# Photo Policies of Amtrak and other Transit Agencies



## Ryan (Jun 1, 2011)

While doing some reading about the ACLU gearing up to sue the Maryland MTA over photographer's rights, I had the idea that it would be a nice thing to have the photo policy of the various agencies that we come into contact with collected in one place.

First off, *in general* it's important to remember that for non commercial use, photography of anything that you can see from public property is fair game to take pictures of.

Read this (and I keep a copy of it in my camera bag - I haven't, but really should also keep a copy of the photo policy for wherever I'm shooting in the bag as well).

_*Amtrak:*_

Amtrak's official policy can be found here.

It's pretty photographer friendly, however I have a bit of an issue with it. In part, it states:



> 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_.


I don't like the italicized bit because for seemingly any reason a crew member that doesn't like what you're doing can tell you to stop and you have to oblige them. I'd try to make the convincing argument that I'm not interfering with passengers or crew, but at the end of the day you're at the mercy of the crew while you're on board a train.


*WMATA (Washington, DC):*

I'm well aquainted with WMATA's policy, due to this incident (which is surprisingly on the first page of results when you Google "WMATA photo policy"). The policy can be found in this 128 page PDF.

The relevant portion is section 100.8 and is mostly focused on regulations concerning commercial style filming. The only reference to non-commercial photography comes in section (2):



> Still photography that does not require a tripod, special lighting, film crews, models, impair the normal ingress/egress or operation of WMATA services and can be accomplished by a hand-held camera by one person *is not regulated*


(bold mine)
Basically, no tripods and stay out of the way. There have been some issues with people getting harassed about flashes in the face of train operators in underground stations that makes some sense. There's nothing that says whether a standard camera flash is considered "special lighting", but I suspect that they could make that stick and make you turn off the flash.

*Maryland MTA:*

Maryland's official policy can be found here. I don't have a lot of experience with it (because I haven't had any issues), but apparently the officers up in Baltimore are a little more overzealous. The ACLU recently announced that they planned on suing the MTA based on their harassment of a tourist. The MTA was quick to respond with their photo policy and some excellent statements by the Chief and MTA Administrator. The gist of their photo policy is that it's perfectly OK as long as you're not being unsafe:



> No permit required: A permit is not required for non-commercial, personal-use filming or photography by the general public that does not interfere with transit operations or safety.?


Please feel free to add to this list with the regulations for other agencies. It would be nice to have a reference to go to when traveling. It's up to us as photographers to be aware of our rights and assert them when necessary.


----------



## PerRock (Jun 1, 2011)

The CTA policy is pretty lax; you can read it here:

http://www.transitchicago.com/business/photopolicy.aspx

Metra (Chicago) has very little in the way of their policy, you can read the entierty here:



> *Photography & Videography:* For safety and security reasons, photography or videography on Metra property is only permitted in areas that are clearly open to public use. Areas that are accessible only to Metra employees, including but not limited to, the right-of way and rail yards, are highly restricted areas and are not able to be accessed for photography or videography by the general public. Metra will prosecute trespassers to the fullest extent of the law.


from this page: http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/utility_landing/riding_metra/rail_safety_security/emergency_preparedness_public_awareness.html

peter


----------



## Ryan (Jun 1, 2011)

Thanks for sharing.



PerRock said:


> The CTA policy is pretty lax; you can read it here:
> 
> http://www.transitchicago.com/business/photopolicy.aspx


This part kind of sucks:



> Loitering at CTA stations for extended periods for the purpose of taking photographs or video is prohibited.


----------



## PerRock (Jun 1, 2011)

Ryan said:


> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I should mention that you have to pay to get onto a CTA platform anyways, so one could always just hop the next train & take it to the next stop, shoot some pics & ride back.

peter


----------



## lthanlon (Jun 1, 2011)

Don't get me started on my city's beloved CTA.

It's acceptable for street musicians to spread amplifier cords and guitar cases all over the platforms. It's OK for folks to bring along strollers that are almost the size of a compact car. It's OK to bring bicycles onto platforms and trains. But somehow, a tripod is death incarnate?

I know one photographer who was threatened with arrest by station attendants for photographing a revamped station from across the street for a chamber of commerce newsletter about neighborhood improvements. She was doing so at the alderman's suggestion. Another photographer I know was similarly threatened for taking photos when the old Belmont Station was moved. Again, he was doing so from across the street.

