# Metra Picture Taking Ban in Chicago



## MrFSS (Aug 17, 2006)

A friend of mine who is sort of in the railroad business just emailed this to me. I don't know the source or the validity of it. Anyone else heard anything about it?



> August 16, 2006 CHICAGO - Union Pacific Railroad has announced that with the recent
> 
> increase in security concerns across the United States, it will no
> 
> ...


----------



## Sam Damon (Aug 18, 2006)

IMO, UP just keeps *asking* for government reregulation of its business. It's kinda like throwing rocks at a dog. Eventually the dog will chomp on you.

If true, this simply reflects a huge disconnect UP management has with the USA. Sure, the current VP was on the board of directors; a former White House Chief of Staff works there now; and they've passed out buckets of money to friendly candidates. This has happened in the past. It did not stop the people when they got angry at the railroads. As a result of such shennanigans, the railroads were regulated to the point of near-extinction. Apparently, history classes are not required for MBA-types.


----------



## AmtrakFan (Aug 18, 2006)

I am thinking that UP has a hiddened Ajenda on this one.


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 18, 2006)

I have learned this information was originally posted at Trains.com (Trains Magazine) news wire.


----------



## frj1983 (Aug 18, 2006)

Notice that BNSF took the exact opposite tack several months ago when it started it's "Citizens for Railway Security" program. I loved Dick Davis' statement about "UP not liking railfans is not true" but it comes across exactly as if UP does not like railfans, no matter what it's posturing. Besides, what will a ban do now? Hundreds of pictures of Metra running on UP lines already exist on the Web.

I have the feeling that UP will soon say you cannot photograph any of their trains anywhere. How they will enforce the Metra ban or any other ban should be interesting to see!


----------



## George Harris (Aug 18, 2006)

The legality and constituionality of photo bans is doubtful to say the least. Indefensible is more like it. That is not even getting into to stupidity of it. If someone wants pictures for evil purposes they can manage them with any of the readily available small cameras or a phone. I wonder what these people use as a substitute for brains.

george


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 18, 2006)

I have posted this *LINK* before, but it is probably time to let others see it agian.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Aug 18, 2006)

Any truth to the rumor that the new UP Logo will be the South end of a Northbound horse? :angry:


----------



## frj1983 (Aug 22, 2006)

AmtrakWPK said:


> Any truth to the rumor that the new UP Logo will be the South end of a Northbound horse? :angry:


Wow,

I hadn't heard that rumor AmtrakWPK, but I certainly love the humor "behind" it!


----------



## Sam Damon (Aug 24, 2006)

Last year, I posted this topic. Nothing in law has changed.

IANAL, but IMO, UP will have a difficult time attempting to enforce this ban. Pity I don't live in Chicago so I can rabble-rouse. From the other topic:



> On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers. They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations.


and a few other nifty bullet points:



> * There is no federal law that would prohibit photography in public places or restrict photography of public places and/or structures;
> * Any restrictions that the government does impose would need to have supporting evidence that it was essential for public safety. The burden is on the government;
> 
> * Government officials cannot single out news cameras for removal while continuing to allow the general public to remain in a location, particularly if the public is taking pictures;


For the most part, if the public is invited to a space, you have the right to take pictures. Where things get tricky are with arenas, and privately-owned venues. I'll stop here.


----------



## 1702 (Aug 24, 2006)

After seeing all the turmoil this "photo ban" has caused on other forums (relatively quiet here), I decided to phone Metra yesterday to find out what they knew about it. The short answer, "Nothing"! Here's the details-

First I spoke with John Gottlieb, Metra's Manager of Special Services who, among other duties, issues permits for & oversees commercial photography at Metra facilities. He said that non-commercial photography is allowed at all Metra stations, provided the photographer

(1) Stays within public access areas,

(2) Stays at least 15 feet away from the right of way, and

(3) Carries proper identification at all times & is ready to present same to law enforcement officers upon

request.

Any type of commercial photography requires a permit obtained thru Mr. Gottlieb's office.

Mr. Gottlieb stated he had not heard of any "photo ban" by the Union Pacific, and that as far as Metra is concerned as long as railfans (or anyone else) observe the rules and conduct themselves in a safe manner, taking pictures is fine.

