charlie hebdoNice try, linking to a general topic book rather than citing any specifics.
Would you rather he provided you a long list of cites on a railroad forum? I'm sure he could do that with a little linking to online legal reference services...
It would be interesting to read a theory that asserts railroaders are 'public figures' either in the celebrity or government-service sense...
Convicted One charlie hebdo Why don't you show us the legal references, You can start here: The Right to Privacy, Alderman and Kennedy Covers many basics you appear to be lacking. Well worth the money, I bought mine when it was first released.
charlie hebdo Why don't you show us the legal references,
You can start here: The Right to Privacy, Alderman and Kennedy Covers many basics you appear to be lacking.
Well worth the money, I bought mine when it was first released.
Nice try, linking to a general topic book rather than citing any specifics. And your sarcastic post about Zapruder is not analogous.
Murphy Siding getting some form of financial compensation from YouTube by using the man's photo...
Slight tangent: Do you believe that releases had to be obtained from every person whose face was shown on the Zapruder film?
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid selector I haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details. I suggest that you watch the video and not go by the consensus here. Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him. There was no great and nasty confrontation in which the video guy committed a breach of ethics and rudely refused to stop filming the conductor. I would like to hear what you conclude after watching the video. Except that's not true. He keeps filming the conductor. Well they did have a matter of dispute when they confronted each other. All I am saying is that it was not nearly as serious and offensive as it is being made out to be. He had the video running as the meeting unfolded. I don't think it would be unsual to keep the video going as that meeting began. That is hardly the rudeness and ethical sin that people are making it out to be. The video guy did not know what was coming next from the conductor. The video guy may have wanted to video the meeting as a witness. He did say later that it was a good thing he got it all on video because that shows he was not trespassing-- as we hear the train crew assert in reporting him to the police. I don't hear that. Do you? I hear some beeps, that he asserts are the sound of the rail crew asking the dispatcher to call the police. The video dude appears to be someone willing to embellish, so I can't say I believe him about this aspect. At 5:06, you can hear the conductor on the radio saying: “I’d like to report a trespasser here on the Franklin Lead.”
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid selector I haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details. I suggest that you watch the video and not go by the consensus here. Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him. There was no great and nasty confrontation in which the video guy committed a breach of ethics and rudely refused to stop filming the conductor. I would like to hear what you conclude after watching the video. Except that's not true. He keeps filming the conductor. Well they did have a matter of dispute when they confronted each other. All I am saying is that it was not nearly as serious and offensive as it is being made out to be. He had the video running as the meeting unfolded. I don't think it would be unsual to keep the video going as that meeting began. That is hardly the rudeness and ethical sin that people are making it out to be. The video guy did not know what was coming next from the conductor. The video guy may have wanted to video the meeting as a witness. He did say later that it was a good thing he got it all on video because that shows he was not trespassing-- as we hear the train crew assert in reporting him to the police. I don't hear that. Do you? I hear some beeps, that he asserts are the sound of the rail crew asking the dispatcher to call the police. The video dude appears to be someone willing to embellish, so I can't say I believe him about this aspect.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid selector I haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details. I suggest that you watch the video and not go by the consensus here. Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him. There was no great and nasty confrontation in which the video guy committed a breach of ethics and rudely refused to stop filming the conductor. I would like to hear what you conclude after watching the video. Except that's not true. He keeps filming the conductor. Well they did have a matter of dispute when they confronted each other. All I am saying is that it was not nearly as serious and offensive as it is being made out to be. He had the video running as the meeting unfolded. I don't think it would be unsual to keep the video going as that meeting began. That is hardly the rudeness and ethical sin that people are making it out to be. The video guy did not know what was coming next from the conductor. The video guy may have wanted to video the meeting as a witness. He did say later that it was a good thing he got it all on video because that shows he was not trespassing-- as we hear the train crew assert in reporting him to the police.
Murphy Siding Euclid selector I haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details. I suggest that you watch the video and not go by the consensus here. Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him. There was no great and nasty confrontation in which the video guy committed a breach of ethics and rudely refused to stop filming the conductor. I would like to hear what you conclude after watching the video. Except that's not true. He keeps filming the conductor.