I had my own experience with a CTA. While seated on the Ravenswood Brown Line L as it waited in the Kimball Station, I held a small point & shoot camera at arm's length to take a picture of myself and a companion. I was immediately read the Riot Act by a CTA employee, who assured me that I had misunderstood the policy as explained on the CTA website and that all photography is illegal and that he was doing me a very big favor by not having me arrested.

Ironically, at about this same time, Joseph "Dr. Chaos" Konopka was roaming the CTA subway tunnels with a teenage boy wonder in tow, merrily storing cyanide in a storage area to which only he had the key.

Cyanide, shmyanide! But thank God the CTA is safe from photographers.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 1, 2011)

They can print and revamp all the photo rights they want all it takes is a wannabe cop with a uniform to mess up the day.


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 1, 2011)

amtrakwolverine said:


> They can print and revamp all the photo rights they want all it takes is a wannabe cop with a uniform to mess up the day.


Unfortunately this statement is way to true. But remaining calm and reasonable can make the situation better.

Aloha


----------



## Ryan (Jun 1, 2011)

Absolutely! Having the facts on your side helps as well, and when you can point to a document that says you're allowed to be doing what you're doing, it puts the onus on the other guy to provide some documentation to the contrary.


----------



## lthanlon (Jun 1, 2011)

No amount of printed CTA photo policy is going to work in your favor when confronted by CTA employees and the Transit Police. I've lived in the Big City long enough to know this.


----------



## PerRock (Jun 1, 2011)

is the CTA public or private property?


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jun 2, 2011)

NYCSubway.org has a pretty comprehensive list of transit system photography policies. Some of these may have changed since the agencies were queried, though.

http://www.nycsubway.org/faq/photopermits.html


----------



## lthanlon (Jun 2, 2011)

PerRock said:


> is the CTA public or private property?


The CTA is a municipal corporation, so I believe they can treat much of their property as essentially private. The whole issue of what you can do where is open to some interpretation with regard to First Amendment issues. For example, at the Jefferson Park station near where I live, you are obliged of run a gauntlet of newspaper vendors, panhandlers, religious types, politicians and others. Yet, once you've paid your fare and crossed that threshold, employees are willing to take action. I've watched them eject powerful politicians who had the audacity to pass out campaign literature on the platform.


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 3, 2011)

Aloha

Thanks to the OTOL site I found this link to the Baltimore Sun article on a photographer that was harassed.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 3, 2011)

lthanlon said:


> Yet, once you've paid your fare and crossed that threshold, employees are willing to take action. I've watched them eject powerful politicians who had the audacity to pass out campaign literature on the platform.


Long ago (almost 30 years ago) I was on what's now the Green Line when one passenger told another passenger that smoking was forbidden. The smoker disagreed. At the next stop the first gentleman (the one who objected to smoking), pulled out his badge, announced that he was a police (his words), grabbed the smoker, dragged him out of the car and across the platform and slammed his face (and cigarette) into the cement wall with what seemed to me nose-breaking force. I'm sure that it didn't stop there. The doors closed, and the train continued on. That was long ago, and I'd like to think things have changed, but I'd never push things with any Chicago cop. YMMV.


----------



## Spokker (Jun 5, 2011)

Official policy: Photography is allowed.

Unofficial policy: Delete those photos or I'll delete them for you!


----------



## Ryan (Jun 5, 2011)

Where?


----------



## train person (Jun 6, 2011)

Spokker said:


> Official policy: Photography is allowed.
> 
> Unofficial policy: Delete those photos or I'll delete them for you!


Thats ok, if some clown insists that, just "delete" them, smile, walk away, take the memory card out of the camera, use another one, then when you get home use one of the many recovery programmes to get the photos. Deleting just ain't an issue!!!


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 6, 2011)

Aloha

I asked an attorney friend to comment about the video link. Here is his comment.



> *It is not really all that obvious that the poor fellow was right, although he should have been left alone. Most states now have failure to identify statutes that actually make it a petty misdemeanor not to identify oneself upon the demand (with or without reason) of a law enforcement officer. If the guy complied with the demands and showed them his ID, the officer would have yanked it out of his hand and thereby attained an advantage, since the pressure would on the fellow to cooperate with them if he hoped to get his ID back quickly.*
> 
> *The officers were right also about Maryland's law on audio recording being different from that of other states, but I doubt very much that it would prohibit recording when the other party knows he is being recorded. In Hawaii, a party to a conversation, even over the phone, can record without telling the other party it is being recorded, but no so in Maryland.*
> 
> *Yes, there seems to be a huge collision between the right to observe and record and the government's need to insure the public's safety. I guess Google Maps would be committing crimes with its views of everything that security officials consider sensitive. No, it is not illegal to take pictures of mass transit facilities, but such pictures actually could assist terrorists.*


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 10, 2011)

What needs to be done is better training of security people. Train them on what is and isn´t allowed. maybe have a no hero's policy that forbids the security people from harassing photo takers.Unless the photo taker is doing something that will endanger his life or others like getting on the tracks to get a perfect shot or climbing a fence then Let the police decide. the police may side with you they may not.


