Was asked today by a representative from Georgia Pacific Lumber to "not take pictures of their facility". I was photographing some switching being done by the A&NR railroad at a chemical facility owned by GP. I was on a public road (about 30 yards from the railroad track and the gate going into the facility). I told him I was just photographing the railroad and would be moving on when the train left. Again I was told "do not photograph our facility." I told the rep no problem and waited for the train further down the line.
Was it legal for me to photograph the facility? It was a chemical facility (I have no idea what they produce there. There was no signing to not photograph anything). I gladly obliged the gentleman as I want to continue railfanning the area.
Has anyone else run across this lately? Honestly I was a little bit surprised at the request because of all the information and photos now available on the internet.
Thanks,
Bill
You may be splitting hairs here. While it may be legal to photograph trains from public property (i.e. public roads) and there may not have been signs saying "Don't take photos of our factory", I would not suggest making a point of this with law enforcement. Discretion is the better part of valor...walk away and live to argue another day.
If a refinery here in Denver can arrest two BNSF employees (asst. Supt & Marketing guy) taking pictures of a refinery being switched under Homeland Security rules, you certainly are fair game.
ps - If you are the representative of the local yellow press, you're toast. (Chemical plants and end-users are paranoid of activist journalists on a mission.)
It probably was not the fact you were taking pictures but WHAT are you going to do with those pictures. There are a number of reasons why a company would not want pictures taken of their property. A chemical plant could be a homeland security risk, Or something unsafe could be photographed and used in litigation against a company or individual. Another is that one of your pictures can end up on something like a calendar or other published item with out approval by the company. Not only are these legal issues with the company but yourself also. There is very little public property now a days. Even a sidewalk next to a storefront is considered private property now due to the fact towns hold the store responsible for snow and ice removal and trash pick up. Protection from litigation is by far more important than protection from injury in the eyes of a company. They do go hand in hand most times but the fact remains they would rather you fall some where else than their property. If something were to happen to you while taking pictures of their property can your family sue them? Yes. There are plenty of examples of crazy litigation on the books.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Wow...the response over possible litigation really caught me by surprise
How do the various mapping programs on the internet protect themselves? I can get the same picture that I took today by using any of the mapping utilities such as Bing/Google/Yahoo, etc.
If you'll look carefully at the satellite images on Google Maps and others, you may notice that the resolution often is lacking in certain area - generally something that might be sensitive from a security or military standpoint. F'rinstance, if you were to look at the satellite image of a house, you'd likely almost be able to see the plates on the picnic table. Not so where they've "dumbed down" the image.
Such admonitions are hardly new - even before 9/11, there was a steel company that was still using steam locomotives in daily service that wasn't appreciative of photos of their facility. I don't think the locomotives were the issue - it was the facility.
Of note here as well is that you weren't told you couldn't take pictures of trains - something we've discussed here before when rail buffs have been challenged in situations similar to yours - but rather of the plant.
As was suggested, even if the rep of the plant was out in left field with his request, discretion is always the better part of valor.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The sad reality is that every business can have a surveillance camera to watch YOUR every move...but should you want to take a simple photo of their building or train...you had better watch out!... How has this sad state of affairs come about? Well..most of us don't take our roles as free citizens in a democracy very seriously and thus our freedoms are slowly (and maybe not so slowly) being eroded. You can't take a picture from a public road? I would have put up a fight. Maybe I would have spent the night in jail for taking pictures from a public road.... a small price to pay for striking a blow for freedom. Too often, sadly, we give in because doing so would be easier than fighting for what's right.
If you were for sure on public property, there really isn't any restriction of what you can take pictures of. If the site was a military installation or something, you probably wouldn't be able to see anything from a public area, and there would be signs warning you about taking pictures and "no trespassing beyond this point" etc. I suspect as noted the guy was more concerned that you were either a rep of a competitor trying to take pics to learn something about how their plant worked, or a Green Party type who was going to use the pics as "evidence" of pollution.
