Have You had a Rude Railfan-Railroader Experience?

[Anonymous]

You know the Bible verse thing reminds me of Linus from Peanuts, "We don't win very many ballgames, but we sure have some interesting discussions." as Charlie Brown says. Not that I mind a bit.

[Anonymous]

Dear Ed,
Please believe me that I was not refering to you as one who had flamed me. And yes, Matthew 7.3 is apt for me in this situation too.

Say, as long as we're trading Matthew verses, check out the last sentence of Mathhew 6:9. I've done a few things on this thread to make it applicable to me.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[edblysard]

Daniel,
First, I was not flaming you....
You assumed I was, though not the case at all.
I was offering an explaination in response to a statement you made that I though was incorrect.

LC seems to think I was offering advice, which I was not, just passing on the information given to me by my former employer as to what I could, and could not photograph and publish.
As it seems any advice I did offer turns out to be deemed worthless, then I will cease to pass any of it along, for fear of leading anyone afoul of the law.

As for Bible verses, I perfer Matthew 7.3 myself.

Ed

[richardy]

Proper spelling, grammer and punctuation.[sigh]

[Anonymous]

Okay,
You can flame me about the GCOR.
You can flame me about the law.
If you're going to flame me for what's following, then at least I've got some powerful backup [:)]:

To paraphrase:
The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. Anger is a sin.
Look in the first sections of the New Testament if you want the unabridged text.

[angel][angel][angel][angel][:D][^][8D][:)][:D][angel]

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

Honest to goodness, this is the most purile topic I've ever been on.

Firstly, while we're all pretending to be lawyers, if I'm on public property, and there is a window, then whatever I can see through that window with my eyes is fair game to take a picture of while on on private property. Now, all you people are going to say I'm some sort of pervert for this bathroom thing. The point is that a crew in a locomotive cab has no more expectation of privacy through their FRA-glazed windows than a car driver on a freeway.

I would like to thank James for sticking up for me. I owe you one. I would also like to thank Ed, Mr. Hemphill and everyone else who has remained reasonable.

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by glennbob


Using this ridiculous argument a peeping Tom could justify his crime.

[}:)]In my home town years ago a family was growing marajuana in there greenhouse in the back yard on a large peace of land the police looked across another persons property using bynoculars to see the actions of the pot growers when it went to court the judge threw out the case claiming the evidence was not in plane sight becouse the police had to use bynoculars to magnify what they were seeing or they could not have seen it;[:(] plus they did not get permission to look across other privetly owned land in gathering their information[:)]glennbob

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PigFarmer1

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

Using this ridiculous argument a peeping Tom could justify his crime.

[}:)]In my home town years ago a family was growing marajuana in there greenhouse in the back yard on a large peace of land the police looked across another persons property using bynoculars to see the actions of the pot growers when it went to court the judge threw out the case claiming the evidence was not in plane sight becouse the police had to use bynoculars to magnify what they were seeing or they could not have seen it;[:(] plus they did not get permission to look across other privetly owned land in gathering their information[:)]glennbob

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Why after he clarifed it do you still misunderstand what he said? Do we need three posts after Ed has made it clear what he means? I think he meant, if someone gets a picture throught the window of a loco cab.

Not only did he NOT clarify anything, he used completely inapplicable and WRONG ideas to illustrate why some people will be spending a considerable time in jail if they follow his worthless advice. 'nuff said.

LC

[Anonymous]

No can't say that i have .been doing train spotting for years; everyone i meet loves trains ;maybe its my gray hair

[Anonymous]

Why after he clarifed it do you still misunderstand what he said? Do we need three posts after Ed has made it clear what he means? I think he meant, if someone gets a picture throught the window of a loco cab.

[PigFarmer1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

Using this ridiculous argument a peeping Tom could justify his crime.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

The foregoing shows a shocking lack of understanding of the law. There are some places you ALWAYS have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just because there is a window there doesn't give you the right to look in. The "Plain View" Doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with the Right to Privacy. "Plain View" deals solely with the Fourth Amendment determinations concerning search and siezure by police without a warrant. I'd suggest you spend some time reading on the law before jumping to such silly conclusions...

LC

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainjunky29

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

Nice try..plain sight refers to search and seizure and rules of evidence (ie fruit of the forbidden tree), not invasion of privacy or in this case, potential to drift into the area of stalking, which is illegal in most states.

Dan

[edblysard]

James, their phone numbers are often listed on that railroads web page.

Daniel, I do have a reasonable right to expect privacy in a restroom or bathroom,even if it has windows, same as you have a reasonable right to expect privacy inside your home.

Ed

[Anonymous]

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

[bow][bow][bow][bow][bow]Once again Ed shows his wisdom.[bow][bow][bow][bow][bow]
How would I find a yardmaster's number.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by NARguy

If you come north to Canada, don't make me "unite to protect the company's interests" and have your***hauled off the property in the back of a police car. I will truly enjoy it.

CN and CP both expect us to turn in any and all trespassers. "Access to the workplace" comes to mind, and YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY!

Obviously there is some kind of attitude problem going on here if you get your kicks from turning in railroaders while they are doing their jobs.

I suspect that particular GCOR rule is meant to cover passenger service, not some poor bloke pounding the lead in freight only territory.