Euclid selector I haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details. I suggest that you watch the video and not go by the consensus here. Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him. There was no great and nasty confrontation in which the video guy committed a breach of ethics and rudely refused to stop filming the conductor. I would like to hear what you conclude after watching the video.
selector I haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details.
I suggest that you watch the video and not go by the consensus here. Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him. There was no great and nasty confrontation in which the video guy committed a breach of ethics and rudely refused to stop filming the conductor. I would like to hear what you conclude after watching the video.
Except that's not true. He keeps filming the conductor.
Well they did have a matter of dispute when they confronted each other. All I am saying is that it was not nearly as serious and offensive as it is being made out to be. He had the video running as the meeting unfolded. I don't think it would be unsual to keep the video going as that meeting began. That is hardly the rudeness and ethical sin that people are making it out to be. The video guy did not know what was coming next from the conductor. The video guy may have wanted to video the meeting as a witness. He did say later that it was a good thing he got it all on video because that shows he was not trespassing-- as we hear the train crew assert in reporting him to the police.
I don't hear that. Do you? I hear some beeps, that he asserts are the sound of the rail crew asking the dispatcher to call the police. The video dude appears to be someone willing to embellish, so I can't say I believe him about this aspect.
At 5:06, you can hear the conductor on the radio saying: “I’d like to report a trespasser here on the Franklin Lead.”
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Backshop Lithonia Operator And if you are not using the photos to make money, or are creating an image which holds the individual up to ridicule, There's the sticking point, right there. He is using it to make money and with his clickbait title, it could be construed as ridicule.
Lithonia Operator And if you are not using the photos to make money, or are creating an image which holds the individual up to ridicule,
And if you are not using the photos to make money, or are creating an image which holds the individual up to ridicule,
There's the sticking point, right there. He is using it to make money and with his clickbait title, it could be construed as ridicule.
charlie hebdoWhy don't you show us the legal references,
Euclid, your second paragraph is correct. Generally, you can photograph the railroader if you are not trespassing. There are very few places where the law would prohibit it. And if you are not using the photos to make money, or are creating an image which holds the individual up to ridicule, you would not likely lose a civil suit just because the guy didn't like it. However, the guy might walk over and punch you in the mouth. And he WOULD be violating a law.
But in practical terms, if someone doesn't want me to shoot them, I honor that. There are plenty more trains, and plenty more railroaders who don't care. Life's too short to deal with the prickly people.
But does a guy hanging from a boxcar have a "reasonable expectation of privacy?" No. But it might complicate your life if you don't afford him the courtesy of desisting once you know of his objection.
That guy's video "controversy" is kind of a nothingburger, IMO. I'm more interested in why it took two guys to ride that tank. One's a trainee?
Still in training.
charlie hebdo A conductor working on his train and on his railroad is not in public. Rather he is on private property. Legally someone else does not have the right to video without permission and if then using it commercially he must obtain a release. Maybe it is different in Canada as much is. The key legal element is the expectation of privacy. If on private property, that expectation exists.
A conductor working on his train and on his railroad is not in public. Rather he is on private property. Legally someone else does not have the right to video without permission and if then using it commercially he must obtain a release. Maybe it is different in Canada as much is.
The key legal element is the expectation of privacy. If on private property, that expectation exists.
You seem to have made this post in response to what Selector said just prior to your post. But neither your post nor Selector's post says whether the photograper is on public property or railroad property when photographing railroad employees on private railroad property.
My understanding is that a photographer may film or photograph railroad employees on railroad property without their permission if the photographer is doing so from public property.
Convicted One charlie hebdo The railroad is not public property. I suggest that you reasearch "reasonable expectation of privacy" and save us both some wear and tear.
charlie hebdo The railroad is not public property.
I suggest that you reasearch "reasonable expectation of privacy" and save us both some wear and tear.
Why don't you show us the legal references, especially including where the person whose privacy is invaded, is, in public or or private property ? You seem to overlook that point. You do realize the legal notion of privacy is the basis for Roe v Wade?
charlie hebdo2. Your attempted analogy is flawed and absurd.
Yeah? Jackie Kennedy didn't think so when the paparazzi discovered telephoto lenses.
charlie hebdoThe railroad is not public property.
