Train Ettiquette

[Sis]

:giggle:

 

[tonys96]

Yeah - something I read on the internet. ;-) I suppose it might be more fun amongst family rather than strangers, eh?

As for pictures.... Of COURSE they're going to take pics! They were given a camera for the trip. I guess we'd better practice some photo-etiquette, too! I think a generic picture of the whole car with its passengers would be ok, wouldn't it? I know the train personnel are pretty good about posing for pics if you don't get in the way of their duties.

Think I'll start another thread about photography.

Yes, watch out taking pix. I got yelled at by a woman once on the EB while taking pix out of the SSL window of the Columbia River....she YELLED not to take her pic.......as if.......Disclaimer: she was not dressed as Amish, and I was only photographing the river, camera placed against the glass. She was on opposite side of the car. She had already told one other passenger to not look at her.......

 

[FormerOBS]

I have known a few employees who didn't want to be photographed, but I never understood their objections.

It never bothered me personally, but I ain't that pretty and I worried about damage to the camera.

Tom

 

[Eric308]

Yeah - something I read on the internet. ;-) I suppose it might be more fun amongst family rather than strangers, eh?

As for pictures.... Of COURSE they're going to take pics! They were given a camera for the trip. I guess we'd better practice some photo-etiquette, too! I think a generic picture of the whole car with its passengers would be ok, wouldn't it? I know the train personnel are pretty good about posing for pics if you don't get in the way of their duties.

Think I'll start another thread about photography.

Not the whole car if any Amish/Mennonite folks are present.

 

[Sis]

Oh, right. Why is it they don't want to have their pic taken? (Not that it matters, just curious.)

 

[Sis]

I can't understand that! I'd think it would be part of their job, actually. Like PR for Amtrak, ya know?

 

[Sis]

LOL Have you ever wondered how many photos you're in that other people have taken? Or LOOKED at people in the background of your pics? It can be scary! :angry2:

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Sis, it would be easier to "understand" your posts if you quote the person you're responding to. Just use the Quote button at the bottom right of their post.

 

[Eric308]

Oh, right. Why is it they don't want to have their pic taken? (Not that it matters, just curious.)

“The Amish faith prohibits an individual from having his/her photograph taken,” the suit reads. “This belief stems from the Biblical passage Exodus 20:4, which mandates that ‘You shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth’, as well as the Christian belief in humility.”

 

[niemi24s]

There may be others who object to being photographed as outlined on page 4 of 18 in this... http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf ...such as:

1. Christians who maintain a religious objection to being photographed;

2. Jewish and Muslim men who wear caps for religious reasons;

3. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh women who wear head covering for religious reasons;

4. Sikh men who wear turbans for religious purposes; and

5. Muslim women who wear face veils for religious reasons.

As I recall, it's usually the face (front or side view) that's objected to. A photo taken from the rear may not be objectionable. Maybe. Then there's always the possibility of running across someone like Tony96 told of who probably thinks cameras are the tools of the Devil and that photographing anything will suck out it's "purity of essence" like in Dr. Strangelove. :blink:

 

[Sis]

I *am* hitting the quote button. It doesn't even let me reply if I don't but I don't see any quoting going on. I wondered about that.

 

[oregon pioneer]

I *am* hitting the quote button. It doesn't even let me reply if I don't but I don't see any quoting going on. I wondered about that.

Hmmm, what browser are you using? I use Windows 7 and Firefox, and it's working here...

About the Amish photo issue... I've taken more than one "whole-car" photo, in the Sightseer Lounge, with Amish in it. No one ever seemed mad at me. Maybe they didn't notice (it's a pocket-sized camera, and rather unobtrusive), but since I was not focusing on an individual I assumed it was OK. If anyone had asked me to, I would have erased that photo. But look -- here's a photo in the New York Times with an Amish woman in the SSL! Surely if there's a "rule" about it, they have something in their "style guide"?

OK, here's a good resource:

From Amish Country News: The Amish and Photographs

So just don't ask them to pose, or look into the camera for you. An overview of the car is probably fine.

 

[Ryan]

Agreed. As with most everything else, just be reasonable and you won't have any issues.

 

[tonys96]

As I recall, it's usually the face (front or side view) that's objected to. A photo taken from the rear may not be objectionable. Maybe. Then there's always the possibility of running across someone like Tony96 told of who probably thinks cameras are the tools of the Devil and that photographing anything will suck out it's "purity of essence" like in Dr. Strangelove. :blink:

I think she just thought she was "all that and a bag of chips"......... hboy:

 

[Reno89502]

I remember last year when I was on the Capital Limited taking photos in the Diner/Lounge, a woman sitting across from me gave me dirty looks while taking photos and then stopped the conductor and told him "That guy is taking photos and I don't want to be in them", to which the conductor replied "You are on Amtrak, which is funded by the taxpayers and is a form of Public Transportation. Any US citizen can take photos when they are out in public". She asked about her right to privacy, and he basically told her that unless you are in a private bedroom on the train or in the bathroom, you have no expectation of privacy.

