[MRRiley]

Mike, we agree to disagree, however:

As for policies restricting photography (or whatever).. policies are not necessarily LAWS, but if they violate our civil rights they are neither legal or enforceable. That’s why we must resist them whenever possible.

I do agree that we must resist whenever possible - we must also do it in a manner that is civil and not reckless (maybe reckless isn't the word to use, but you get the point).

I did not hear or see the videographer acting uncivilly. He was calm and polite throughout the incident. He was simply "persistently insistent" that he believed what he was doing was legal. This is what got him ganged up on... However, being "persistently insistent" is neither "uncivil" or “illegal.” Furthermore, his actions were not "reckless" nor did they place anyone including himself in any danger.

I think the transit doc part you posted is open for interpretation (not cherry-picking as you noted).

We allow filming and photography on most MTA property that is open to the public, including local bus, light rail, Metro Subway, Commuter Bus and MARC.

Neither I, you, or the person who was so called harassed knows if the particular station he was at was on the "most" list or on the "off limits" list. I think we can pretty much agree on that also. Without knowing this for sure, who are we (really speaking of the guy shooting the video) to just automatically assume the an official at the station is automatically wrong without knowing the facts? It's one thing if the guy thought it out first, did his homework and was for sure correct, but he did not - I mean, there was no "Hey, I am going to shoot a moving railway car in the city of Baltimore during a time of strict security due to recent terrorist's activities so I should do a little homework first before I attempt this" light bulb ding above his head before the travel to do this.

True enough. Neither of us know if that particular station is/was off limits for some reason. However, it is a general concept that, absent written prior notification (say, in the form of a sign) or widely publicized policy, it is legal to perform generally legal activities in public places. It is, in my mind, completely reasonable for a person to assume this. It is also completely reasonable to doubt the validity of a claim by a police officer that your legal pursuit is illegal. Especially when/if several officers make statements claiming that "photography of trains or transit facilities is ILLEGAL when we know the MTA's own policy says it is legal. Frankly if the officers had said "we have had a threat against this specific station and so have implemented a temporary policy restricting photography HERE" I still would have wondered, but I probably would have stopped filming in the face of a reasoned reaction by the police.

Why should someone have to “do homework” on conducting what has been ruled by the courts over and over again to be a legal activity. Photography in public, on public property, of public property IS LEGAL and 9/11, nor anything that’s happened since, has not changed that. I understand that many police officers think it did, but their belief does not make it true. The “strict security” you refer to is not grounded in any laws, nor are the police who cite “9/11” and “the Patriot Act” acting on “reasonable” suspicions that you are a threat. What they ARE doing is misapplying a vague law that was intended to give authorities a tool against terrorists to interfere with the public’s lawful pursuits.

Of course, there is also the possibility that he did “do his homework” and after reading the MTA’s own policy, assumed that a publicly accessible station during the middle of the day, in the presence of multiple people who may or may not have been taking their own photos, that he was perfectly within his rights to do his video taping.

Bert Krages Document (which seems to be the go to document by many photographers)

Here is the quoted test from the first part of the document:

The General Rule
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. "Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

Here is the PDF link to the document -> http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

He was asked to turn the camera off and stop filming a few times, he did not: "when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request", and again, he did not (the transit police is the direct voice of the property owner in this case, and he asked the individual to stop filming).

I am quite familiar with Bert Krages’ document. You may want to get and read a copy of his full book on the subject of photographer’s rights.
http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/158...9433723&sr=1-1

Basically what we are debating here is whether the police, as representatives of the public (the real owners of the property in question) are legally able to restrict or prohibit photography on the public’s property.

You obviously believe that they are.

I believe that they do not… absent an actual LAW which prohibits photography.

Also, as I said before since the videographer believed he was acting within the law, there was no legal compulsion for him to stop taping. Indeed, since he continued to tape he has clear audio and visual evidence of the full encounter. If he had turned off his camera, unless there were witnesses willing to get involved, it would be his word against the word of multiple police officers. He may have gotten off in the end, but he would have no credible evidence of the police misconduct.

I, furthermore, do not know where you get the idea that the MTA police own the MTA facilities. The represent the managers of the MTA who in turn represent “the public” in order to operate a public service on public property. The MTA police’s job is to curtail and investigate crimes, not to interfere with the public’s lawful access and use of THEIR property. And is their responsibility to know the laws they are enforcing, not to impose their mistaken notions of a law that does not prohibit the activity they are attempting to curtail.

Again Mike, I think we just agree to disagree. With the way the crazy a** world is right now, I appreciate the strict security that is in place to protect my family, friends, and others in our country and around other parts of the world...