I suggest that you research "reasonable expectation of privacy" and save us both some wear and tear.
Convicted One charlie hebdo A conductor working on his train and on his railroad is not in public. Rather he is on private property. Legally someone else does not have the right to video without permission That's really untrue. The litmus is "reasonable expectation of privacy", If you are in open view, you have none. Standing in your front yard with no pants on might be a good example. See how many people respect your privacy.
charlie hebdo A conductor working on his train and on his railroad is not in public. Rather he is on private property. Legally someone else does not have the right to video without permission
That's really untrue. The litmus is "reasonable expectation of privacy", If you are in open view, you have none.
Standing in your front yard with no pants on might be a good example. See how many people respect your privacy.
1. The legal principle is of privacy depends on where you are. The railroad is not public property.
2. Your attempted analogy is flawed and absurd.
3. A more parallel analogy would be your videoing into your neighbors' large front window from your property without permission.
zugmann Euclid Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him. ...he still showed him. The polite thing would have been to not include that footage, but it's social media - sometimes politeness takes a back seat to likes and subscribes!!!! The content creator knew exactly what he was doing. Full within his legal rights, but it is morally ambiguous. Esp. considering the religious symbolism he plasters on his title screen. Oh well.
Euclid Apparently nobody has noticed, but the video maker agreed to the conductor’s request to stop filming him.
...he still showed him. The polite thing would have been to not include that footage, but it's social media - sometimes politeness takes a back seat to likes and subscribes!!!! The content creator knew exactly what he was doing. Full within his legal rights, but it is morally ambiguous. Esp. considering the religious symbolism he plasters on his title screen. Oh well.
Balt, my comments were so generic that they would be appropriate for any such video. I thought I was quite clear that, notwithstanding the conductor's apparent or described objection, the videographer was within his rights to tell that person to go pound salt. Nicely, of course.
Now, I will watch the video and see if my assumptions, and the descriptions of the video on which I relied, stand up.
Edit [added] - mmmyup. They do.
Touch n go here. As for me and only me, I would not want any one filming me if I did not know the person. I crtainly would not any video of myself performig any type of work event, either on the ground or riding equipment, posted for the public to view. It is none of their business. Taking pictures is no issue, but leave the video cams away from this type of rr switching work. It can be distracting for workers out there simply trying to do their job with no drama involved
selectorI haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details. Assuming the videographer was within his/her right to stand there, and to record anything in view (and I believe that to be the case here), nothing about The Law or ethics was going to allow the rail worker to prevail except the willingness of the videographer to agree on his/her own accord. If it had been me, or you, we would have agreed, maybe even hastily. I would even have offered to show the person what I had recorded so that he didn't worry unduly...IF....IF...that had been the reason for his objection. I'm not sure it was.
Without having watched the video - you have left yourself in a position where your comments have absolutely no validity - pro or con.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
Murphy Siding selector There is nothing inherently unethical about photographing a person in public where the conventions, customs, culture, or laws do not proscribe such action. The reason it is not unethical is because it is not wrong. You could make the argument that decency, courtesy, good manners, good breeding, good upbringing...they all require a person to be sensitive to the wishes of others, but there is no natural, legal, or ethical requirement for a person to accede to that person's wishes. Technically, I suppose that’s correct, but it’s not always so black and white. For example, around here, if you were filming some stranger’s kids at a school or a park, you’d end up talking to the police. If you had refused to stop filming said children when asked, the pack of playground moms might have beat the stuffing out of you before the police arrived to save you. Go further west into cowboy country and the same probably holds true for filming others’ wives and girlfriends. << You just don't get a lot of opportunities to use that icon.
selector There is nothing inherently unethical about photographing a person in public where the conventions, customs, culture, or laws do not proscribe such action. The reason it is not unethical is because it is not wrong. You could make the argument that decency, courtesy, good manners, good breeding, good upbringing...they all require a person to be sensitive to the wishes of others, but there is no natural, legal, or ethical requirement for a person to accede to that person's wishes.
There is nothing inherently unethical about photographing a person in public where the conventions, customs, culture, or laws do not proscribe such action. The reason it is not unethical is because it is not wrong.
