# Anyone take photos while on the train?



## Photoggirl (Aug 28, 2018)

Anyone ever take photos of passengers or crew while riding on the trains? Would love to see some if you have. Im a photographer and Im planning on taking photos of interesting passengers or crew, to just document life on an Amtrak.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 28, 2018)

I strongly encourage you to ask Crew members permission first! Some crew may not like to be photographed for personal reasons. So just ask them, "Hey! Is it ok if I take a photo of you"? If not don't take it personal I can think of at least half a dozen reasons they may not want their photo taken. Passengers as well.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

Just to verify, you're going to ask those people for permission before taking photos of them, right? And you can find photos of Amtrak passengers and staff basically anywhere. It might save you some time to just go on google and search for "people on Amtrak" or "Amtrak on board crew" or something like that. Just a tip.

EDIT: You beat me to it by like two seconds.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2018)

With Street Photography, which is basically what Im talking about doing, its basically taking candid shots of people going about their lives so no I dont ever ask for permission because it ruins the moment. However if asked I would delete them.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

Guest said:


> With Street Photography, which is basically what Im talking about doing, its basically taking candid shots of people going about their lives so no I dont ever ask for permission because it ruins the moment. However if asked I would delete them.


Yeah, I would not recommend just taking photos of random people on the train without asking. I get that asking might "ruin the moment", but a lot of people might get upset if they see someone taking a photo of them without permission, especially if you're trying to do it subtly and not get their attention. At minimum you should let them know afterward that you took the picture and ask if they're okay with it. But I do not think it's a good idea to just take a bunch of photos of people and only delete them if the person happened to notice and specifically asks you to delete it.


----------



## Acela150 (Aug 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > With Street Photography, which is basically what Im talking about doing, its basically taking candid shots of people going about their lives so no I dont ever ask for permission because it ruins the moment. However if asked I would delete them.
> ...


I agree with this fully. Especially photographing employees. ALWAYS ask permission of the employees you want to photograph. Many employees don't mind. But there are a few that do mind. I heard this story here on AU from a member who recently passed away. Someone took a photo of an employee who was on their cell phone conducting company business, that person posted the photo online. That employee although on a phone call related to company business was brought up on charges and got in trouble. That person that took the photo didn't ask if they could take a photo. They did and that employee got in trouble.

*DO NOT TAKE PHOTOS OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THAT EMPLOYEE!!!*


----------



## Maglev (Aug 28, 2018)

I feel that a train is a public place, and it is fine to take pictures of people. Who knows, maybe their computer is taking a picture of me?


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 28, 2018)

Acela150 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


There's also the risk that you happen upon a very strict and/or angry employee (Amtrak has many) who makes a big deal out of it, and then you could be in real trouble. I've heard multiple stories about people who got detained or even kicked off the train for taking pictures of staff and even Amtrak equipment. That's of course highly unlikely, but you could very well get a pretty unpleasant talking to from the employee or maybe the conductor.

My point is, at the end of the day, isn't it just simpler and better fir everybody to just ask before taking a photo?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 28, 2018)

Guest said:


> With Street Photography, which is basically what Im talking about doing, its basically taking candid shots of people going about their lives so no I dont ever ask for permission because it ruins the moment. However if asked I would delete them.


Riding on Amtrak is not the same as walking down a public street. It may be called public transportation but it's on private property. Offering to delete easily recoverable photos means nothing in the digital age. In my view the best way to handle this is to ask people early in the trip if you can have permission to photograph them later in the journey. That gives your subjects the option to decline your request while giving you the ability to catch those who agree in a relaxed and casual state.



Maglev said:


> I feel that a train is a public place, and it is fine to take pictures of people. Who knows, maybe their computer is taking a picture of me?


There is a world of difference between accidentally including a random bystander next to a friend and intentionally photographing an identifiable stranger surreptitiously. When I'm on private property in an area that is not normally visible from a public street or sidewalk I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Rather than just assume I won't mind it's better to ask and keep things honest and pleasant.


----------



## caravanman (Aug 28, 2018)

It is a sensitive subject, rather like photographing children without permission these days...

My understanding of "the law" in the UK is that you can take photos of people without their permission, but I agree that "natural" rather than posed photos are hard to come by once you ask permission.