I appreciate meaningful security measures which are properly vetted and realistically applied. However, the insistence of many law enforcement officials to resort to “the Patriot Act” as a blanket to cover activities which they mistakenly think are criminal, or worse to restrict activities which they think SHOULD be illegal does not actually protect anyone. Indeed, as in the case of this videographer, numerous officers were wasting valuable time to investigate a “scary man with a camera” while they ignored countless real crimes (including, by the way, the woman who illegally crossed the tracks while the police concentrated on the videographer).

No one's security or safety was served here!

Mike

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 06-30-2011 at 06:23 AM.

[MRRiley]

Actually the cop may have had a valid reason for asking if he was photographing trains. They're probably keeping tab for Homeland Security. When they killed Bin Laden shortly after there was a story about there being credible threats in his papers towards other methods of transit including trains. He had apparently thought of putting bombs on trains as an alternative to bombing planes. After that there was a step up on security regarding trains and some talk of putting in scanners in like at the airports. Was it right to ask, not really, but then again those threats were credible and honestly I'd rather they did ask under the circumstances than have them not ask and someone not get caught after planning to kill innocent people.

Terrorists don't care that they're eroding our right to take photos and if trains are a legit target now, I'd want them to know if someone was out there photographing them even if it did mean an inconvenience to someone. Sorry, but in this case I'd have to defer to the police. People taking pics of major transit things could be perfectly innocent, but then again they could be someone scoping out train routes and actual physical conditions for a bombing too. That's also why taking pics at airports has gotten harder of late. I'm sure the cops aren't fine with all the extra time it takes to ask all these questions either, or the response they're getting asking, but it's not always just the police being abusive.

Yes, the initial officer may have been acting in good faith by asking what the videographer was doing, but after the guy explained that he was basically a "rail fan" and was taking video for his personal use, the officer should have dropped it. If the officer was truly suspicious that the guy was a "perp" he should have OBSERVED rather than confronted him.

And yes, trains are legitimate "targets" but so then are buses and tractor trailors and malls and pools and, well, anywhere there are significant numbers of people or a potential to affect numerous people (say, a rock ledge overhanging a major highway or a remote earthen dam above a small city). The point is authorities cannot reasonably protect us from every threat and it is counterproductive for them to expend excessive resources on "low probability" targets or activities.

There has not been a single case, to my knowledge, of a terrorist being caught planning an attack while or because he was taking photos of his target. The ones who have been caught, have either been caught in the act or because of targeted intelligence efforts.

Mike

[MRRiley]

The defining factor here is whether this was a public or private place. If it was apublic place then he was well within his rights to not turn the camera off.
The US law might vary from where I am (Australia) but certainly seems similar. IN NSW in Australia Railway Stations are considered a public place. In the state of Victoria, however, (at least in Melbourne) even though the stations are publically "owned" they are under the control of a private organisation and are not classified as a "public place". You can't photograph at Victorian stations unless you get a permit.
My guess is that this station might have been under private control.

In the United States, public property is public property even when it is under the control or management of a private entity.

A notable example right here in the DC region is Union Station, the train station in downtown DC. The building and grounds are publicly owned and the facilities are under the management of 2 entities. The mall and food court area are managed by a private "property management" corporation and the train station facilities are managed by AMTRAK, a quasi-governmental corporation which operates most U.S. passenger rail. Over the last several years, the mall operator has repeatedly interfered with photographers taking photos, often claiming that the property is their private property. At one point a mall guard actually told a news crew from a local TV station that was interviewing the AMTRAK station manager (in the area where the station and "mall" join) about the photography issues, that it was illegal for them to film. The U.S. Congress finally had to step in to remind them who the building belonged to. The only otherwise legal activity the mall operator is allowed to restrict is activity that interferes with other patron's use of the facility, such as, for example, setting up a tripod, using studio lights or a model shoot which blocks foot traffic, etc. And even these restriction cannot be applied to "breaking" or "spot news" coverage by a "media" or "news"organization.

A similar management corporation in Silver Spring, MD, just north of DC, actually claimed to own a public street running between buildings they managed. Their logic was that since they operated sidewalk cafe's and the street was routinely restricted to pedestrian traffic by the local police that it was their property. It took a good deal of activism and a couple of "protest shoots" by local photographer organizations to get the county executive to explain to the management company that the street and the sidewalks themselves were public property and photography could not be restricted.