I don't blame you for not wanting to call his bluff - I think we'd all probably do the same thing - but in reality I can't see any way they really could have done anything just regarding you being there taking pictures per se.
BTW just as an aside re security...as a state employee, we've have our names, job classification, and pay amounts listed on the web by the state government as being "public information" for anyone to access. In my case my last name is unusual enough that someone wanting to "complain in person" about their taxes could see my name as being a Dept of Revenue employee and look me up in the phone book to get my address...especially since the state "accidently" also published the city we live in too, though they quickly removed that info.
tree68 ...there was a steel company that was still using steam locomotives in daily service that wasn't appreciative of photos of their facility. I don't think the locomotives were the issue - it was the facility.
...there was a steel company that was still using steam locomotives in daily service that wasn't appreciative of photos of their facility. I don't think the locomotives were the issue - it was the facility.
The difference was, though, that Northwestern Steel and Wire would only harass photographers that were on private property. There were several places to get shots of the NSW 0-8-0s from public property and the many shots that one can see of the operation in books and magazines is proof of this.
In both of these instances, it sounds like the threat was perceived from public property. And, AFAIK, there's nothing that would prohibit photographing from such a location.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
I'd call his bluff...come and arrest me for taking pictures form a public road.
Ulrich I'd call his bluff...come and arrest me for taking pictures form a public road.
The concern I'd have (especially if I was alone) is that the company would fib to the police - claim I was trespassing or protesting or "acting in a menacing manner" or something. Even if they can't prove anything, it could cause a major hassle while getting it sorted out with the police.
As the late Walter Cronkite always said..."And that's the way it is".
EastTexasBill Was asked today by a representative from Georgia Pacific Lumber to "not take pictures of their facility". I was photographing some switching being done by the A&NR railroad at a chemical facility owned by GP. I was on a public road (about 30 yards from the railroad track and the gate going into the facility). I told him I was just photographing the railroad and would be moving on when the train left. Again I was told "do not photograph our facility." I told the rep no problem and waited for the train further down the line. Was it legal for me to photograph the facility? It was a chemical facility (I have no idea what they produce there. There was no signing to not photograph anything). I gladly obliged the gentleman as I want to continue railfanning the area. Has anyone else run across this lately? Honestly I was a little bit surprised at the request because of all the information and photos now available on the internet. Thanks, Bill
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
How about "we stop taking pictures when the owner, or his rep, of the building asks because it is the civilized thing to do.
If you and your wife were laying in the sun on a beach and someone began taking pictures of your wife and you asked him to stop, what would your reaction be if he said "drop dead, this is a public beach and I can take pictures of anyone I like"?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
EastTexasBill Has anyone else run across this lately? Honestly I was a little bit surprised at the request because of all the information and photos now available on the internet.
A number of years ago, I was photographing in the vicinity of an industrial facility but not on its property; and a security guard asked me to stop my photography, give him the film in my camera, and leave. So I stopped my photography, gave him the film in my camera, and left.
You'll find that the security folks will summon the local police and you will be arrested. You will also find, if you choose to look it up, that Military facilities and other areas pertaining to National Security(such as sensitive facilities like chemical plants) have always been an exception to your free speech rights (and there is a long line of U.S. Supreme Court precedent for this) under the First Amendment. Chemical plants have active security forces which in many cases are heavily armed and will be quick to bring in law enforcement in the event of even a limited threat. They have been encouraged to do so by DHS. With the passage of the Patriot Act this has gotten even tighter. Even going to such a plant for a marketing meeting requires an appointment and advance planning and you will NEVER be unescorted on such a facility.
So, feel free to test this if you choose, you'll likely get the same sort of reception you would going to a military base or prison and trying to photograph rail operations there. Don't say I didn't warn you...
LC
Bill —
Just scanning some of the responses here...
The company may have reason they don't want you taking pictures. However, as far as the law goes, they have no leg to stand on. When you are on public property, you have every right to stand there and take pictures; for that matter, to publish those pictures (with one very minor restriction involving a telephoto lens). He can ask you to leave, but you can say "no." His proper recourse would be to call the police, and if the officer knows the law at all, he'll tell the security person there's nothing he can do.