In some ways, you are using subjects as free raw material for your "documentary"... How will you feel if others use your work for their own ends, without your permission?

Ed.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 28, 2018)

Maglev said:


> I feel that a train is a public place, and it is fine to take pictures of people.


Yes, the train is a public place.

But it is one thing to take a picture of the train with people boarding or the entire car length with the back of people’s heads. It is totally another thing to focus exclusively on the couple in seats 7 & 8 or the family in the Family Room without their permission.


----------



## Sauve850 (Aug 28, 2018)

I take random pictures of folks once in a while in public settings. I have a long lens and am very seldom seen. I want no one posing for the camera. Busy street corners, county fairs, rodeos, general outdoor venues. Have some wonderful photographs. I would ask first on a train however.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2018)

caravanman said:


> It is a sensitive subject, rather like photographing children without permission these days...
> 
> My understanding of "the law" in the UK is that you can take photos of people without their permission, but I agree that "natural" rather than posed photos are hard to come by once you ask permission.
> 
> ...


If a Street Photographer took photos of me and posted them online Id have no problem.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 28, 2018)

Lots of opinions, not a lot of actual policy, which can be found here:

https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy

The relevant bit:



> 3. Ticketed Passengers on platforms may photograph or video record during the time they are preparing to board or immediately after alighting from a train. Equipment is limited to hand-held devices. Such photography, including equipment set-up will be done in a reasonable, safe and timely manner.
> 
> 4. Ticketed passengers on board trains may take photos or video record on a train when it does not interfere with passengers or crew and in accordance with any directions given by Amtrak onboard train personnel.


You're good, unless a crew member tells you to stop.

That isn't to say that you *should*, that's a matter of personal preference and manners. Nor is it to say that you won't have a problem with some unruly crew member that doesn't understand their employers photo policies. Take pictures on and around trains, and you'll have an incident. Mine was on WMATA, I was in the right, and the police concurred with me once they arrived. After raising hell with management after the fact, I got some meaningless apologies and promises to train their employees better.

But, as long as you follow crew directions, you have the policy on your side, which should (but doesn't always) count for something.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 28, 2018)

Ryan said:


> Lots of opinions, not a lot of actual policy, which can be found here:
> 
> https://www.amtrak.com/photography-video-recording-policy
> 
> ...


So far as I am aware Amtrak cannot give one passenger permission to photograph another passenger against their will. I guess that's where the vague concept of "interference" comes into play. If a stranger happens to notice you photographing them covertly they may react in a seriously adversarial manner that could cut the trip short for both of you. Anyone who assumes all strangers are fair game regardless of disposition is either really good at hiding their efforts or they probably haven't been doing this very long. I've seen careless folks lose the use of expensive looking cameras and phones over confrontations about respecting privacy and invading personal space. Better safe than sorry I would think.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 28, 2018)

From a legal perspective, you don’t need Amtrak’s permission to take pictures of somewhere that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

They permit photography on their trains (within the above quoted guidelines), and I don’t need a random stranger’s permission to take their picture in the common area of a train.

As you and I both correctly note, none of that is worth a bit when someone takes offense at your photography and takes a swing at you, damaging your gear or worse.

But that’s a personal decision for the OP to take. Everyone takes risks in life, it’s up to them if they want to take this particular one. For whatever little it’s worth, the law and Amtrak’s policy are on their side.


----------



## pvd (Aug 29, 2018)

How you use an image matters. It is generally ok to photograph where people have no expectation of privacy. Personal use or news stories is one thing, commercial use or selling products with an image or peoples images for a profit, and you get into whole different ballgame. That's when "model releases" usually come into play.


----------



## PVD (Aug 29, 2018)

Not withstanding that, there are many reasons why some people do not wish to have there picture taken....


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 29, 2018)

Guest said:


> caravanman said:
> 
> 
> > It is a sensitive subject, rather like photographing children without permission these days...
> ...


I understand that, but not everybody feels that way. For example, I personally would not want someone surreptitiously taking pictures of me, and especially not if they were going to post it online.