----------



## Train2104 (Jul 11, 2011)

In the NYC area:

PATH: Photography prohibited.

NYCT, LIRR, MNR, NJT: Photography permitted, no trespassing, no flash, no tripods. NYP and Shore Line East follows Amtrak's rule above.

SEPTA:



> SEPTA welcomes photographers and artists. In return, we simply request they use common sense and courtesy to others in pursuit of their pictures.
> 
> ----
> 
> SEPTA Transit Police and other law enforcement are under orders to question anyone taking photographs or sketching transit facilities.


http://septa.org/policy/film.html


----------



## Braniff747SP (Apr 8, 2012)

Ryan said:


> _*Amtrak:*_
> 
> Amtrak's official policy can be found here.
> 
> ...




I'm quite happy with Amtrak's lax photography policy. On my last trip, I took several pictures- and only once did a crew member say something to me... He said to try not to take pictures where you could see people's faces. Most of my pictures you can only see the back of their head, so It's fine. One picture you can see people's faces; but I took that before he said anything. I took pictures in stations and in and out of the train and I was never told not to do so by anyone... It's a big difference with other transportation companies policies that I'm often subject to. Good on Amtrak.


----------



## John Bredin (Apr 26, 2012)

In relation to Metra, it should be noted that Ogilvie Transportation Center -- former Northwestern Station, where the three UP lines terminate -- is at the base of a skyscraper, Citicorp Center. I have on more than one occasion seen a Citicorp Center security guard (NOT a Metra police officer) tell someone walking through the common lobby that they can't take photos. It's not a Metra policy, but something to keep in mind if you want to take a picture at Ogilvie.


----------



## lthanlon (Apr 26, 2012)

Braniff747SP said:


> On my last trip, I took several pictures- and only once did a crew member say something to me... He said to try not to take pictures where you could see people's faces.


Amtrak has a butts-only policy? I'd have asked this anal retentive to turn around so I could photograph his.


----------



## lthanlon (Apr 26, 2012)

John Bredin said:


> In relation to Metra, it should be noted that Ogilvie Transportation Center -- former Northwestern Station, where the three UP lines terminate -- is at the base of a skyscraper, Citicorp Center. I have on more than one occasion seen a Citicorp Center security guard (NOT a Metra police officer) tell someone walking through the common lobby that they can't take photos. It's not a Metra policy, but something to keep in mind if you want to take a picture at Ogilvie.


I'm through Ogilvie every day. Aggressive panhandling on the street, in the food court, in the waiting room and on the trains prior to departure is much more of a security issue than photography. Street hustlers pretending to helpfully open taxi doors and then demanding a tip also is another problem -- as is failure to enforce a rule that cabs can only leave passengers in front of the building, not pick them up.


----------



## CHamilton (Apr 28, 2012)

Wikileaks Truck Owner Arrested For Photographing Police; Told It Was Because He Was 'A Dick'



> Metropolitan Transit Authority police arrested a man for photographing them at Penn Station in New York City this afternoon [April 26, 2012] – deleting his photo – before releasing him from a jail cell an hour later.
> 
> Clark Stoeckley was issued a summons charging him with "engaging in threatening behavior."


----------



## Braniff747SP (May 8, 2012)

lthanlon said:


> Braniff747SP said:
> 
> 
> > On my last trip, I took several pictures- and only once did a crew member say something to me... He said to try not to take pictures where you could see people's faces.
> ...


The guy was perfectly friendly -a far cry from others- and I don't think he cared; I think that he just did not want to let it be obvious that I was taking pictures.


----------



## darien-l (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm happy with Amtrak's photography policy except for the following:



> Photography and video recording within restricted areas are prohibited. Individuals found in a restricted area will be subject to investigation and possible arrest and seizure of photography and/or video recording equipment may occur pursuant to the arrest.
> Restricted areas include but are not limited to the following:
> 
> 1. Platforms (ticketed passengers are exempt)


This makes no sense, because for the vast majority of Amtrak stations, platforms are public spaces and do not require a ticket to access. There are a handful of exceptions, all in large cities, but at hundreds of smaller stations platforms are not limited to ticketed passengers, and, in fact, in many cases it's not even possible to purchase a ticket, except by mail or onboard the train.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 3, 2012)

CHamilton said:


> Wikileaks Truck Owner Arrested For Photographing Police; Told It Was Because He Was 'A Dick'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is taking a picture engaging in threatening behavior? Once again people of the badge abusing their power just cause they can get away with it.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 4, 2012)

lthanlon said:


> Braniff747SP said:
> 
> 
> > On my last trip, I took several pictures- and only once did a crew member say something to me... He said to try not to take pictures where you could see people's faces.
> ...