I don't blame you for agreeing to leave. The vast majority of us would rather not have our day ruined by getting the police involved and escalating a dispute like this to the next level. That said, I wish we had more incidents where people refused to leave. It makes me angry to think how many folks out there believe they can throw members of the public off public property. Unfortunately, these people so seldom face consequences that the behavior gets reinforced.
Best,
LimitedclearYou'll find that the security folks will summon the local police and you will be arrested. You will also find, if you choose to look it up, that Military facilities and other areas pertaining to National Security(such as sensitive facilities like chemical plants) have always been an exception to your free speech rights (and there is a long line of U.S. Supreme Court precedent for this) under the First Amendment. Chemical plants have active security forces which in many cases are heavily armed and will be quick to bring in law enforcement in the event of even a limited threat. They have been encouraged to do so by DHS. With the passage of the Patriot Act this has gotten even tighter. Even going to such a plant for a marketing meeting requires an appointment and advance planning and you will NEVER be unescorted on such a facility.
LC —
Not trying to be rude or disagreeable, but I think you're confusing two different situations. If a person is on private property and is asked to leave, there is no question. I will never support trespassing to get a photo. However, are you really saying that there is Supreme Court precedent saying photographers can't take pictures of chemical plants from public property? If so, this is a dramatic departure from what I was taught in Comm Law, and though I'm not an attorney and stand to be corrected, I'd very much like to see the precedent on this point.
Andy
Technically a public road is not public. It is owned by either the town, city, state, or federal government in which the police would be the first representative. The OP was not asked to leave just asked to not take pictures of the facility that is not public. If he was asked to leave and surrender his media that would be a different story.
If I take a photo of a Union Pacific locomotive crossing the street and sell it to a calendar company how fast would I hear from U.P. lawyers? The proper way to take photos of something not of your own is to ask permission. If the OP would have gone to the proper procedures he may have been escorted to a safe location to get that great shot or more than likely not given permission at all.
Like a previous person stated if you were to take pictures of my wife on the beach and I asked you to stop would you? Or would you take the butt woopin that's coming and a smashed camera? A minor thing could escalate till someone gets hurt. Is it worth it? In my opinion the OP did the right thing.
A.K. Cummings LimitedclearYou'll find that the security folks will summon the local police and you will be arrested. You will also find, if you choose to look it up, that Military facilities and other areas pertaining to National Security(such as sensitive facilities like chemical plants) have always been an exception to your free speech rights (and there is a long line of U.S. Supreme Court precedent for this) under the First Amendment. Chemical plants have active security forces which in many cases are heavily armed and will be quick to bring in law enforcement in the event of even a limited threat. They have been encouraged to do so by DHS. With the passage of the Patriot Act this has gotten even tighter. Even going to such a plant for a marketing meeting requires an appointment and advance planning and you will NEVER be unescorted on such a facility. LC — Not trying to be rude or disagreeable, but I think you're confusing two different situations. If a person is on private property and is asked to leave, there is no question. I will never support trespassing to get a photo. However, are you really saying that there is Supreme Court precedent saying photographers can't take pictures of chemical plants from public property? If so, this is a dramatic departure from what I was taught in Comm Law, and though I'm not an attorney and stand to be corrected, I'd very much like to see the precedent on this point. Best,
Andy: I hate to break it to you this way, but LC is dead nuts on (See my example above - very true)...
eolafan Ulrich I'd call his bluff...come and arrest me for taking pictures form a public road. Great idea, and I have one more suggestion, why don't you travel out there to help our fellow poster by telling the security guard to "come and arrest me" as you say...since you are such a good suggester, let's see if you can be as good of a teacher. As the late Walter Cronkite always said..."And that's the way it is".
