Train Photography Regulations and Federal Law

[Anonymous]

In the past year have taken over 1,300 train pictures including pictures in Union Station in Chicago and all across the US. No one has ever bothered me until Friday, April 21, 2006.

Friday, in a public place, I was threatened with arrest by a Wackenhut security person for taking a picture of a local commuter train (Tri-Rail - Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach). He stated that it was against Federal law, the Homeland security act, to photograph trains. I asked him for a copy of the law and he said to call Tri-Rail at 1-800-874-7245. I called them and they repeated what he stated and said they would call back in an hour with the information. They didn't call back, perhaps hoping I would go away. A subsequent follow up call didn't yield any results. Their website www.tri-rail.com, their trains, and their stations do not have posted regulations or signs prohibiting photography.

Then I searched www.trains.com and found a news article (01/04/2006) about the New Jersey transit authority deciding not to try to prohibit photography. A further Internet search at www.firstgov.gov located the New York transit regulations which also allow photography. See www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/rules/rules.htm section 1050.9. There are probably more as there were a lot more hits.

There are Tri-Rail pictures on the Internet at web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Miami/TriRail/, are these illegal? What about the photography pavilions in Folkston, GA on the CSX mainline (this carries freight & Amtrak passenger trains), in North Platt, NE at the worlds largest train yard (UP's Bailey yard), and there are probably more elsewhere. Are people taking photographs at these pavilions violating the Federal law? What about the web cams and people with camera cell phones? Then there are the aerial pictures on Google Earth showing every bridge, crossing, and switch available to anyone with an Internet connection?

If two major New York/New Jersey transit systems allow anyone to take photographs, how do they do it if is against Federal law? If it isn't against Federal law how can a third rate system in SE Florida ban taking pictures claiming it is against Federal law? A search of the US Code did not get any hits on the prohibition of photography, perhaps the wrong search argument was used. What happens if I post my existing Tri-Rail and other train photos on the Internet? If there is no Federal law, what recourse do I have? Any suggestions on how to proceed from here?

Perhaps everyone should call Tri-Rail at 1-800-874-7245 and ask them for a copy of the law.

Your thoughts, enlighten me.

[fifedog]

The first sentence in your second paragraph answers your own question - - - Wackenhut Security. Understand that these folks are the bottom feeders on the security chain...[;)]

[Jim Wrinn]

There is no such law.

Go to this web site, print out the photographer's rights brief, carry it with you, and go have fun. Jim

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[spbed]

That is really a laugh a rinky dink operation like Trirail & U are jeopardizing the security off the USA. That is a American who has allowed his position to go to his head. I heard that you do not even need a hi school diploma to work for W/hut [:D]]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DMatthes

In the past year have taken over 1,300 train pictures including pictures in Union Station in Chicago and all across the US. No one has ever bothered me until Friday, April 21, 2006.

Friday, in a public place, I was threatened with arrest by a Wackenhut security person for taking a picture of a local commuter train (Tri-Rail - Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach). He stated that it was against Federal law, the Homeland security act, to photograph trains. I asked him for a copy of the law and he said to call Tri-Rail at 1-800-874-7245. I called them and they repeated what he stated and said they would call back in an hour with the information. They didn't call back, perhaps hoping I would go away. A subsequent follow up call didn't yield any results. Their website www.tri-rail.com, their trains, and their stations do not have posted regulations or signs prohibiting photography.

Then I searched www.trains.com and found a news article (01/04/2006) about the New Jersey transit authority deciding not to try to prohibit photography. A further Internet search at www.firstgov.gov located the New York transit regulations which also allow photography. See www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/rules/rules.htm section 1050.9. There are probably more as there were a lot more hits.

There are Tri-Rail pictures on the Internet at web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Miami/TriRail/, are these illegal? What about the photography pavilions in Folkston, GA on the CSX mainline (this carries freight & Amtrak passenger trains), in North Platt, NE at the worlds largest train yard (UP's Bailey yard), and there are probably more elsewhere. Are people taking photographs at these pavilions violating the Federal law? What about the web cams and people with camera cell phones? Then there are the aerial pictures on Google Earth showing every bridge, crossing, and switch available to anyone with an Internet connection?

