Well, I wasn't going to get this granular, but there's making money off of it, and there's ... making money off of it.
Take Trains magazine. The majority of train pix are part of the editorial content, and the rules for editorial use are much more permissive than advertising/trade. If a journalist for Time shoots a scene of, say, a building collapse, for news purposes, and there are onlookers visible in the pic, those people have no right to privacy. But if the same photo is used to advertise a type of re-bar that would ostensibly have kept the building standing, then all those people can sue and probably win. (If it's worth it to them.)
Jaw Tooth could probably make a decent case that his videos are editorial content.
Back to Trains. Say they use a shot of a BNSF engine in an ad to advertise their annual locomotice special edition. Technically that's a whole 'nuther ball game, and BNSF could compel them to not do it again, or even sue and get money. But I would imagine that Kalmbach has secured agreements with the railroads allowing such use, because it is free publicity; and because does a railroad really want to piss off Trains? Symbiotic relationship.
For a bar to use Warner Brothers imagery wthout permission is amazingly stupid. Warner Brothers is in the sole business of intellectual/artistic property! Easy case. But say we have a bar near the tracks, called The Depot Tavern. And they have photos of trains on the walls. We've all been to such places. Mostly that comes under the heading of Warren Buffett has weightier things to worry about.
Still in training.
No confrontation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWcZagJlAs
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
54light15Here's a question: If you are filming a train that shows a corporate mark or copyright logo and you make money off of the image, isn't that IP theft? A bar here in Toronto called "The Acme" used images from Warner Brothers cartoons and eventually got a cease and desist order. Can't a railroad do the same thing?
That's a thorny area, and decisions have gone both ways.
Procter & Gamble COULD NOT stop the "Ivory Snow Girl" from using a now famous box of their product featuring her likeness, as a background prop in her later movie career. But she really wasn't selling cleaning supplies.
The bar in your example, in contrast, was using the trademarked entertainment entities to entertain.
I'm not an expert, but I believe that is the distinction.
More commonly, entities featuring the products of other companies in their works, frequently try to get paid for "product placement", such as showing Sylvester Stallone as "Rocky" drinking a Coke, or similar, and if Coke pays for a placement, then he holds the can such as it is legible. But if they refuse, then the brand name is either blurred, or otherwise obscured. (not because it has to be blurred, but more as an affront for Coke's refusal to buy a placement)
Here's a question: If you are filming a train that shows a corporate mark or copyright logo and you make money off of the image, isn't that IP theft? A bar here in Toronto called "The Acme" used images from Warner Brothers cartoons and eventually got a cease and desist order. Can't a railroad do the same thing?
In some limited circumstances, I might have minded someone photographing me while I worked (photographing). But in the overwhelming majority of situations, I did not care at all. I journalistically covered a lot of large public events where maybe half of the crowd had cameras themselves. And often I worked right up by the stage. So I was inadvertantly in hundreds, maybe thousands of photos taken by others. I couldn't care less. True, I was not the focus of most of those pix. But a fairy common shot to do at a newsworthy event is a photo of a photographer who is shooting the event. So sometimes people shot me; sometimes I shot them. I didn't care, and the shooters I got in my pix didn't care. It goes with the territory.
And I think that if you are a railroader, since there have been rail buffs ever since there have been railroads, it kind of goes with the territory that you'll be in pix. Most don't care. I don't know what this guy's problem was. But he has the right to request no pix, and most railfans would then honor that, and should, out of simple courtesy. When I was working, if someone wanted to not be in photos, I respected that.
College students generally sign blanket releases stating that they can be shown in pix taken to promote the college. I worked for several colleges, and often I'd shoot in full classrooms while a class was in session. If a student asked me to not show them (maybe that happened 4-5 times in 35 years) , I complied.
But back to the main point. If you are in public, or are visible from a public place, you generally do not have a right to privacy. But there are exceptions. Like factories or military bases which have signs prohibiting photography. Almost any court would say you have the right to privacy in your back yard. They would all agree that you get privacy in your home, even if you left the blinds open. But if I walk out right now and see some linemen working on the electrical lines along my street, I can photograph them.
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of this stuff is case law, precedents other courts can look at. AFAIK, not very many specific situations are covered by statutes.
If you use common sense and treat people with courtesy, you'll be okay 95% of the time. But if you shoot an obese person on the street, and use the photo in an ad for diet pills, or in a magazine article about how America is overeating, then figure on some big legal bills. And figure on losing.
charlie hebdo Setting aside all legalities, how many members would like to have someone taking photos or videos of them while working at their job (when enployed) without permission?
Setting aside all legalities, how many members would like to have someone taking photos or videos of them while working at their job (when enployed) without permission?
The various railfan cameras have encountered this.
One such camera, located near a yard and refueling facility, did turn the camera so the employees weren't as likely to be seen.
Another, which was controlled by the viewers (less common these days), had to limit such control in the evening, as its location allowed users to see in the windows of private residences.