All we're saying is that people have a right to know that someone is photographing them, and opt out if they want to. As Devil's Advocate said, maybe you could ask people early on in the trip if they would be willing to be photographed later on. That way they'd still be going about their normal business and you could get some candids. I'm just saying that I really recommend those people give their consent before being photographed, since it's their right to not want to.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 29, 2018)

Ryan said:


> From a legal perspective, you don’t need Amtrak’s permission to take pictures of somewhere that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
> 
> They permit photography on their trains (within the above quoted guidelines), and I don’t need a random stranger’s permission to take their picture in the common area of a train.
> 
> ...


There's the legal perspective and the basic human decency perspective. People should be able to give consent before someone takes a photo of them, especially when it's a photo specifically of them (rather than a wide shot of say the whole train car which includes a bunch of people but doesn't focus on any of them), and ESPECIALLY when it will be posted online.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 29, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > From a legal perspective, you don’t need Amtrak’s permission to take pictures of somewhere that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
> ...


As I recall, you have posted pics on AU with closeups of strangers.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2018)

Your view and perspective on how things should be are not aligned with current law. You have no expectation of privacy when you’re in a public space. There is (and has been, long before digital cameras or the internet) a thriving facet of the photography hobby dedicated to street photography that captures people as they go about their daily business.

There always exists the difference between “can” and “should”, but the discussion needs to be framed in the reality of today’s legal environment.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 29, 2018)

Please DO NOT take recognizable pictures of people anywhere without their permission, not in this modern world. It may be legal, but it is rude, inconsiderate, and could even be dangerous to someone (say a battered wife who has left her husband and he sees her picture and recognizes where the photo was taken?)

There is already no privacy anywhere now for decent people--please do not make it worse.

I never, ever want any stranger taking my picture, and I only want my friends doing it if they ask first. And no, I have nothing to hide--I just value my privacy highly.

Take as many pictures of as many trains as you want--most trains are more interesting and have more personality than many people, anyway.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 29, 2018)

Ryan said:


> From a legal perspective, you don’t need Amtrak’s permission to take pictures of somewhere that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. They permit photography on their trains (within the above quoted guidelines), and I don’t need a random stranger’s permission to take their picture in the common area of a train.


I'm not sure the law is as "on their side" as you say. I think you could make an excellent case for a reasonable expectation of privacy at your assigned long distance coach seat or virtually anywhere in a sleeper car. I'll concede that it would be perfectly normal to get caught in a photo while walking down the aisle in a lounge or dining car but if you're sitting with your family in a booth on Amtrak while a stranger is focusing their photography on your booth from another booth that could be seen as an unreasonable invasion of your privacy. Photography law is clear cut in some previously well litigated areas, but in virtually any other situation it's still up to interpretation. Just to be clear I'm coming at this from the perspective of photographer liability, not Amtrak liability.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2018)

I specifically and explicitly used the phrase “common area of the train” for that exact reason.

We could probably have a vigorous debate about coach seats, most of the case law on expectations of privacy while aboard public transit centers around searches of police and luggage in overhead racks. Generally speaking, the courts have ruled that officers smelling or touching soft sided bags don’t violate an expectation of privacy, so a photo of something or someone in plain view at their seat is probably on the side of legal.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 29, 2018)

Ryan said:


> I specifically and explicitly used the phrase “common area of the train” for that exact reason. We could probably have a vigorous debate about coach seats, most of the case law on expectations of privacy while aboard public transit centers around searches of police and luggage in overhead racks. Generally speaking, the courts have ruled that officers smelling or touching soft sided bags don’t violate an expectation of privacy, so a photo of something or someone in plain view at their seat is probably on the side of legal.


I'm not aware of any private party photography law which was determined by rulings on claims of unreasonable searching by an officer of the state. Photography law includes all sorts of exceptions for public figures, public safety, presumption of wrongdoing, accidental and incidental inclusion, unusual events, etc. But that's not the same thing as enjoying the rights and expectations of an enforcement official. I think the most reasonable advice we can give is that we don't know what would happen until someone formally challenges it, a judge or jury rules on it, the eventual conclusion reaches its final disposition, and someone knowledgeable of the repercussions reports upon it. That being the case it's probably best to ask permission, or keep your candid photos private, or blur out any easily identifiable faces before publishing photos taken aboard the train. If that's unacceptable I think we can all agree that station and platform areas are open season so have at it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> Please DO NOT take recognizable pictures of people anywhere without their permission, not in this modern world. It may be legal, but it is rude, inconsiderate, and could even be dangerous to someone (say a battered wife who has left her husband and he sees her picture and recognizes where the photo was taken?)
> 
> There is already no privacy anywhere now for decent people--please do not make it worse.
> 
> ...