If two major New York/New Jersey transit systems allow anyone to take photographs, how do they do it if is against Federal law? If it isn't against Federal law how can a third rate system in SE Florida ban taking pictures claiming it is against Federal law? A search of the US Code did not get any hits on the prohibition of photography, perhaps the wrong search argument was used. What happens if I post my existing Tri-Rail and other train photos on the Internet? If there is no Federal law, what recourse do I have? Any suggestions on how to proceed from here?

Perhaps everyone should call Tri-Rail at 1-800-874-7245 and ask them for a copy of the law.

Your thoughts, enlighten me.

[wallyworld]

Just the name wackenhut sounds like a goofball operation meant to sell pecan rolls at a truck stop. I read a book some time ago about the Pacific Electric full of photographs taken during WW2. In one of the captions the author/photograher related how paranoid
the authorities were about catching anyone taking photos of trains. This guy went to extreme lengths to pursue his hobby and had to resort to creative tactics to do so. He got an orange vest like the type trackwalkers use as his disguise and at one point climbed up on one of the catenary support towers in the middle of the street to get a good shot of some trains when along came a police officer on his beat. Here was the author hanging off the steel support like a squirrel in an orange vest with a camera in his hand. Oops. Guerilla tactics in railfan photograhy-truth is stranger than fiction.

[Anonymous]

I take my shot like a sniper and clear out. Luckily I dont have too many folks where I am.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by shay1925

There is no such law.

Go to this web site, print out the photographer's rights brief, carry it with you, and go have fun. Jim

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Thank you for that link. This will be for the CSX-commisioned van drivers that decide to ask me what I'm doing.

[METRO]

What about small local municpalities that claim to have banned photography of "areas of high terrorist intrest" such as Elm Grove Wisconsin? The village in question is a small suburb of Milwaukee with nothing that interesting in it except the ex-Milwaukee Road line.

I was taking pictures in a public park next to the rail line and two cops, each with a hand on their mace, approached and told me I had to stop, and turn over my film and information to them, and then informed me that this was to ensure that I was not a terrorist. They told me that there was a local law stating that anything the police declared of interest to terrorists was off limits to photograph and that included trains.

Now here's the thing, it was summer, I have black hair, brown eyes and a pretty deep tan because I was working at a grounds crew that summer and I've got a British accent. I've been mistaken for other races before, so was this a case of racial profiling? Needless to say I got rather irate about the whole thing, and instead of rewinding my film, I "accidentally" just opened the back of my camera and exposed the film (probably not the smartest thing I've ever done but I was rather put out.)

At any rate, about a week later I got a call from the Elm Grove PD saying that I had been cleared of any terrorist actvity but should not take any more pictures of trains in their city.

What a mess.

Cheers!
~METRO

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by METRO

What about small local municpalities that claim to have banned photography of "areas of high terrorist intrest" such as Elm Grove Wisconsin? The village in question is a small suburb of Milwaukee with nothing that interesting in it except the ex-Milwaukee Road line.

Always remember to bring a bag of donuts along with to use a a bribe! Maybe just leave one on on the dashboard, so they know.


But seriously,
If I remember this story you posted in another thread, did not the incident happen in 2002? Have you been back there since, or have you called the PD and ask a chief about their policy? Maybe they've mellowed a bit since then.

Just curious, because I go there occassionally also.

[Anonymous]

Turn over the film?

HAH. It's all digital now. I keep a small digital film card that has random images on it.

[edblysard]

The bill in its final form as passed.
Find the part about photographing trains...anyone?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107nbN4wm::

[Anonymous]

Nope I didn't find a thing in it at all. So it is still legal.