The railfan cam I usually watch, Deshler, even gets waves from the crews. Crews working on the diamond and other facilities don't seem to care. The local signal guy often stops at the park to chat with the fans there present.
I spent most of my working days in secure facilities - filming me working would be unlikely, at best.
On the fire side, however, it's virtually expected, as everyone wants to see video of places burning down. The firefighters in those videos are secondary at best. In fact, sometimes investigators seek out people who have shot video (or stills) as part of their investigation.
Right after 9/11, there was a certain paranoia about people shooting video. Much of that has subsided. We're still sensitive to images and videos that include victims, which is why you'll often see a tarp or other covering used at accident scene.
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...
charlie hebdo how many members would like to have someone taking photos or videos of them while working at their job (when enployed) without permission?
I've been there, didn't like it, and handled it more tactfully than the conductor in this video. Please don't confuse my earlier observations regarding "right" to privacy as being in any way sympathetic to JawTooth, or his kind.
But, realities being what they are, I don't see the courts giving much relief.
Google InquiryIs YouTube good for earning money? YouTube can be a highly lucrative way to earn money, but you have to work hard to ensure success. For a start, you need at least 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 watch hours over the last year before you become eligible to join the YouTube Partner Program. Once you reach that minimum, you can begin to receive ads on your videos. However, you can also earn money in other ways, such as selling merchandise, fan funding, and working with brands as an influencer or affiliate.
YouTube can be a highly lucrative way to earn money, but you have to work hard to ensure success. For a start, you need at least 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 watch hours over the last year before you become eligible to join the YouTube Partner Program. Once you reach that minimum, you can begin to receive ads on your videos. However, you can also earn money in other ways, such as selling merchandise, fan funding, and working with brands as an influencer or affiliate.
I feel certain the video inqustion did not turn his channel into a gold mine.
BaltACD Would the videographer have EXPECTED that capturing the railroaders likeness would increase viewership to his entire catalog of YouTube videos and thus substansially increase his viewship footprint on YouTube and thus increase his monetary return (if his videos are in fact monetized).
Would the videographer have EXPECTED that capturing the railroaders likeness would increase viewership to his entire catalog of YouTube videos and thus substansially increase his viewship footprint on YouTube and thus increase his monetary return (if his videos are in fact monetized).
Convicted One I suppose if the conductor wants to pursue redress through some sort of "peeping tom" ordinance, he's certainly entitled to try. Feel sorry for the judge trying to maintain order, and good luck finding a jury sympathetic to railroads.
I suppose if the conductor wants to pursue redress through some sort of "peeping tom" ordinance, he's certainly entitled to try. Feel sorry for the judge trying to maintain order, and good luck finding a jury sympathetic to railroads.
Would the railroader have EXPECTED to make money off of his likeness being shown and thus would have expected compensation for use of his likeness?
I agree that if that YouTuber is making money from the video, he needs a release, and clearly that conductor isn't going to play ball.
I was just responding to Euclid's question about whether it's okay to photograph a train (with a visible person or not) if you aren't trespassing. And it is.
The YouTuber did nothing wrong in the taking of the video per se. But where it can turn into trouble is in the usage.
So, that railfan showing on camera a guy stating he does not want to be in the video, and then disseminating the video in an enterprise which makes him money, is four-karat STUPID. It's going to be pretty hard to later say, "I didn't think he'd mind."
The conductor does not in this situation have a legal right not to be photographed. But the railfan IS legally prohibited from using the conductor's image for commercial purposes without written permission.
Euclid In a way, I think they were kind of made for each other.
Antagonists love each other. They don't feel 'fulfilled' without having each parties shorts in a twist.
Backshop Euclid I read a bunch of references last night in a basic google search and found it nearly unanimous that taking photos from public property of people or other activities on private property was not illegal. So I am surprised that the opposite would be claimed here. I also recall this same topic being processed here on the forum more than once in the past, and the consensus was that the abovementioned activity was not illegal. So it seems odd that feelings here would suddenly flip. Maybe it depends on the specific players in the dispute. But anyway, maybe somebody can just post one reference that clarifies that it is illegal for a person on public property to film or photograph a railroad employee on railroad property without his/her permission. It should not be hard to find. Not everything needs to be illegal to be rude or impolite.
Euclid I read a bunch of references last night in a basic google search and found it nearly unanimous that taking photos from public property of people or other activities on private property was not illegal. So I am surprised that the opposite would be claimed here. I also recall this same topic being processed here on the forum more than once in the past, and the consensus was that the abovementioned activity was not illegal. So it seems odd that feelings here would suddenly flip. Maybe it depends on the specific players in the dispute. But anyway, maybe somebody can just post one reference that clarifies that it is illegal for a person on public property to film or photograph a railroad employee on railroad property without his/her permission. It should not be hard to find.
I read a bunch of references last night in a basic google search and found it nearly unanimous that taking photos from public property of people or other activities on private property was not illegal. So I am surprised that the opposite would be claimed here.