Since Mr. Gottlieb's office isn't directly involved with the law enforcement/security functions at Metra, he referred me to the office of Chief James Sanford of the Metra Police Department. I spoke with Commander Dorsey there, and he confirmed everything Mr. Gottlieb had told me, including having no knowledge of any "photo ban" imposed by the UP. He further stated that he seriously doubted UP would attempt to impose such a ban regarding Metra facilities without discussion with the Metra Police Department.

Both gentlemen were very helpful and gave permission to quote them on the matter.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Aug 24, 2006)

Well, that's encouraging. At least UP's current insanity apparently isn't contagious. It would be interesting to see if UP personnel on a Metra platform would try to interfere with a photog. Maybe we should suggest they put their trains inside of paper bags so nobody can take their pictures. Probably wouldn't have enough paper to completely do the job, so they'd end up half in the bag........ :lol: :lol:


----------



## frj1983 (Aug 29, 2006)

I note that in this morning's Chicago Tribune, UP will no longer prohibit pictures from being taken at Metra Stations. So Uncle Pete has given in!


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 29, 2006)

frj1983 said:


> I note that in this morning's Chicago Tribune, UP will no longer prohibit pictures from being taken at Metra Stations. So Uncle Pete has given in!


*HERE* is the link to the stoty if you are interested.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 29, 2006)

This whole thing has been sheer silliness - again.

Even Gottleib is missing something in "2) Stays at least 15 feet away from the right of way," Your abililty to control what happens ends AT your property line, not 15 feet beyond it.


----------



## boratwanksta (Aug 31, 2006)

George Harris said:


> This whole thing has been sheer silliness - again.
> Even Gottleib is missing something in "2) Stays at least 15 feet away from the right of way," Your abililty to control what happens ends AT your property line, not 15 feet beyond it.


amen to that 100%. now if there was a campaign to property educate the ignorant 'security guards'(really nothing more than rent-a-cops) i often see sitting on their arse in CTA 'L customer attendant booths, and get those dumb***** to realize that there's nothing illegal about shooting pictures on station platforms(and i KNOW i'm not the only person who's been harassed by these rent-a-cops). i hate always getting harassed by those idiots every time i do a completely legal activity on station platforms. guess i'll just print a copy of that pdf document sometime about legal rights of photographers, maybe it'll get at least most(if not all) to realize its none of their darn business to interfere with my right to shoot pics.

sorry if some non-Chicagoians are reading this and don't get what i'm saying, but i know any Chicagoians here will understand what i mean. and to get back on subject, i hope to read up more about the incident that occurred in Morton Grove last year, as i'm occasionally in that community from time to time, and couldn't imagine why the cops there harassed a photographer for shooting Metra pics(unless say, they were trespassing on private property to shoot the pic or something).


----------



## frj1983 (Sep 1, 2006)

boratwanksta said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > This whole thing has been sheer silliness - again.
> ...


boratwanksta,

The photographers were not trespassing as I understand it. The Metra Cops simply told them that they could no longer take photographs because of 9/11. They also claimed that the Patriot Act trumped the Constitution. I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AlanB (Sep 1, 2006)

frj1983 said:


> boratwanksta said:
> 
> 
> > sorry if some non-Chicagoians are reading this and don't get what i'm saying, but i know any Chicagoians here will understand what i mean. and to get back on subject, i hope to read up more about the incident that occurred in Morton Grove last year, as i'm occasionally in that community from time to time, and couldn't imagine why the cops there harassed a photographer for shooting Metra pics(unless say, they were trespassing on private property to shoot the pic or something).
> ...


Actually FRJ, it was worse than that. If I recall correctly, the cops claimed that local laws trumped Federal laws and the constitution. Guess they missed class the day they were teaching the Constitution.


----------



## frj1983 (Sep 1, 2006)

AlanB said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > boratwanksta said:
> ...


That they spoke such words would not surprise me and it has been awhile since the event(and having recently passed the 50 mark, my mental acuity is not as great as it once was), all I know is that after the Media stink, Metra immediately apologized and said essentially the same thing as was quoted(John Gottleib) above.


----------



## boratwanksta (Sep 1, 2006)

AlanB said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > boratwanksta said:
> ...


haha, your last comment is so well said. and thanks to AlanB and fri1983 for clarifying the Morton Grove incident for me, though i'm hoping to read at least 1-2 actual entries about the little details about this incident when i get the chance to do so.


----------