[cspmo]

QUOTE: I was threatened with arrest by a Wackenhut security person

Call the Wackenbutt office and tell them where ,& when this happen, that guard would probably get fired. Security can not arrest anyone all they can do is call the Police.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

The bill in its final form as passed.
Find the part about photographing trains...anyone?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107nbN4wm::

Wow Ed, that link is already dead. Maybe the Wackenhut Security people hacked into it. [:D]

[edblysard]

http://thomas.loc.gov/
type patriot act, or HB# in the search engine...
Ed

[METRO]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by METRO

What about small local municpalities that claim to have banned photography of "areas of high terrorist intrest" such as Elm Grove Wisconsin? The village in question is a small suburb of Milwaukee with nothing that interesting in it except the ex-Milwaukee Road line.

Always remember to bring a bag of donuts along with to use a a bribe! Maybe just leave one on on the dashboard, so they know.


But seriously,
If I remember this story you posted in another thread, did not the incident happen in 2002? Have you been back there since, or have you called the PD and ask a chief about their policy? Maybe they've mellowed a bit since then.

Just curious, because I go there occassionally also.

Actually no I haven't been back, but I do see what you're saying 2002 was an even more paranoid time than today. I've since moved downtown though and found some even better photo spots than the one in Elm Grove. One I'm particularly fond of is a public square off the Menomonee River Parkway and Underwood Av in Wauwatosa. The CP main crosses the river there and the lighting is great on a sunny afternoon.

Cheers!
~METRO

[DPD1]

That's two seriously bored cops... I'd love to drop guys like that in the middle of south central, or someplace equally intimidating. They'd never get out of their car.

Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com
- Featuring the TrainTenna Railroad Scanner Antennas -

QUOTE: Originally posted by METRO

I was taking pictures in a public park next to the rail line and two cops, each with a hand on their mace, approached and told me I had to stop, and turn over my film and information to them, and then informed me that this was to ensure that I was not a terrorist. They told me that there was a local law stating that anything the police declared of interest to terrorists was off limits to photograph and that included trains.

[upchuck]

[(-D]Wackenhut...[(-D]...He probably looked like [4:-)]...Try wearing this [oX)]...and see
what happens...

[Lord Atmo]

i never get busted for photography in Altoona. ever. i even get waved to by engineers and other crewmembers frequently

[bnsfkline]

I carry around a copy of "The photograpers rights" and that usally shuts em up and they go away grumbling. Photographing trains is NOT a federal offence, if it was, we'd ALL be in federal prison!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsfkline

I carry around a copy of "The photograpers rights" and that usally shuts em up and they go away grumbling. Photographing trains is NOT a federal offence, if it was, we'd ALL be in federal prison!

Now that tells it like it is.

[n2mopac]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by bnsfkline

I carry around a copy of "The photograpers rights" and that usally shuts em up and they go away grumbling. Photographing trains is NOT a federal offence, if it was, we'd ALL be in federal prison!

Now that tells it like it is.

Thanks for this link. I will be carrying a copy of this in my camera case. I have never been approached, but I have had some railroad employees keeping careful eye on me in cerain areas, especially photographing trains leaving yards in Ft. Worth, TX.

Ron

[mandelswamp]

In the New York area where the Homeland Security is still code Orange, they are still very jumpy about photographing certain items. The bridges and tunnels have posted signs forbidding photography. The NY MTA and the NJ Transit both considered rules forbidding photography but the public outcry was so great that they backed off on such rule changes. Sadly, some guards and law enforcement personnel believe that Homeland Security outlawed photographing trains. However, I can find no evidence of any US law or regulation to that effect. I suggest that you ask the individual to call his or her supervisor and ask for the specific legislation section that forbids your photography. Tell them you will gladly comply once they can enlighten you with the actual law since you are unaware of its existance and welcome the opportunity to be a better informed citizen. Its important to remain calm, polite, and respectful. Tell them that if they are uncomfortable with your photography, then you will leave the area and find a locality that will honor your rights to take photographs.

