Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Jordan, Yes, we do have a GO stating just that. It is for the PTRA, although I would guess most other railroads have something similar. GN and GO, (General notices and General orders) are issued under the name and signature of our Superintendent. This one makes no distinction between a photographers being on property or not...it says "All persons photographing ...." Reason being the nature of a lot of our cargo and the specific location of our yards, smack dab in the middle of a bunch of refineries. This GO does not make it illegal to take photos. .It does require us to report anyone doing so. The RR cops do have the right and duty to check out anyone taking pictures. They don’t have the right to stop you from doing so legally, but they can check you out. They can not confiscate your camera or film, (you own both the film and, depending on what you were taking photos of, the images on it) with out a court order, which they can not get unless your were breaking the law while taking said photos. If you were trespassing when taking the photos, they still have to get a court order, they can’t just grab your camera and remove and destroy the film. Our legal system still operates under the presumption of innocence; they have to prove criminal intent on your part…which is why most of them just ask you to leave. If you persist, or argue, they can issue you a citation, and depending on your actions from that point on, arrest you if you fail to comply with their instruction to leave. Lotus, It might not hurt to ask a yardmaster or a trainmaster for permission, (see above) most wouldn’t mind, some might give you even more access that you expect. As for your right to photograph, a lot depends on the venue the photograph is taken in... a “public” or a "private" setting, and ownership of the image and ownership of the contents in the image. Believe it or not, you "own" the right to your face and any images of it! Let’s say you and a friend are out shooting photos and you friend takes a nice shot of you against a great backdrop...your face is clearly seen and easy to identify... If your friend publishes that photo in a travel magazine, on the web, or in any way "sells" that image and they did not get your written permission to do so, they have broken the law. That would be a photo taken in a private venue, the image of your face is your property,(the film is theirs) to sell or not sell. If you signed a photographers waiver, then you assigned the right to that image, and that image only, to the person taking the photo, they now own that image of your face and are free to do with it as they please, and use it in any manner they like, unless otherwise specified in the waiver. Same place, same photographer, but instead you are part of a group walking miles to raise funds for your favorite charity....now, because you are appearing in public for the express intention of being noticed, (you are performing in public for a fee and to attract attention to the charity) and because you have associated yourself with a group with the same purpose, you no longer own exclusive rights to any image of your face taken in that setting only. That would be a public venue, and an instance where you are performing in public and should expect to be photographed, by both private citizens and professional photographers. Ever notice that the photographs in Trains magazine rarely include the face of the crew, and the few times it does, you can’t really identify them? And those photos that do show them clearly, or anyone else for that matter, are sure to have a photographer’s waiver and permission to publish, in writing, somewhere in Kalambach's files. The courts have ruled that some jobs or professions, by their very nature, encourage photography, and those people who hold said jobs can not expect a right to private ownership of their face...one that comes to mind easily would be the President of the US, and his family. Because he accepted, in fact, sought out such a high profile job, one that involves numerous public appearances, he has, according to the courts, given up exclusive ownership to his image. In other words, the face of the President belongs to us, the people of the United States... Same thing applies to performers, rock bands, and comedians on stage, any person who puts themselves in a public venue, if their job requires public appearance, then you have the right to photograph them, and do as you wish with the image. I, on the other hand, am a private citizen, do not put myself in a public venue, and have a right to expect my privacy not to be intruded upon. I still own my face, because I do not place myself in a public venue for the express purpose of being noticed. Because I perform my job on private property, you do not have the right to take my photo, and publish it anywhere in any form with out my written permission. Take my profile photo...I own it. It is here for the express use on this forum only; no one may copy it and use it anywhere else, with out my permission. You might assume this is a public venue, after all, its a forum open to the public, but in fact, it is not...this is a semi-private venue, open to those that join, and any images used here are for the express use of the members only, i.e. the photo is there only for the enjoyment (or not) of the members of Trains.com. Now take railroads....because it is impossible to erect walls around them, they appear to be a public venue, but they are not, they are private property. The courts have ruled that, because the railroads paint their name or logo on the locomotives, they are engaged in a form of advertising, in that they want you, the general public, to notice their locomotives and railcars, and have applied those logos in an attempt to attract your attention...there by placing those items in a public venue. The courts, in an attempt to protect my right to privacy, have ruled that my actions can determine whether I am in a public or private venue. If I am sitting in the locomotive, minding my own business and performing my job, or if I am walking down a switching lead or in an industry, going about my normal daily duties as a conductor on private property, I am considered to be in a private venue. On the other hand, if I step out on the front porch of the locomotive, and wave at you as we go by, then I am intentionally placing myself in a public venue, and you can take all the photos you want. You can’t publish or sell them, unless I give you permission to do so, but you can take said photos for your own private collection and enjoyment. Ever notice a photo credit line that states,”From the private collection of….” Rarely will you see a face in those photos, and if you do, bet on the photographer having had to find the person and obtain a waiver. The courts have even ruled that how you, the photographer, present yourself can determine if a photo is one intended for public consumption or not. If you go about dressed in everyday clothes, as a private citizen, and carry a camera taking photos, then you are considered to be taking photos for your” private collection”. If, on the other hand, you are employed by ABC news, and are wearing id or a ABC News tee shirt or in any way presenting your self as a professional photographer, you have three cameras slung on your shoulder, carring a battery pack and a camera junk bag, in other words, it is obvious that you take photos for a living, then you are considered to be a public or professional photographer, and anyone who places them selves in a position to be photographed by you should expect such photos to be used in a public manner, with written their permission. Most professional photographers have two collections of photos…those taken in the course of their job, or their public collection, and those taken for their personal enjoyment only…private photos of places, people and such, never intended for publication. Your collection of train photos is a private collection, unless you took the photo with the express intend of publishing it, which then requires you to obtain permission from those persons that appear and can be identified from that image, which then places the photo in a public collection. Because wabash is performing his normal duties as a private employee on private property, he has the right to have his privacy to be respected. As long as he does not place himself in a public venue, or through his actions give you permission, you don’t have the right to take his photograph and use it in any manner, unless you get his permission in writing to do so, which seems very unlikely! Ed [/quote] [bow][bow][bow][bow][bow]Once again Ed shows his wisdom.[bow][bow][bow][bow][bow] How would I find a yardmaster's number.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag