# LAUS and Photography



## GG-1 (Feb 12, 2009)

Aloha

Member Kiss Alive reported an incident in LAUS of a photographer being required to delete picture taken in the station, I am thinking of moving his original post here. But for the moment here is his original post . I looked up the video and original source. The interviewer's were difficult to hear as they were "off mic", but the photographer seemed to be reasonable. He seemed to think that as a photographer he was free to photograph people. As an Individual I have the right to decide If I wish to have my picture taken. I believe the only exception is an event that qualifies as news" Which is what allows the "paparazzi" so much room.

I am not posting the links because I, or this site, support or don't support what happened here for 2 reasons;

1 information one sided

2 As Rail Photographers we need to respect the rights of others and also the safety of all around railroad/Amtrak property.

But I want us to be aware of issues about our enjoying Amtrak Services and trains.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 12, 2009)

While I agree with the statement that "... I have a right to decide if I want to be photographed ...", my feeling is that if you are in public, you gave that right! (If it were in private, I feel you still have that right.) I feel LAUS is a public place, O'Hare airport is public place, the beach at San Diego is a public place, Disney World is a public place, Yankee Stadium is a public place, driving down I-35 is a public place, etc... If I went to a stadium for a football game, I would hate to go to 80,000 seats and ask every person if I can photograph the stadium and _may_ include them! (I'd really hate to have to do that when I'm at the top of the Sears Tower and photographing Chicago!  I doubt I could ask all XX million for their permission during my few hours layover!)


----------



## MrFSS (Feb 12, 2009)

I've posted this before, but it needs to be seen again.

*Photographer's Rights*

This from an attorney who specializes in this subject.

I carry a copy of this in my camera bag.


----------



## GG-1 (Feb 12, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> While I agree with the statement that "... I have a right to decide if I want to be photographed ...", my feeling is that if you are in public, you gave that right! (If it were in private, I feel you still have that right.) I feel LAUS is a public place, O'Hare airport is public place, the beach at San Diego is a public place, Disney World is a public place, Yankee Stadium is a public place, driving down I-35 is a public place, etc... If I went to a stadium for a football game, I would hate to go to 80,000 seats and ask every person if I can photograph the stadium and _may_ include them! (I'd really hate to have to do that when I'm at the top of the Sears Tower and photographing Chicago!  I doubt I could ask all XX million for their permission during my few hours layover!)


Aloha

I totally agree with what you have just said, What I think was different here, seemed to me, being the Photographing of individuals, close up, may be the issue there. that was why I said we only had one side of the story.

The Link MrFSS has provided is a very good paper to be with your camera gear.


----------



## tp49 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think many are not clear on what the Constitution allows and doesn't allow.

LAUS from what I can find is private property and is not a public forum just like a shopping mall isn't. Therefore, the owner is allowed to regulate activity freely and in doing so is not violating the constitutional rights of anyone. However, even in cases where the government owns the building they can still restrict what you can and cannot do. I say this without getting into a very long winded discussion of the constitutional tests the courts would use and the case law on the subject.

While I disagree with some of what this attorney put into his "Photographer's Right," linked to by Mr. FSS, I do feel that this is an instance where as he referrs to it "the general rule" would be applicable. Once the photographer was asked to stop he should have stopped and ended at that. He could also have saved himself some grief and been more discreet about his activities.

I also think the "Photographer's Right" is deficient because frankly he does not address at all legitimate restraints on the 1st Amendment, namely time, place and manner restrictions on 1st Amendment related activities. In doing so I feel he's doing a great disservice to those who would read and rely on what he wrote.

However, I did get a laugh while during the interview the photographer said that one of the people who's picture he took stated he knows the laws and that he can't be photographed without his permission. The inside of LAUS is just not somewhere that you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I thank him for the chuckle as I needed a laugh this evening.


----------



## MattW (Feb 13, 2009)

Didn't California also rule that Shopping Malls and other "public" places regardless of private vs. public ownership were considered public and thus people were entitled to some (not all) of the same rights as in truly-public places?