Hey! Get the chip off your shoulder. There are quite a few people that do not want their faces in random pictures by strangers, and I think that is quite reasonable. It is a personal privacy issue. That is likewise true for employees at their jobs. Their are so many nit-picking rules that it very easy to be caught violating one in a picture. A very simple example: Take off your hard hat to wipe sweat off your head. It would be off for less than a minute and done in a location and at a time where there would be no real danger, BUT it would violate a rule. While it would probably be a non-issue to any management on the site, if caught in a picture, there would be no way of knowing if the hat had been off for 30 seconds or 30 minutes or all day. Rules violation! Get off the site and pick up your paycheck.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 4, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Hey! Get the chip off your shoulder. There are quite a few people that do not want their faces in random pictures by strangers


Tough.

You don't have an expectation of privacy when you're out in public.


----------



## jis (Jun 4, 2012)

Ryan said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Hey! Get the chip off your shoulder. There are quite a few people that do not want their faces in random pictures by strangers
> ...


As usual, I think the best policy is to let common sense prevail. If you intend to use a person as the primary subject, it is good etiquette to ask for permission. OTOH, if the person is incidental to the photo and the absence of said person will not in any way diminish the core purpose of the photo, then it is fair game. At least that is the rule that I generally go by, and even more stringently when I have the intention to publish the photo somewhere public.

For example, over Memorial Day weekend I was at Liberty State Park taking some pictures, specially of the Empty Skies Memorial and the new Freedom Tower as appropriate subjects for Memorial Day. In my photographic endeavors I captured a very poignant shot of a young lady scanning the names of those who perished on 9/11 on the Empty Skies Memorial, and it turned out that she was a significant part of the subject matter of the photo. So I walked upto her and mentioned the fact that I took a picture and it came out rather nice with her as a significant subject in the photo. I mentioned to her that if she minded I will delete the photo. She looked at the photo and loved it, and asked for a copy. Oh well....

However, such is not always possible, e.g. I have many photos taken from a speeding train in which there are human subjects. I tend not to publish them too widely.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 4, 2012)

jis said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


In theory if you're out in public then you are fair game, so in that sense Ryan is correct. This is especially true for wide angle shots or shots of objects that are simply in the vicinity of strangers. However, there is no reason I can think of not to ask for permission when a stranger is to become a substantial _*and*_ identifiable portion of your photo. This is especially true for photos you intend to publish in some way, even just to a public blog or forum.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 4, 2012)

Oh, absolutely. I don't go around taking pictures of random strangers, but the "You can't take a picture in public because you might inadvertently snap a picture of someone that doesn't want to be photographed" crowd needs to get over it.

I wouldn't knowingly publish a picture depicting someone identifiable in the midst of a rules violation, but I'm not going to let the possibility of taking that picture prevent me from snapping away at whatever I can see.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jun 4, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Oh, absolutely. I don't go around taking pictures of random strangers, but the "You can't take a picture in public because you might inadvertently snap a picture of someone that doesn't want to be photographed" crowd needs to get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't knowingly publish a picture depicting someone identifiable in the midst of a rules violation, but I'm not going to let the possibility of taking that picture prevent me from snapping away at whatever I can see.


 

In some Asian countries, it is essential to get permission before shooting photos of people. And in many cases, the subject of the photo will ask for a little $$$ as a condition of that permission. I just stick to scenics whenever possible. 

 

As for the platforms and areas, I think it's a matter of security, although in the case of a train platform, probably a little misguided, since the "general public" normally has access to the platform. I mean it's not like the "secure/airside" areas of an airport, or the TSA or CBP station(s) (where photography is most definitely prohibited).


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 4, 2012)

hes not talking about taking a picture of a person. hes talking about taking a picture of a train or interior of a station and people just happen to be in the background. Those that have issues with it better not go shopping cause you could be recorded on security camera. It's not like we walked right up to a person and snapped there picture were taking pictures of the inside of the station and they just happen to be in the way.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 4, 2012)

Exactly.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about:





Dome_Trip_060 by Ryan Stavely, on Flickr

I took the picture to show that the dome car was being well utilized by a large number of folks. Just about everyone in there had a camera (at least one), there were easily thousands of pictures taken in the car that day. Not a good place to be if you're camera shy.