[Anonymous]

uspscsx, remember that the cab drivers that the railroad hires couldn't get on with Wackenhut. tell them to screw off. Provided your not standing on railroad property!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by shay1925

There is no such law.

Go to this web site, print out the photographer's rights brief, carry it with you, and go have fun. Jim

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

What is a PDB file? When I tried to access it, Windows told me the following:

File Type: Microsoft Debug File
File Extension: .pdb
Description: This file is used by a debugger to provide rich information about the debug session.

Kent Loudon

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Iowarail

uspscsx, remember that the cab drivers that the railroad hires couldn't get on with Wackenhut. tell them to screw off. Provided your not standing on railroad property!!!!!!!!

OUCH!

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nkloudon

QUOTE: Originally posted by shay1925

There is no such law.

Go to this web site, print out the photographer's rights brief, carry it with you, and go have fun. Jim

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

What is a PDB file? When I tried to access it, Windows told me the following:

File Type: Microsoft Debug File
File Extension: .pdb
Description: This file is used by a debugger to provide rich information about the debug session.

Kent Loudon

It's a Palm Database File. You clicked on the wrong link (unless you have a PDA, or "Palm"). Try the one above the image - it is a PDF file. By now most folks have downloaded the Adobe Reader, but if by chance you haven't, adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. It's free.

[oldyardgoat]

Out in the State of Insania (sou. Calif.), in the Calif. Republic (check their flag), photographers wanting to take pics of the Metro-Stink yard were continuously accosted by a UP *** on the other side of the fence. And, routinely, an LA cop had to come by and tell him his jurisdiction ended at the fence. Of course, the LA cop is an "Official" --state hired and paid-- Officer of the Law, which according to Calif. national law, has juridiction throughout that country. now that's a true Police State.
I put my camera away during the pause between the falling of the twin towers. Orwell was right: government doublespeak, as exemplified by the "Patriot" Act.
Just thought of something: they don't stop anyone from taking pictures of steam excursions where they operate. Maybe they not on the national security radar--too obsolete, like a diesel submarine.

[CNW 6000]

I had a cop come up to my truck one time when I was waiting for a CN train so I could take a picture. He asked me what I was doing out in the middle of nowhere with a camera. I replied that I was waiting to take a picture of the engines at the head of the train. He admonished me to stay back from the tracks and stay off of RR property and that if I did so I was fine. I thanked him so that's my good story for this issue.

I did have an engineer yell at me once for standing on a public sidewalk and taking pics of his 2 engine consist. He actually got on radio to dispatch and backed his units far enough away from public access that I couldn't get a decent shot. Anyone else had something like this happen?

[nobullchitbids]

Guys, the rules are simple:

1) The First Amendment remains the fundamental law of the land.

2) Unless clearly and unambiguously posted for genuine reasons of national security (e.g. the inside of an atom-bomb assembly plant), photographing anything from a public place is permissible, and no statute trumps the Constitution.

3) The railroad has the right to regulate activity on its own land.

4) Many stations are railroad property, even though open to the public.

5) Wackenhutt Security is a private security firm; in many states, its personnel can execute arrests; however, such an arrest is no different from any other citizen's arrest, and the executing individual, if a private person, does not enjoy any kind of judicial or quasi-judicial immunity (both he and the company can be sued for damages).

6) No one is required to turn over film to anyone (even a police officer), unless he actually is under arrest -- a threat of arrest is not sufficient.

7) Even an actual police officer is not immune from suit for violating First-Amendment rights (18 U.S.C. sec. 242; 42 U.S.C.. secs. 1983, 1985).

8) Most courts have jurisdiction only over "cases" or "controversies" -- there must be an actual arrest, or a civil suit, before them for the court to defend your rights.

So, show some courage, guys: The next time some self-appointed defender of the law threatens you with arrest for doing something perfectly legal, call his hand on it and tell him his alternative is to take a hike or face arrest for assault (you should call the cops, not arrest him yourself -- see above). BUT, do make certain you are on public land when you do this!