Stay away from my rail yard, and don't tell a railroader how to do his job.

You better simer down. What did I say to make you think that, I just like pictures of train, did Otto Perry have any problems with this?

[Anonymous]

Let me expoain the "rights" here.
I cann't trespass
I can take the picture with you in it.
I cann't sell the picture without your permission.
I can take pictures form a public road.

You have no right to take my camera or film it is stealing.
You have no right to stop me from takeing your picture, just fom using your name.

[Anonymous]

Ahh, but allow me also to point out that if the bathroom has windows, and I take a picture of you in there through the window, because of the window, you don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Similarly with locomotive cabs, and houses (lawyers talk about "plainsight").

-Daniel Parks

[edblysard]

I have a good collection of...well, work related magazines in there for just such times![:D]

As Mark stated, it is the reasonable expectation of privacy that is the lynch pin

Ed

[jeaton]

So Ed, if you don't want your picture taken stay in the rest room.[}:)][}:)][(-D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard


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.

Yanno Ed, I hate to admit it when I am wrong, but...you were right about the orkin man (being needed)

Normally I'm real big on free expression of opinion. But what you are being forced to argue here is not a rail roading issue at all. But rather you are having to mediate someones beef with the way the world spins, as opposed to their personal preferances.

And after weeks and weeks of seeing it over an over again, same emotions, just rooted in different topics...I have to agree with you. One reaches a point where....well...[:D]

[chad thomas]

....and explaining how he got a black eye for trying to get some poor unsuspecting railfans film.

[Anonymous]

Dear Chad,
Ahh, but the chainlink fence was a good reason to have a point-and-shoot around to slip through the links.

I can see wabash1 big-holing his intermodal, walking back the stopping distance to the railfan, and explaining to the dispatcher why his train stopped [:)][:D].

Sincerely,
Daniel Parks

[chad thomas]

These days it is getting more common for the fences on overpasses to have camera portholes so you can shoot the action without the chainlink in the way. It's always nice to have a railfan friendly overpass.

[Anonymous]

the BNSF in Galesburg, IL are in general, very courtious. ive been pitched out of a couple places, but they also tell you the next closest public road that you can shoot from. and a MAJOR plus, about 15 years ago or so, the state built a brand new highway overpass over the BNSF yard. its one of probably VERY few, if any, bridges in the country WITH fullsize shoulders! it HAD to be by request of the BN at the time, to give foamers a place to go, to keep them out of the yard. you can park and sit on the bridge all day, and never have a problem!
there is a private road along side of the yard, but aslong as you stay in the car, and smile and wave at anyone else on the road, weve never been kicked out, we got booted once a few years back, because we were out of the car taking pictures of a BN fuel tender at the engine facility. but never agian since we learned to stay in the car.

[chad thomas]

Thanks for that excellent run-down Ed. That was a great post, and very informative. Might have to re-read it, mabee even save it.

When I am taking train pictures I am shooting the train, not the crew. I can understand Wabash's desire to not be photographed, but claiming he would climb down and tamper with my camera is just absurd. There are things in this world we just have to live with. I hate it when the neighbors people pull in the driveway and whale on the horn because they are too lazy to go to the door and knock, especially late at night and early in the morning. But what can I do, I mean realisticly nothing. Like I said there are certain things in this world we have to live with.
So I say to those whineing about having there picture taken GET OVER IT. Your picture is probably being taken many times a day without you even knowing it anyway. Convienience stores, traffic signals, freeway monitors and security cameras are everywhere these days and there is nothing you can do about that.[8D]

[edblysard]

Thanks, Brian...
As a younger man, I did the "portrait” studio thing far a short time...but its a hard business to be in, open any yellow pages and look at how many photographers there are!
Photography laws are not as convoluted as they seem, you, the photographer, own the film and the images it contains, and most of the time; the person being photographed owns the right to sell or publi***hat image.
The standard photographer's waiver and assignment of rights gives you, the photographer, the right to sell, on a limited basis, use of that image for a commercial purpose.
A lot depends on what or how the waiver is written; they can be very general or broad in terms, or quite specific, limiting the image to one particular use or purpose.

If you ever get your photograph taken at a studio, note they do not often give you the negatives, and with the advent of digital photography, the file or card.
Both of those belong to the photographer; the way they are used belongs to the subject.

On the other hand, if you place yourself in a position where being photographed is part and parcel of what you are doing, the courts say you have voluntarily given up your ownership of the use of your image...cops, firefighters on duty, politicians, Princes Harry and William and such are appearing in public as part of their "job" and are free game....
You, as a private citizen, sitting in your living room watching TV are not, even if you have a huge picture window that allows people to see inside.
You have a right to expect privacy inside your home and work place, if such places are private property, even if you take no steps yourself to ensure it...such as hanging curtains or installing blinds, prudent as both would be.

The President of the United States, when appearing in his official capacity as such, has no right to photographic privacy...GW Bush working on his ranch in Crawford, within the confines of that ranch, does.

Ed

[blhanel]

You know Ed, the more of your posts I read, the more respect I have for you. Awesome explanation there.

BTW, great profile shot! I'd add one of me to my profile, but I would be afraid of taking the website down.[;)]

[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