----------



## tp49 (Feb 13, 2009)

MattW said:


> Didn't California also rule that Shopping Malls and other "public" places regardless of private vs. public ownership were considered public and thus people were entitled to some (not all) of the same rights as in truly-public places?


Initially the US Supreme Court did back in 1968 then reversed itself four years later in 1972.


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 13, 2009)

So if LAUS is considered "private property", what about Dodger Stadium, LAX (the airport) and The Rose Bowl? :huh: Do I need to ask all those thousands of people for permission? :huh:


----------



## tp49 (Feb 14, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> So if LAUS is considered "private property", what about Dodger Stadium, LAX (the airport) and The Rose Bowl? :huh: Do I need to ask all those thousands of people for permission? :huh:


Dodger Stadium and the Rose Bowl are private property as well. They can freely regulate your activity. Actually what you get when you go to a game at Dodger Stadium or the Rose Bowl is a revocable licence to be there. The license is revocable by the folks who own the stadium. LAX while public property (owned by the government) is not a public forum meaning a place held out for those activities.

Now as to asking the people for permission I think this is the best way to look at things. First thing is does one have a reaonable expectation of privacy in the setting. I will submit that if I am walking across Grand Central Station and someone is taking a picture of the area where the information booth in the middle of the station and I'm in an abstract crowd shot then no one would have to ask for permission to take my photo. I'm not the subject of the photo I just happen to be there. However, if someone walked up to me and started taking my picture then there would be an issue as it would be a possible invasion of privacy. However, if it were a newsworthy event or I was a celebrity snap away. Celebrities have no reasonable expectation of privacy while out and about.

Sometimes it's just better to exercise discretion and if you are told to stop just do so and come back later. Don't draw any unnecessary attention to yourself.


----------



## tp49 (Feb 14, 2009)

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> Member Kiss Alive reported an incident in LAUS of a photographer being required to delete picture taken in the station, I am thinking of moving his original post here. But for the moment here is his original post . I looked up the video and original source. The interviewer's were difficult to hear as they were "off mic", but the photographer seemed to be reasonable. He seemed to think that as a photographer he was free to photograph people. As an Individual I have the right to decide If I wish to have my picture taken. I believe the only exception is an event that qualifies as news" Which is what allows the "paparazzi" so much room.
> 
> I am not posting the links because I, or this site, support or don't support what happened here for 2 reasons;
> ...


Eric,

I listened to the interview and while it is only one person's side of the story I though the person interviewed gave a very fair portrayal of what happened. I definitely did not get the sense that it was totally one sided unlike Mr. Kerzic's statements after getting picked up at NYP. I also think this will give us a chance to discuss the issues involved in a respectful and adult fashion which is something I enjoy about this forum in general.


----------



## GG-1 (Feb 14, 2009)

tp49 said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > Aloha
> ...


Aloha

By one sided I did not intend to make the interview appear to be the same as the Incident with Mr. Kerzic in NY. The Photographer in LAUS seemed to me as quite reasonable. My reaction was that he was taking close up pictures of people that were going about their everyday activities, and did not want to be photographed. I hope there is a lot of, as you said "respectful and adult" discussion. Without this type of communication we will never define reasonable boundaries.

Photography to me is a stress reliever, yet relating to the work I am do. Rail Photography brings together two of my life pleasures. That is a reason I hope to convince the others of the Moderating team to set aside a forum just for rail Photography. And Please don't take my desire to have a photography forum as any reason not to discuss trains and pictures in the existing forums until such time as a special forum is deemed a benefit to enough members to be set up.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 14, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> (I'd really hate to have to do that when I'm at the top of the Sears Tower and photographing Chicago!  I doubt I could ask all XX million for their permission during my few hours layover!)


sure you could just get a airplane with a banner flying that says HEY CHICAGO CAN I TAKE YOUR PICTURE


----------



## the_traveler (Feb 14, 2009)

But I would have to list my cell phone number on the banner so that the *ONE* person who is going to say *"NO!"* can call me! Or maybe that person will later file a lawsuit because "... (they) were inside and didn't see the banner when it flew over!" :angry:

I wouldn't want to do anything illegal!


----------



## -Jamie- (Feb 17, 2009)

MrFSS said:


> I've posted this before, but it needs to be seen again.
> *Photographer's Rights*
> 
> This from an attorney who specializes in this subject.
> ...


We happened to discuss this in my Photojournalism class the same night you posted this. When it comes down to it, he has every right to photograph anything or anyone he wants to as long as it's in a public area. It doesn't matter that LAUS is owned by a private company. It's a transportation facility and therefore exempt from the private property rule. And NO ONE, not even law enforcement, has a right to take your film or delete your images without a court order. They can't even LOOK at your images without either a court order or your permission.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 17, 2009)

On a sort of related subject

A new anti-terrorism law went into effect Monday that could effectively bar photographers from taking pictures of police or military personnel in Britain

I think they went overboard with this one.


----------



## jis (Feb 17, 2009)

I know of certain countries where taking picture of individuals on the street without their permission, could get you lynched. No government forces would be involved either. So it all depends on the context. I do not think the constitutional issues in this country are either as cut and dried under all circumstances, as some photography enthusiasts seem to claim from time to time.


----------



## tp49 (Feb 17, 2009)

-Jamie- said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > I've posted this before, but it needs to be seen again.
> ...


I disagree. The case law doesn't point that way. Your photojournalism class might be focusing on the exception for newsworthy events in which case that is correct. However, the transportation facility is analagous to a shopping mall which the US Supreme Court has said is private property even though it is an area where the public can go it is not an area held out as a "public forum" for purposes of expression (which is what photography falls under.) As such the private landowner is perfectly within their discretion to have the photographer refrain from taking pictures in their facility.

Again, it comes down to a matter of discretion. If you're taking pictures of your family sitting in the waiting room waiting to board the train that's one thing. If you're taking an abstract picture of the great hall at Chicago Union Station it falls into the same thing. However, if as the photographer in the interview that sparked the thread you're framing a picture around strangers and taking shots of them individually (and they're not doing something newsworthy) then there is a problem and the restriction would be valid.



> I know of certain countries where taking picture of individuals on the street without their permission, could get you lynched. No government forces would be involved either. So it all depends on the context. I do not think the constitutional issues in this country are either as cut and dried under all circumstances, as some photography enthusiasts seem to claim from time to time.


Agreed and to an extent your last sentence is what I am trying to show.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 18, 2009)

The taking of a photograph where an individual is a central subject of that photograph falls into a complicated area of First Amendment rights. As a news photographer reporting on a news event, any person in public can be the subject of a photo. The situation involving photographs for artistic or hobby interests is much muddier, legally. The basic premise is that a person has the right to take a photograph of any person in public. However, if that photograph is subsequently used in some manner that has a financial component, such as at a gallery or in a book, then unless the subject gave permission for the use of their image in the form of a model release, then that subject can take action against the photographer for compensation.

But even those general guidelines are not absolute. There are questions involving whether the subject is a public person, like a political figure, or whether the subject was in a setting where a photograph of them would not be unexpected, such as at a sporting event. It can go either way. What is clear is that it is neither always OK nor always wrong to take a photograph of a person in public. It depends.

The so-called "photographer's bill of rights" is one attorney's opinion - nothing more and nothing less. One area I note is the statement that photographing children in public places is OK. It may or may not be legal, but it seems to me to fall squarely into the creepy area. I have to question any document that even indirectly condones such behavior. I ask you parents how you would feel if you were with a young child in a playground and some photographer came over, got in your kid's face, and started snapping photos. I know how I'd feel, and I would not be comforted by the "photographer's bill of rights". I try to think about how subjects may feel when I'm out taking photos, and avoid situations where my actions would make anyone feel uncomfortable.


----------