 

[tricia]

I remember last year when I was on the Capital Limited taking photos in the Diner/Lounge, a woman sitting across from me gave me dirty looks while taking photos and then stopped the conductor and told him "That guy is taking photos and I don't want to be in them", to which the conductor replied "You are on Amtrak, which is funded by the taxpayers and is a form of Public Transportation. Any US citizen can take photos when they are out in public". She asked about her right to privacy, and he basically told her that unless you are in a private bedroom on the train or in the bathroom, you have no expectation of privacy.

Legal right to take photos isn't the same as an ethical right. It's courteous to ask for consent of anyone who'd be identifiable in your photo.

 

[Sis]

Excellent! Thank you.

BTW, I am using IE browser.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

I have the same problem with the Quote button, Sis, so don't feel bad about that. I am usually posting from my office computer, which also uses IE. Or from a hotel, and I don't know what browsers they use. The only one that works is Firefox in my local library.

 

[Sis]

I had a friend once that did not want any pics of her or her girls taken because she was afraid her ex would find them. People have all kinds of reasons for not want their pics taken. I don't want anybody's picture except maybe a conductor with the kids or something. It's the "uniform" I'd want, not the specific person.

Accidentally including someone in a picture is something else altogether.

 

[Asher]

Getting back to the kids, making sure they know the meaning of no thanks would probably make for a pleasurable trip by all.

 

[Ronbo]

I have the same problem with the Quote button, Sis, so don't feel bad about that. I am usually posting from my office computer, which also uses IE. Or from a hotel, and I don't know what browsers they use. The only one that works is Firefox in my local library.

I don't even have a computer, just use an iPad for all of my internet browsing using Safari. No problem with it.

 

[HenryK]

If you're in a public place and a photographer includes your likeness in his photo, you have no right to privacy. But if the photographer sells the picture for advertising or other commercial use, you have a right to monetary compensation for use of your likeness. (Journalistic use as in the Times photo of the lounge car above does not count.)

This is why many commercial photographers carry a stack of model releases—just in case.

 

[RSG]

I remember last year when I was on the Capital Limited taking photos in the Diner/Lounge, a woman sitting across from me gave me dirty looks while taking photos and then stopped the conductor and told him "That guy is taking photos and I don't want to be in them", to which the conductor replied "You are on Amtrak, which is funded by the taxpayers and is a form of Public Transportation. Any US citizen can take photos when they are out in public". She asked about her right to privacy, and he basically told her that unless you are in a private bedroom on the train or in the bathroom, you have no expectation of privacy.

Legal right to take photos isn't the same as an ethical right. It's courteous to ask for consent of anyone who'd be identifiable in your photo.

This is true; however it is a two-way street. Most of my friends who take the rare picture of me know that I don't want it tagged on Facebook, and preferably not posted at all online. That said, it's 2016---you don't have the right to be in a public place or on a common carrier and not have your image taken. The person in Reno89502's post probably had her image captured a dozen times between the time she departed her home and got on the train. For at least half of those images, there was no warning posted and no parameters about how the images would be used or how long they would be retained. If privacy is that big of a concern, then a disguise is about the only alternative to not going out in public at all.

 

[tricia]

I remember last year when I was on the Capital Limited taking photos in the Diner/Lounge, a woman sitting across from me gave me dirty looks while taking photos and then stopped the conductor and told him "That guy is taking photos and I don't want to be in them", to which the conductor replied "You are on Amtrak, which is funded by the taxpayers and is a form of Public Transportation. Any US citizen can take photos when they are out in public". She asked about her right to privacy, and he basically told her that unless you are in a private bedroom on the train or in the bathroom, you have no expectation of privacy.

Legal right to take photos isn't the same as an ethical right. It's courteous to ask for consent of anyone who'd be identifiable in your photo.

This is true; however it is a two-way street. Most of my friends who take the rare picture of me know that I don't want it tagged on Facebook, and preferably not posted at all online. That said, it's 2016---you don't have the right to be in a public place or on a common carrier and not have your image taken. The person in Reno89502's post probably had her image captured a dozen times between the time she departed her home and got on the train. For at least half of those images, there was no warning posted and no parameters about how the images would be used or how long they would be retained. If privacy is that big of a concern, then a disguise is about the only alternative to not going out in public at all.

Our behavior toward one another doesn't have to be determined by the legal minimum. It's still courteous--and a small acknowledgment of human dignity--to ask before taking someone's photograph.

 

[RSG]

Our behavior toward one another doesn't have to be determined by the legal minimum. It's still courteous--and a small acknowledgment of human dignity--to ask before taking someone's photograph.

I don't disagree with that at all. However, no one has the right to demand such courtesy, as the meaning of the word connotes that it is something freely offered and not to be expected.