----------



## GG-1 (Jun 4, 2012)

Ryan said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Hey! Get the chip off your shoulder. There are quite a few people that do not want their faces in random pictures by strangers
> ...


Aloha

An employee on employer property one is not "in public" And George was spot on.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 4, 2012)

That depends greatly on the employer and the location of the company property.

Generally speaking, if you can see them from public property, they're fair game.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jun 6, 2012)

GG-1 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


George may be correct that some people do not want to be photographed. However, that does not make it illegal or improper for a photographer to take pictures in public.

However, an employee on employer property _can_ be "public". It depends very much on the setting.

For example, let's say I'm standing on a public sidewalk adjacent to a public street, entirely within the public right-of-way. I take a picture of a construction site, and in that picture I capture a worker. Whether that worker is the subject of the picture or is merely incidental to the photograph does not matter for legal purposes. He or she may not want to have been pictured, but that does not matter because he or she is visible from public space _and_ does not have *a reasonable expectation of privacy*.

In the United States, "speech" in public spaces cannot be infringed by the government, except in certain circumstances. Photography is considered a form of speech, and it is almost always legal to take pictures from public spaces. Exceptions include military bases and places where national security is an issue. The courts have ruled that photography of people in public spaces is legal when they do _not_ have *a reasonable expectation of privacy*.

A reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, would be in a stall in a public restroom, or in a bedroom or hotel room visible from the street. If you walk out into a public square or transit platform, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and you have no power to stop someone from taking pictures.

In _publicly accessible private_ spaces, like a shopping mall, the owner or an agent of the owner (security guard), can ask you to stop taking pictures. If you do not stop, you can be asked to leave and if you refuse, you can be arrested for trespassing (not for photography).

In _private_ spaces, you do not have a right to take pictures, but you can certainly do so if you have the permission of the owner.

As far as transit systems and train stations go, those are generally considered public spaces. Sometimes they can be publicly accessible private spaces. At any rate, no one in a public space or a publicly accessible private space has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and photographers can take their pictures.

_You_ may not like that, but that does not matter.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 6, 2012)

Excellent explanation.


----------



## lthanlon (Jun 6, 2012)

I'm sure nobody here wants to be intrusive while taking pictures or make people uncomfortable. I know I don't.

In a different context, I'd have agreed with the Amtrak employee's admonition about not photographing faces if, say, the employee had been chatting with a family of Mennonites when one remarked that he always feels like a photo opportunity on Amtrak, and the employee mentioned this to a photographer zooming in on the family. I think that's fine; that's a kindness I can appreciate.

Maybe something like this is what the employee had in mind, but just didn't explain well enough.


----------



## saxman (Jun 7, 2012)

A couple of things to say if approached by a police officer or other personnel if they threaten arrest:

"What am I being arrested for?"

"What are you going to charge me with?"

That last one makes it very difficult to arrest someone, when they have nothing to charge someone with.


----------



## lthanlon (Jun 7, 2012)

saxman said:


> A couple of things to say if approached by a police officer or other personnel if they threaten arrest:
> 
> "What am I being arrested for?"
> 
> ...


They're the ones with the guns, the handcuffs, or at least the authority to throw you off the train. They'll think of something.


----------



## NY Penn (Jun 7, 2012)

saxman said:


> A couple of things to say if approached by a police officer or other personnel if they threaten arrest:
> 
> "What am I being arrested for?"
> 
> ...


In NY at least, there have been many cases of police officers who believed that it is illegal to photograph in the subway system, and no amount of rule-printouts could change their opinion. Some of these cases have resulted in arrest, at least once of an MTA train operator( ! ).


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jun 7, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of things to say if approached by a police officer or other personnel if they threaten arrest:
> ...


the MTA police take the no pictures so seriously that one pulled a gun on his own co-worker cause he and bunch of other co-workers took a picture of him sleeping at the desk. he woke up and drew his gun saying there would be no pictures today. Do not argue with the man in blue. You could suggest that its not and say i have rules to prove it but if he doesn't listen then just stop taking pictures and leave. Not worth going to jail over a picture.


----------



## saxman (Jun 7, 2012)

lthanlon said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of things to say if approached by a police officer or other personnel if they threaten arrest:
> ...


Never said you should be impolite or disrespectful. And even if you made it the jail, it would never hold up in court. Stand your ground.


----------