As someone has said Street Photography has been around for decades now and judging by the responses here its still a hot button issue, some are okay with it some arent, but in the end if youre in a public area you have no expectation of privacy. Street photography is about documenting life around you. As for your example, people are gonna show up in photographs regardless, either intentional or not.


----------



## PVD (Aug 29, 2018)

Court rulings have consistently come down on the side of the rights of photographers in what are considered public places, with narrow exceptions. At the same time, there are also many rulings that protect private parties from the commercial use of there image or likeness. Search and seizure by LEO is a whole different ball of wax.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 29, 2018)

This may take care of itself.

If "Street photography is about documenting life around you," then you will end up with picture after picture of the same thing, because they will all be pictures of morons staring at their phones. There is no "life" as such anymore to photograph--just crowds of people addicted to their phones--so I would assume there will be no need to document it after about the 500th photograph of the same thing.

That's the main reason I said most trains have more personality than many people--a train has a life and a personality, the phone-addicted person does not.

My apologies to regular readers of my posts who are usually used to seeing me even-tempered and good-humored. This topic just brought up two of the things I detest the most: (1) being photographed without having a chance to get out of it, and (2) smartphones.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 29, 2018)

There is also the issue of “will these pictures be used publicly/commercially or just for your own private use/memories?

If commercially, you must obtain prior authorization from Amtrak. That is why you may see signs in casinos or restaurants that say something like



> A film crew may be taking photos here today. If you are in this location, you give consent of your photo being used.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2018)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I specifically and explicitly used the phrase “common area of the train” for that exact reason. We could probably have a vigorous debate about coach seats, most of the case law on expectations of privacy while aboard public transit centers around searches of police and luggage in overhead racks. Generally speaking, the courts have ruled that officers smelling or touching soft sided bags don’t violate an expectation of privacy, so a photo of something or someone in plain view at their seat is probably on the side of legal.
> ...


They are a bit disconnected, my line of thinking was along the lines of where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

At the end of the day, you’re right. A judge and jury would have to decide it. Given the case law that is out there, it would be a huge sea change to system that someone on a public bus or train has a legal right to not be photographed.


----------



## jis (Aug 29, 2018)

Clearly people on public transit property get photographed all the time by the surveillance cameras. I doubt that that will change in today's atmosphere.

NJTransit ran into trouble because they were recording audio too. That was discontinued after protests and court intervention. But challenges to surveillance video have generally not succeeded, while oddly enough in many jurisdictions traffic cameras have been discontinued.

At least Amtrak does not have surveillance cameras in the public areas of their trains yet.

However, merely photographing someone without their knowledge is a different thing from publishing such photos indiscriminately.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 29, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> This may take care of itself.
> 
> If "Street photography is about documenting life around you," then you will end up with picture after picture of the same thing, because they will all be pictures of morons staring at their phones. There is no "life" as such anymore to photograph--just crowds of people addicted to their phones--so I would assume there will be no need to document it after about the 500th photograph of the same thing.
> 
> ...


Wow. Well said.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 29, 2018)

Guest said:


> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Please DO NOT take recognizable pictures of people anywhere without their permission, not in this modern world. It may be legal, but it is rude, inconsiderate, and could even be dangerous to someone (say a battered wife who has left her husband and he sees her picture and recognizes where the photo was taken?)
> ...


At minimum, if you don't want to ask people for permission beforehand and "ruin the moment", ask the person(s) afterward if they're okay with you keeping the photo and posting it online. That way people will will be acting normal in the photo, but they'' still have the option to opt out if they don't feel comfortable with it. Do you feel that that's fair?