Where did I say anything about TELLING the security guard to come and arrest me or anything else?...I stated I'd let them come and arrest me... I don't know if I'd make a good teacher or not...but I DO know I wouldn't slink away at the slightest provocation. Sometimes you've got to standup for what's right...yeah I know...it might not be convenient.. And since when does Georgia Pacific have the right to tell you and I what we can do on someone else's/public property?
locoi1sa Andy Technically a public road is not public. It is owned by either the town, city, state, or federal government in which the police would be the first representative. The OP was not asked to leave just asked to not take pictures of the facility that is not public. If he was asked to leave and surrender his media that would be a different story. If I take a photo of a Union Pacific locomotive crossing the street and sell it to a calendar company how fast would I hear from U.P. lawyers? The proper way to take photos of something not of your own is to ask permission. If the OP would have gone to the proper procedures he may have been escorted to a safe location to get that great shot or more than likely not given permission at all. Like a previous person stated if you were to take pictures of my wife on the beach and I asked you to stop would you? Or would you take the butt woopin that's coming and a smashed camera? A minor thing could escalate till someone gets hurt. Is it worth it? In my opinion the OP did the right thing. Pete
Or...you could forgo the assault charge and just let him take pictures. What's the big deal?
Well I'm going to continue living and doing whatever I do without worrying about Big Brother at Georgia Pacific. And if I want to take a picture of a train I'm not going to call first to ask for permission...sheesh.. this is not Iran (yet)..
Maybe somebody should get hold of Ron Ziel - who was (in)famous for taking 'prohibited' photos of the last and rare operating steam locomotives behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War - and ask him for a quickie course in how to "Photographie locomotief, da ?".
On the subject - it would be interesting for someone to review the DHS regulations and advise if there are any that pertain to photographing "sensitive" areas or facilities - I could believe an answer either way. If so, that would likely trump the Free Speech rights of photography from a public street - even though you could achieve much the same result in the eyes of the law with a 'grab' shot from the window of a car going by. Andy, you may want to review again the footnotes and 'dicta' of the early 20th century U.S. Supreme Court cases - esp. those by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., he of the principle that "Free speech does not include the right to shout 'Fire !!!' in a crowded theatre." That case stands for the proposition that some limitations on 'Time, Place, and Manner' of speech are permissible. Justice Holmes was also sensitive to the needs of national security.
That said, without such regulations being in place, an arrest for photographing things that are in 'plain view' would normally be tossed out - most likely after a few appeals to get it out of the probably pro-business and pro-cop local jurisdiction, some time in jail, lots of money for lawyers and court costs, etc. The remedy is to hide the stuff - not prohibit people from looking at it from a public street.
By the way, here in Pennsylvania at least the streets and roads are held by the state and local governments 'in trust' for the citizens and public - they are not 'owned' by the municipal government to the extent that constitutinoal rights are lost. Where that does occur is where the government owns the land and can exclude people the same as any other land owner, such as the Public Works Dept.'s garage, the water treatment plant, and the non-public areas of City Hall, etc. On the streets, only reasonable 'Time, Place, and Manner' regulations - such as traffic and parking laws, parade permit requirements, utility regulation, etc. can be enforced. Even ordinances against excessive noise are extremely difficult to enforce.
Finally, remember expatriate Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff's line about free speech:
"In Russia, we too have freedom of speech. Difference is that here in U.S., you also have freedom after the speech !'
- Paul North.
It occurs to me that, given the right circumstances, a non-confrontational conversation with the person challenging your photography might enlighten both sides.
We'll assume you're someplace you're allowed to be (ie, public street or other publicly accessible location from which such activity is not otherwise prohibited), and that the security person in question is not downright hostile/aggressive.
As you're putting your camera back in its case and making preparations to leave, ask (politely) the basis for the request. This may disarm the person enough to make them stop and think for a moment. If there are, indeed, restrictions (maybe you missed the sign on the fence), they'll certainly let you know. If there are not specific restrictions, you may be able to educate them, or at least cause them to question their own stance to the extent that they seek further guidance up their chain of command. Based on what I've seen here in the past, there are still some folks whose response will be "haven't you heard of 9/11?"