I also recall this same topic being processed here on the forum more than once in the past, and the consensus was that the abovementioned activity was not illegal. So it seems odd that feelings here would suddenly flip. Maybe it depends on the specific players in the dispute.
But anyway, maybe somebody can just post one reference that clarifies that it is illegal for a person on public property to film or photograph a railroad employee on railroad property without his/her permission. It should not be hard to find.
Not everything needs to be illegal to be rude or impolite.
My questions go to the legality of the circumstances of filming the conductor just because it appears to be an unsettled question here. I don't care about the percieved rudeness felt by either party. I suspect they both felt it. In a way, I think they were kind of made for each other.
As a railroader - do your job within the rules as you know them and don't pay any attention to video cameras or phones. DO YOUR JOB.
I will concede that it's been entertaining reading blatant nimbyism coming from posters normally claiming to be averse to the practice.
zugmannThat would be a "conducterie stick".
Touche!!
It's not clear cut. While your right of privacy does not exist in your front yard, a CA decision, People v. Mendoza (1981) says you do have protection in your backyard.
A Portland Oregon attorney, Bert Krager, is responsible for this insistence that photography has very few limits and that privacy is very restricted. Glancing at his "manual" one is struck by the absence of legal citatations. He may be correct, but his article is what academic psychologists call a "think piece" because it lacks grounding
It's become very evident who the foamers around here are and that their parents never taught them any manners.
That would be a "conducterie stick".
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Let the railroads install sight screens if they want privacy. But until they do and the cameraman uses a selfie stick to peer over it, there is no wrong doing analogous to any invasion of privacy.
charlie hebdoou do not know the cameraman's motives. You are simply guessing.
That's true, but the conductor's not done a thing to establish the cameraman's motves either, and that is relevant to the argument proposing his being victimized or exploited by the recording.
Until he approached the camera, there was no element of provocation. Not one.
Convicted One charlie hebdo And your sarcastic post about Zapruder is not analogous. Not sarcastic at all. If I was the Tuber in this incident, I would be highly tempted to argue that the conductor's presence was incidental to my goal of recording the train, until the conductor ELECTED to involve himself in a more direct fashion. "Incidental" qualifies the recording as non-specific to him as an individual, and would likely clear the hurdle of not trying to shame, harass, or discredit him. His subsequent choice to involve himself in a more direct manner not being my choice. As for the source I gave you, well you're free to do your own research.... Which I strongly encourage. I was just trying to help you along that path. You see, a key aspect here is that while the conductor likely saw himself as a central part of the universe (always about "me"), that does nothing to establish the cameraman's actual motive(s). The analogy that I offered illustrates that point. Am I defending the camera man? That's not really my goal here. Just addressing the "invasion of privacy" aspect.
charlie hebdo And your sarcastic post about Zapruder is not analogous.
Not sarcastic at all. If I was the Tuber in this incident, I would be highly tempted to argue that the conductor's presence was incidental to my goal of recording the train, until the conductor ELECTED to involve himself in a more direct fashion. "Incidental" qualifies the recording as non-specific to him as an individual, and would likely clear the hurdle of not trying to shame, harass, or discredit him. His subsequent choice to involve himself in a more direct manner not being my choice.
As for the source I gave you, well you're free to do your own research.... Which I strongly encourage. I was just trying to help you along that path.
You see, a key aspect here is that while the conductor likely saw himself as a central part of the universe (always about "me"), that does nothing to establish the cameraman's actual motive(s).
The analogy that I offered illustrates that point.
Am I defending the camera man? That's not really my goal here. Just addressing the "invasion of privacy" aspect.
You do not know the cameraman's motives. You are simply guessing. As Zugmann said three times, none of you defenders of unfettered right to intruding on another's privacy knows what were the antecedents, what was edited out by the cameraman, and what happened after.
If you seriously think filming a public parade of public figures is at all analogous to filming an anonymous worker who is on corporate property who stated he did not want to be filmed, then there is nothing more to be said.
For the 3rd time, we are only seeing one side of this through an edited click-batey video. Who the heck knows what all went down prior or after to this.
I may have recalled incorrectly, but my recollection is that the videographer was what looked to be 20 yards or more from the ROW, and pointing his camera at two people on a platform that was at least 40 yards away (the lens fools us, probably), still well back from the crossing. We do hear the worker asking for a quick word, so my 40 yard guess seems a bit optimistic...who knows. But, the person then walks for what must be 30 or more paces, and the obliging videographer agrees and moves forward to accommodate the the rail worker.
From there, I felt the conversation was quite civil, and the videographer agreed to what the man asked. I didn't happen to like the 'sweeping' of the camera that took place...I though that could have been done much better if he didn't want to contradict his own agreement to stop recording the person objecting.
But, on the face of it, the great preponderance of the objectionable behaviour, at least the aggression, was that of the rail worker. He clearly lies. If nothing else, it greatly diminishes any claim he could have that the videographer treated him shabbily.
Very little discussion about that minor social infraction?
charlie hebdoAnd your sarcastic post about Zapruder is not analogous.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.