----------



## jebr (Aug 29, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > This may take care of itself.
> ...


It's only well said if you agree with the premise that everyone is looking at their smartphones these days and there's no street life anymore outside of people looking at their phones. I think that's a false premise: people who've wanted distractions have had them for a number of years (newspapers, books,etc.) and we have still had more street life than "people looking at their newspaper." While the smartphone may have more to look at, there's still plenty of street life to be found and photograph, even with prevalent smartphones.

As but one example, here's some photos of "street life" from the Minnesota State Fair Midway. There's even *gasp* phones in some of the photos! And yet there's still photos of varied and interesting street life, both with and without a phone.


----------



## PVD (Aug 29, 2018)

Humans of NY a book of street photography spent around 7 months on the NYT Bestsellers List. Yes, it has been followed up on social media with a huge following, but the original (very successful concept) was good old street photography.


----------



## BCL (Aug 29, 2018)

PVD said:


> Humans of NY a book of street photography spent around 7 months on the NYT Bestsellers List. Yes, it has been followed up on social media with a huge following, but the original (very successful concept) was good old street photography.


There was _The Americans_ by Robert Frank. Some

However, if I'm taking photos of my family while on the train, I'm not really going to worry about it. I generally don't publish photos of them anyways and only distribute them to people I know. I worry about that as much as I worry about accidentally photographing people at Disneyland.

I would never intentionally take a photo of someone as a specific subject without permission.


----------



## Sauve850 (Aug 29, 2018)

jebr said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> > Mystic River Dragon said:
> ...


----------



## caravanman (Aug 30, 2018)

I think the topic has been well covered now. Big surprise, some folk don't mind, some folk are very against it.

At the end of the day, Photoggirl, you have to decide what to do, or not...

Ed.


----------



## Gracious Traveler (Aug 30, 2018)

I wonder if everyone is aware that publishing (in any media) a recognizable image of anyone without that person signing a legal release document is legally liable. These forms are standard. Ever notice those photos with faces removed? That's the reason. If someone photographs me and I see it on FB or a blog or article or book without my having signed a release they are liable.

And please remember that taking photos of the Amish Mennonites is against their deeply held religious heritage.


----------



## PVD (Aug 30, 2018)

see post 17


----------



## Mystic River Dragon (Aug 30, 2018)

The mention of the Amish above raises an interesting question--they take trains often, and they are in full view of everyone in coach or in the lounge--how do they avoid getting in the photo of a random photographer? I wonder if they have a way of dealing with this, especially the sneaky photographers with the long-distance lenses--it would be interesting to know (plus helpful to the rest of us who want to avoid the photographer!).


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 30, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> The mention of the Amish above raises an interesting question--they take trains often, and they are in full view of everyone in coach or in the lounge--how do they avoid getting in the photo of a random photographer? I wonder if they have a way of dealing with this, especially the sneaky photographers with the long-distance lenses--it would be interesting to know (plus helpful to the rest of us who want to avoid the photographer!).


I’m sure they’re aware that people are taking pics of them - I’m sure it happens in Lancaster County all the time. Just don’t get close to them to take their picture without asking first.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 30, 2018)

Gracious Traveler said:


> I wonder if everyone is aware that publishing (in any media) a recognizable image of anyone without that person signing a legal release document is legally liable. These forms are standard. Ever notice those photos with faces removed? That's the reason. If someone photographs me and I see it on FB or a blog or article or book without my having signed a release they are liable.
> 
> And please remember that taking photos of the Amish Mennonites is against their deeply held religious heritage.


Taking and posting a photo of someone without their consent is actual legal. Whether or not the subject is okay with it is another matter.


----------



## PVD (Aug 30, 2018)

That depends on the nature and purpose of the post, and in addition, certain jurisdictions have additional rules for minors. It is also important to note that if it is from a location where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, like a bathroom or fitting room, it is not legal pretty much everywhere in this country.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 30, 2018)

Gracious Traveler said:


> I wonder if everyone is aware that publishing (in any media) a recognizable image of anyone without that person signing a legal release document is legally liable. These forms are standard. Ever notice those photos with faces removed? That's the reason. If someone photographs me and I see it on FB or a blog or article or book without my having signed a release they are liable.


Legally liable for what?

Do you legitimately believe that every single person that has their picture in the newspaper has signed a form granting the newspaper permission to do so?