Mike

[grhazelton]

While I haven't shot in the Atlanta Georgia MARTA stations (our subway) since the death of Bin Laden, when I shot not too long ago I recall seeing placards restricting commercial photography and the use of tripods. I contacted MARTA and discovered that film making and commercial photography were their concern; they made what I considered not unreasonable demands, a permit and fee to cover the mandatory security personnel, etc. Whether or not this would affect a lone shooter - me - was not stated in the policy, but my respondent said in effect, go ahead but don't use a tripod because that might impede people entering or leaving the trains. I can understand that, although a tripod would help!

The policy did not specify film or electronic capture.

Perhaps the fact that the shooter in question was using video made a difference. He or she would be taking more time than would a still shooter.

I've shot with my K10d in the MARTA stations in full view of security personnel with no problems whatsoever.

As far as malls are concerned, they are considered public fora. As a retired librarian I researched this when developing our library system's meeting room policies and what materials to allow or disallow to be posted by the public within our facilities.

That said, malls are privately owned. The owners may prohibit photography, they may ask you to leave, but they may not seize your camera or film or data card or physically detain you. Such actions would almost certainly open them to charges of unlawful taking, etc.

I encountered the mall security folk while taking pix of my granddaughter with my K10d; a security type told me to stop but didn't seem to care about other people using point and shoot cameras, I guess I looked "professional." Sure enough there was a placard, none too large, at the mall entrance, prohibiting photography. Personnel in a camera shop in the mall said that they had trouble since prospective buyers would want to take a shot in the mall and would be stopped.

I carry a copy of Bert Krages' folder with me in my bag. So far I've had no need for it. I imagine that a calm, non-confrontational manner would be the best way to deal with the police, and hope that you don't have to deal with a real hot-dog. While I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU I personally have no desire to participate in a precedent setting law suit!

[grhazelton]

By the way there is a law in Florida apparently prohibiting the photography of farms without the owner's permission. Sounds reasonable, but according to my contact, a pediatrician in Florida, it mean NO PICTURES, even from the roadway beside a farm! He thinks it is in deference to dairy farmers who routinely slaughter male calves since they can't give milk and aren't suited to beef production. Apparently various animal rights groups photographed these clumsily done slaughters, which generated adverse publicity for the dairy industry.

It will be interesting to see if this legislative idiocy is challenged.

[GeneV]

Here is pretty good article on this issue on the issue in addition to Bert Krages article, which I see has already been mentioned. Freedom of photography: Police, security often clamp down despite public right

I read a lot of opinions here limiting the first amendment with no legal backup. The issue is not whether something is happening on private or public property. It is whether it is visible to the public. If the photographer has a right to be standing where he is standing, he can photograph what he sees (barring intrusive equipment), even if it is on private property. Even if there is a statute or rule on photographing a public area, it is subject to nullification under the first amendment.

Getting identification from the photographer may or may not be a burden on the first amendment. Harassing the photographer or doing something to discourage photography would.

Those who maintain the appropriateness of some of these restrictions and measures should do some research and see if these positions have been upheld by courts. I think you will find the pickings in that regard very slim. I have had some experience in First Amendment law, and found very few instances where the right to photograph in public was limited. Other countries do not have our constitution, and mileage may vary.

[MRRiley]

By the way there is a law in Florida apparently prohibiting the photography of farms without the owner's permission. Sounds reasonable, but according to my contact, a pediatrician in Florida, it mean NO PICTURES, even from the roadway beside a farm! He thinks it is in deference to dairy farmers who routinely slaughter male calves since they can't give milk and aren't suited to beef production. Apparently various animal rights groups photographed these clumsily done slaughters, which generated adverse publicity for the dairy industry.

It will be interesting to see if this legislative idiocy is challenged.

That bill died in the legislature and will not be going into effect (though it will probably be revived next session)

Senate Bill 1246 (2011) - The Florida Senate

Mike

[grhazelton]

Mike -

Thanks for the update. Always interesting to see the contests among Georgia, Florida, and Alabama for the most idiotic laws considered or sometimes passed. Not too long ago one of the Georgia crop of legislators introduced a bill REQUIRING all restaurants in the state to serve sweetened iced tea! Saner minds prevailed and it never made it out of committee.

An my taxes pay these bozos salaries....

[RioRico]

I've had only minimal interference:

* I used an advanced P&S at an outdoor mall near Sacramento CA. Mall security told me to stop. I didn't see mall cops bothering anyone using phone cams.
* A motorized rent-a-cop told me to stop shooting on a public highway in Los Alamos NM. I deleted one shot. I had reasons not to bother arguing.
* At an Indian arts-crafts fair at the municipal auditorium in Santa Fe, I was told not to shoot. Many attendees were busy shooting with P&S's etc.