You could make the argument that decency, courtesy, good manners, good breeding, good upbringing...they all require a person to be sensitive to the wishes of others, but there is no natural, legal, or ethical requirement for a person to accede to that person's wishes.
Technically, I suppose that’s correct, but it’s not always so black and white. For example, around here, if you were filming some stranger’s kids at a school or a park, you’d end up talking to the police. If you had refused to stop filming said children when asked, the pack of playground moms might have beat the stuffing out of you before the police arrived to save you. Go further west into cowboy country and the same probably holds true for filming others’ wives and girlfriends. << You just don't get a lot of opportunities to use that icon.
Norris, you and I know what we'd do in similar circumstances, and we wouldn't be 'wrong', unless it were to give up our right to do as The Law permits; I think that would be a grave mistake, and wrong in the strictest sense of the term. And, I agree that the 'black and white' problem is always a sticky point when it comes to one's view in ethical terms.
To me, the 'grey zone' is where Kantian Good Will enters consideration, and that entails sensibilities and courtesy. I feel it often costs nothing to agree to stop recording a person who expresses an objection, but one is not bound ethically to do so. The Law is quite clear, and to give up one's right to act legally is that proverbial slippery slope.
I haven't watched the video at all, I'm just going by what seems to be the consensus of the pertinent details. Assuming the videographer was within his/her right to stand there, and to record anything in view (and I believe that to be the case here), nothing about The Law or ethics was going to allow the rail worker to prevail except the willingness of the videographer to agree on his/her own accord. If it had been me, or you, we would have agreed, maybe even hastily. I would even have offered to show the person what I had recorded so that he didn't worry unduly...IF....IF...that had been the reason for his objection. I'm not sure it was.
I referred to Kant and his notion of Good Will. He would also have argued that, if the rule is to be universalizable to all persons and all similar circumstances that one must cease recording when another person asks/demands it, then all similar rights have the same quicksand on which to stand; in all similar circumstances, all people should immediately do as others demand of them if it is countenanced as an objection to what one is doing. Surely that can't be universalizable, and it doesn't appear to be stated that way in The Law.
Another objection might be that the videographer is using the conductor for his purposes, making the person the means to an end (a Kantian problem once again). This is not so because the objection would have to be that nobody may record anybody else unless one has permission. That opens up a can of worms, and again, is not what The Law expresses or intends. One could take imagery of no person on a beach, in a plaza, walking along sidewalks, and so on unless one first secured the object's permission. While that may be the case in some foreign jurisdictions, it isn't the case in N. America as far as I know. And in any case, the fact that Conductor X happened to be the object was only the case because Videographer Y happened to choose that day and location, as was his right, thank God, to exercise his legal privilege...oh, wait, I meant 'right'. That is, it was due to accident. There was clearly no picking of the day when Conductor X happened to be busy at that location.
A the point where the Conductor confronted the videographer, it became a pissing contest. Not an ethical condundrum or breach.
Google Street View comes to mind here. Google's blurring of faces and license plates is voluntary, not mandated.
If memory serves, at one time a key criteria in rejecting 'invasion of privacy" concerns was whether the photographer was acting in a manner that might be deemed to be harrassing of the party being photographed. That may have some application for our conductor.
I don't know......
Some railfans are pretty creepy as far as social behavior and social skills are concerned. I would not want any to film me, especially today with the internet.
I've been catching up on this thread and am delighted to note that I'm not alone being "stuck in the last century". Having company makes me feel better! ;-)
CW
EuclidHow so?
I've been involved in situations similar in scope to what happened here. (Although NOT as a railroader, mine was one more of dealing with "sidewalk superintendents") And a key element to crowd control is in not giving them a satisfactory platform to stand on.
Playing into their hands, and I think the conductor did exactly that in this instance, is not the smart way to go.
Convicted OneOf course, tact and grace probably wouldn't do much good in this specific instance, because the Tuber appears to want to provoke a reaction.
How so? By the title of his video? By saying he has the right to film from public property? It seems to me that when the conductor said he did not want to be filmed, the tuber stopped filming him. Where is the provocation? If there was any, it was before or after this video.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.