----------



## PVD (Aug 30, 2018)

News is the most common exception to rules about use of images.


----------



## BCL (Aug 30, 2018)

Mystic River Dragon said:


> The mention of the Amish above raises an interesting question--they take trains often, and they are in full view of everyone in coach or in the lounge--how do they avoid getting in the photo of a random photographer? I wonder if they have a way of dealing with this, especially the sneaky photographers with the long-distance lenses--it would be interesting to know (plus helpful to the rest of us who want to avoid the photographer!).


The Amish and Mennonites aren't necessarily monolithic in their beliefs. Most apparently won't "pose" for a photograph since it would be considered "prideful". Others will avoid it while some will say it's OK as long as it's in a natural position. Many Amish have been interviewed. I remember reading about a couple of Amish volunteer firefighters in Ohio who fought to keep their positions. They wore beards and there were concerns over the quality of the seal of their firefighting masks. Obviously they had no issue with the technology. They actually posed for a photograph for that article.

I've heard of some Amish who have traveled overseas on US passports, and obviously the State Department doesn't exempt anyone from their photo requirements.


----------



## PVD (Aug 30, 2018)

The firefighter one is pretty common, there is a recently filed lawsuit against FDNY regarding facial hair standards and the ability to comply or not comply with the OSHA standard. I had a respirator fit test done post 9-11 so I could be properly garbed to enter a building in the "hot zone", to see if their communications systems were salvageable, no facial hair was our standard.Nobody complained. NYPD has developed alternate hats for Sikh officers in certain positions.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 30, 2018)

PVD said:


> News is the most common exception to rules about use of images.


I’m aware of that, I’m not sure that our guest does. His blanket statement was pretty all-encompassing.


----------



## PVD (Aug 30, 2018)

Many people don't realize the myriad of subtle differences that come into play. Patents, trademarks, copyright, royalties, and licensing are huge areas of legal practice. much of that is covered under Federal laws, but "personality" use issues are almost exclusively handled by the states. There is a reason why IP law is one of the few growth areas in corporate law today. Funny thing, I have a few DVDs of old tv programs where some of the music is changed, the original rights deals didn't cover anything other than tv use, because home video didn't exist. When a deal could not be made, the music had to changed to release the show....


----------



## jis (Aug 30, 2018)

I thought this article gives a pretty good set of guidelines, which I tend to follow myself. And yes, I do a lot of candid photography that is seldom shared with anyone, but is well within the bounds prescribed by this article.

https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/

I have taken a lot of general photos in Coach and Business Class cars on Amtrak, Brightline and other passenger rail outfits in the US, and in passenger rail cars outside the US, where the subject was the interior and not in particular any individual, though often many get caught in the photos. I have never had a problem.

OTOH usually when a person that is individually identifiable is the subject I tend to be much more careful about it, unless it is a long telephoto shot out in the hills or even on a street. High quality telephoto zoom lenses makes this an interesting challenge on the whole. But in that case in general the "expectation of privacy" test is the most appropriate one to use. Also the discussion about "public place" in the article is of relevance too.

Just IMHO.


----------



## Maglev (Aug 30, 2018)

The OP requested pictures of people, and here's a couple more that I have. The first is a shot of sunset over Puget Sound from the wrong side of the train. The single seats on the older (more comfortable) Talgos are usually on the opposite side from the water. The second shot is of bags of linens from the _Coast Starlight _in Klamath Falls. How and why are linens taken off there? The guy in the center seems to have made eye contact with my camera, and didn't have anything to say to me.


----------



## BCL (Aug 30, 2018)

The one thing I got from that article is to be cognizant about how one's photography may be disrupting others. There's nothing more annoying than when I'm driving in San Francisco and someone is just standing in a crosswalk taking a selfie. And even credentialed photographers often get it wrong. One time I was at a baseball game sitting with a group of regulars I knew. There was a credentialed photographer who seemed to not quite understand what was or wasn't acceptable. Most credentialed photographers work in camera wells set up for them, but they are allowed to roam the venue. However, she was blocking the view and eventually security came to her telling her that her credential didn't give her that privilege.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 30, 2018)

jis said:


> I thought this article gives a pretty good set of guidelines, which I tend to follow myself. And yes, I do a lot of candid photography that is seldom shared with anyone, but is well within the bounds prescribed by this article.
> 
> https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/street-photography-and-the-law-7-things-you-need-to-know/
> 
> ...