Yes, the trend is that if the camera is noticeable, you're much more likely to be harassed. That's the reality. Deal with it. Then read up on the history of "camera fiends".

[Clicker]

I'll only say it once, "it's illegal only IF they catch you"

[Bill_R]

In the United States, public property is public property even when it is under the control or management of a private entity.

Mike

I think you'll find here that there is a distinction between "Public Property" and "Public Space". The platform would have been regarded as "semi-public space" since a ticket is required to access it but would fall within the rights if a ticket was obtained (which it was).
Amtrak policy does now seem to comply with rights to photograph in a public space ( Amtrak "revises" photo policy as Amtrak police continue harassment | Pixiq ) so the guy was well within his rights to not turn off the camera.
The only possible issue I can see was the audio recording. The Officer that was the main harraser mentioned that but then he went on to cover the lens of the camera. My understanding is that you can't record a private conversation. I think it would be questionable that the conversation was private. I'd argue it wasn't.
I have no idea why Victoria in Australia can get away with private control amounting to a non-public space when it has the same access as other public places in the country. They seem to have many drawn the line differently there.

As an aside: In the UK it may be a crime to photogrpah police BBC NEWS | UK | Is it a crime to take pictures?

[MRRiley]

I think you'll find here that there is a distinction between "Public Property" and "Public Space". The platform would have been regarded as "semi-public space" since a ticket is required to access it but would fall within the rights if a ticket was obtained (which it was).
Amtrak policy does now seem to comply with rights to photograph in a public space ( Amtrak "revises" photo policy as Amtrak police continue harassment | Pixiq ) so the guy was well within his rights to not turn off the camera.
The only possible issue I can see was the audio recording. The Officer that was the main harraser mentioned that but then he went on to cover the lens of the camera. My understanding is that you can't record a private conversation. I think it would be questionable that the conversation was private. I'd argue it wasn't.
I have no idea why Victoria in Australia can get away with private control amounting to a non-public space when it has the same access as other public places in the country. They seem to have many drawn the line differently there.

As an aside: In the UK it may be a crime to photogrpah police BBC NEWS | UK | Is it a crime to take pictures?

MTA Maryland is a different entity than AMTRAK so the officers were operating under MTA policies, which they falsely claimed forbid photography (refer back to MTA's Photo Policy).

You are right that the interchange between the videographer and the officers was not "private." At least one MD court has ruled (and the MD Attorney General reportedly conceded) that the police have no expectation of privacy when dealing with the public in a public place so when the officer (and Baltimore is in MD so it applies) cited the "wiretap law" he was outright wrong. I addressed this in my first post in this thread in reply to joe.penn.

The situation you cite in Victoria does sound odd. Hopefully someone will challenge it in court and get it resolved in favor of the public. As for the U.K. their photo policies are pretty strict and enforcement is positively draconian, but I hear it's relaxed a little, though reports of harassment still occasionally pop up.

Mike

[GeneV]

As I noted on the other thread about this, the concerns over where we photograph seem seriously misplaced in an age where so much of what we do is on camera anyway. You can log on and see a satellite photo in detail of most public transport lines. A thousand people snap a shot of a train every day with inconspicuous cameras. Any infringement on the first amendment becomes even harder to justify when it accomplishes nothing.

[grhazelton]

Many photographers (never say "shooter" around law enforcement!) have been accosted for shooting pix of federal buildings since 9/11, despite the fact that most US government web sites have lots of photos.

I finally found again a bulletin from Homeland Security dealing with photographing federal buildings: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/567/567.pdf

Note the date on this, August 2, 2010.

Essentially, you can photograph federal buildings. But I've noted on other sites that federal guards, etc, often seem not to have read the bulletin, or interpret it as they see fit. I'll carry this along Krages folder with my camera kit.

Of course dealing with rent-a-cops might be a whole 'nother ball of wax....

[TomK]

As Mike Riley stated - - -

I appreciate meaningful security measures which are properly vetted and realistically applied. However, the insistence of many law enforcement officials to resort to “the Patriot Act” as a blanket to cover activities which they mistakenly think are criminal, or worse to restrict activities which they think SHOULD be illegal does not actually protect anyone.

Yes, the initial officer may have been acting in good faith by asking what the videographer was doing, but after the guy explained that he was basically a "rail fan" and was taking video for his personal use, the officer should have dropped it. If the officer was truly suspicious that the guy was a "perp" he should have OBSERVED rather than confronted him.

There has not been a single case, to my knowledge, of a terrorist being caught planning an attack while or because he was taking photos of his target. The ones who have been caught, have either been caught in the act or because of targeted intelligence efforts.

I think that summarizes almost all of it!