on a whole shebang dSLR setup to get a shot that I could get with a $100 point-and-shoot. Lol.

[canonnoob]

reminds me of a time I had a cop pull over as I was taking shots of cars going under me while i was on an overpass.. asked what I was doing, ran my plates, talked to me about photography (really cool cop too).. told me that he is cool with it and dont let anyone else make me leave... then he left...

[motion_projekt]

heres a good link...


http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf



i had a cop ask me for my memory card once. told him to get a court ordered warrant and i would. :P

[milorad]

I shoot buildings quite a lot... so I often get harassed by security guards.

About half the time they ask me for my memory card, which is when I point to the security cameras behind them and say "I'll swap you for those hard drives". Screw that, they're taking footage of everyone walking by all day, and we can't look back?

I don't think so.

[motion_projekt]

I shoot buildings quite a lot... so I often get harassed by security guards.

About half the time they ask me for my memory card, which is when I point to the security cameras behind them and say "I'll swap you for those hard drives". Screw that, they're taking footage of everyone walking by all day, and we can't look back?

I don't think so.

typically i stand on the sidewalk and ask them "oh...isnt this PUBLIC PROPERTY?!"

[Nathan]

I try not to get upset by it. People are just trying to do their job even if they aren't doing it correctly.

As far as confiscating the memory card, projekt has it pretty much right. If a cop asks, you don't have to give it to him. He has no right to seize your property without a warrant. However, if you're on private property and it's a private security guard, he doesn't need a warrant because he's not an agent of the state. But he still can't take your property without your permission and you could have other charges against him, likely civil. Projekt gets it right again that you can pretty much do anything on public property as long as it's not for commercial reasons.

People should at least try to understand that there is a heightened level of precaution because of 9-11. We're just so far removed from that date now that we don't react the same anymore. It's like bag searches. Immediately after 9-11, the public was more willing to submit to random bag searches... but 7 years later, we resist.

[milorad]

but 7 years later, we resist.

Too late now... you let your government whittle down your rights, and now you'll always have fewer rights than you did before.

Oops.

[NathanJK]

Too late now... you let your government whittle down your rights, and now you'll always have fewer rights than you did before.

Oops.

Don't worry, now we are letting them control the financial market too! I'm sure they will take such good care of us and make sure we are safe from every form of harm. To the topic at hand: In your situation if I was on public property I would have told the security officer to feel free to call the police. In the meantime, I had pictures to take.

[JoYork]

In Boston, the MBTA subway station regulations disallow tripod assisted photography. The concern is partly linked to terrorism, since there is a worry that photographs can be used to plan attacks.

That is so stupid it just made my head explode :)

Not aimed at you, just at the idiots who make the rules.

[440roadrunner]

If I was a possible terrorist, I would certainly want to use the correct equipment for the job

http://www.digisniper.com/2007/02/13/sniper-bracket-for-slr-cameras-zenit-photosniper-fs-122-camera/


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/388599576_54671e13e7.jpg

[Bill Roberts]

If I was a possible terrorist, I would certainly want to use the correct equipment for the job

http://www.digisniper.com/2007/02/13/sniper-bracket-for-slr-cameras-zenit-photosniper-fs-122-camera/


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/388599576_54671e13e7.jpg


NIce one! I haven't seen one of those since the 70's. I'd give it around 5 minutes nowadays before an armed response squad turned up... and I doubt that claiming you were in a public place would make much difference.

[ChrisSearle]

If you think things in the US and the UK are getting out of hand you should try it here in India!To start with the laws are ill defined and difficult to get to the bottom of, plus no or very few 'officials' have the faintest idea. I was challenged recently when taking photographs of a lake I was told it was 'illegal' ( thing is it might have been, how am I to know). I was threatened with confiscation of my camera and were it not for the fact that I started to write down the police officers number in a note book, it may even have happened. One thing is for sure I would never have seen it again.....

[argyle]

Well, if the bridge was owned by Metrolink, that makes it private property, and all this haranguing is a moot point. And sometimes, tripods are disallowed in certain locations such as rail stations because they are big and wieldy, take up space, and can inhibit the free flow of PAYING rail passengers who just might be in a hurry to get to their jobs in order that they may feed and clothe their families. Its nice to go on and on about a so-called/perceived lack of rights, but at least try a little common sense first and think things through. There are sometimes completely logical reasons for certain rules, whether most of you like them or not.

[Wilt]

At least she didn't get a real cop and complain that you were taking photos of her butt, like has happended to photographers taking photos in a public flower garden and being so accused by a passerby!