Brilliant article. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Gracious Traveler (Sep 2, 2018)

With regard to the Amish and other Mennonites; one must understand that a photograph is a "graven image", and their strong religion forbids it. Period. (Exodus 24:6) If they know they are being photographed, someone is sinning in so doing. It is a transgression of divine law. These lovely "plain people" are driven in everything they do by biblical laws. Please respect them. Please. It's what we do in Pennsylvania. Chat with them. And remember that English is not their household language. They speak a dialect of German now known as "Pennsylvania Dutch" (Deutsch) or in Ohio, a Swiss/German dialect. I am inspired by them - and their work ethic, if you didn't guess.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Sep 2, 2018)

Gracious Traveler said:


> With regard to the Amish and other Mennonites; one must understand that a photograph is a "graven image", and their strong religion forbids it. Period. (Exodus 24:6) If they know they are being photographed, someone is sinning in so doing. It is a transgression of divine law. These lovely "plain people" are driven in everything they do by biblical laws. Please respect them. Please. It's what we do in Pennsylvania. Chat with them. And remember that English is not their household language. They speak a dialect of German now known as "Pennsylvania Dutch" (Deutsch) or in Ohio, a Swiss/German dialect. I am inspired by them - and their work ethic, if you didn't guess.


Thank you for sharing this information about our Amish communities in Ohio. We live near several Amish groups, they sell products at our farmer markets at church and partake of many stores and businesses in our town. Do not take photos of them at short distances or for personal photos. Respect their beliefs. They ride Amtrak quite often from Cleveland on the LSL & CL. Would never take their photo in the station or on the train.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 2, 2018)

Some of us have equally valid non-religious beliefs that drive our desire to avoid becoming a subject in someone else's narrative. I know that I've ended up in numerous photos and videos of others by genuine accident and I have no problem with that. It's the people who seek to turn a stranger into an identifiable subject covertly or against their wishes who bother me. I saw many posts that seemed to equate on-board photographs with street photography, but if you actually tried to photograph people aboard Amtrak from a street corner you'd see darkened windows in the daytime and silhouettes at night. Not to mention in the era of easy doxing and deadly swatting the law's outdated concept of reasonable privacy has a long way to catch up.


----------



## PVD (Sep 2, 2018)

From a legal perspective it is more or less comparable to street photography. Being legally able to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do in every circumstance. Being rude or disrespectful of other peoples feelings or wishes is generally not ok, regardless of legality.


----------



## BCL (Sep 3, 2018)

A graven image means idolatry. The issue with photography of the Amish is far more cultural than religious. And again they're not monolithic either. Different communities apparently have their own interpretations as I've even seen posed photos and video done with permission. Obviously there are communities that are less restrictive than others when it comes to photography. As an example, look up Yoder's Restaurant & Amish Village in Florida. Here's a photo of their founders:






Of course nobody wants to be a curiosity or a freak show. Its always OK to be respectful.

I dont worry about people ending up in the background of my vacation photos. I dont go around looking to invade anyones privacy, but I know I end up in the background too and can't really complain.


----------



## RichieRich (Sep 3, 2018)

Didn't the Amish have their own Reality Show once???


----------



## Gracious Traveler (Sep 4, 2018)

Yes. It was called "Breaking Amish", and was about former Amish who left their Amish past, and the struggles they had in the "real world". There were no Amish in the show. This forum is about trains, so we should really drop this and move on. But before we go on to another subject, might I add that there are Mennonites, Amish Mennonites, Old Order Mennonites, Dunkers, Hutterites, and Brethren. Each has a different set of "rules" - often shown in slight variations of buggy color - even hub-cap color!, dress. etc. Yet they are often bunched into being called "Amish" by many. (side story: The "Whoopie Pie" is of Pennsylvania Amish origin. Field workers and school children did need some dessert after their hearty packed lunches. Cake was nice, and icing was imperative, but messy. So they put the icing safely in the middle! No icing in the lunch pail!)


----------