If they don't reconsider on the spot, you've at least made things a little easier for the next guy (we can hope), or else you understand the rationale (right or wrong) for his challenging you in the first place.
tree68 It occurs to me that, given the right circumstances, a non-confrontational conversation with the person challenging your photography might enlighten both sides. If they don't reconsider on the spot, you've at least made things a little easier for the next guy (we can hope), or else you understand the rationale (right or wrong) for his challenging you in the first place.
I agree with that reasoning. After the encounter that I described in my 7-20 posting, I telephoned the head of security at the facility; told him that he probably had a roll of my film somewhere; and said that there was no need for him to return it to me. He replied that he did have the film and that the guard had described me as a "nice guy" who didn't seem to be a threat to anyone. He went on to suggest that if I contacted him before subsequent visits, he would notify the guards that there was no need to challenge me. I thanked him, obtained his address so that I could send him and the guard some photos, and never had any more problems. Neither he, nor the guard, nor I ever addressed the issue of who had what rights: however that didn't prevent us from working out an arrangement that suited everyone.
That's a nice approach..and I agree with it too. But unfortunately many equate nice with weak...and any attempt at compromise is seen as weakness as well. I'm not advocating rude behavior..merely politely and firmly standing my ground.
mudchickenAndy: I hate to break it to you this way, but LC is dead nuts on (See my example above - very true)...
MudChicken —
I'm not familiar with the details of the Colorado incident. Do you have a link to a local media story on this, or something that details what happened? The devil is in the details.
To some of the other points made, I would personally be fairly deferential to a security guard who said, look, I know you're allowed to be here and take these pictures, but we'd really prefer you didn't. I would probably respect that and leave. But I think a lot of the situations that are arising come from people who don't know the law and don't understand the law and don't respect the law, but rather, simply have a chip on their shoulder and get a charge out of telling people what they can and can't do. There is nothing respectable about bowing to that kind of pressure.
I believe in safe, legal, and ethical railfanning. That an industry happens to sit in the background of my photo does not mean my photography is unethical. Taken to its logical conclusion, it becomes very hard to see how photography can even be conducted. Is there not private property in virtually every photo we take?
locoi1sa Technically a public road is not public. It is owned by either the town, city, state, or federal government in which the police would be the first representative. The OP was not asked to leave just asked to not take pictures of the facility that is not public. If he was asked to leave and surrender his media that would be a different story.
Pete —
I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion here. From a quick Google search:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public+property
My understanding (again, I do not pretend to be an attorney) is that even places such as malls are considered to be quasi-public property, in that the public is invited and expected to be there. Legal public property protections don't extend there to the same degree they do to public streets, sidewalks, etc., but there is some protection there as well.
Ordering someone not to take pictures on public property may not rise to the same level as telling them to leave or deleting their memory card/film, but a private security guard still has no right to do so. Again, I see a huge difference between somebody respectfully requesting that I not take photos, and somebody telling me I'm in the wrong when I'm not and ordering me to stop. The beach example would be in league with the first item, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
As far as the UP logo on a calendar, what's in a photograph has a lot of protection from copyright infringement. We run photos in TRAINS every month that have locomotives and cars with trademarked logos, etc., in them, and we don't need permission from the railroads to do that. Legally, there's a huge difference between photographing something with a logo on it and reproducing it using a scanner, fax, Xerox machine, etc. The long and short of it is that photography is protected free speech under the First Amendment.
Finally, you ask if it's worth standing up for our rights, and I say it is. If we don't, they'll get abused to the point where we won't have them anymore. I'm not telling anyone what to do; we each need to decide what's right given what we believe and the particular situation we find ourselves in. But as a general rule, I think there are a lot of folks out there ordering people around outside what the law allows them to do, and the best possible scenario is for them to face consequences for their overreach. Otherwise, why would they stop?
mudchicken If a refinery here in Denver can arrest two BNSF employees (asst. Supt & Marketing guy) taking pictures of a refinery being switched under Homeland Security rules, you certainly are fair game.
What are those "Homeland Security Rules" exactly?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.