dont photograph on train tracks....

[runnah]

Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave. If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.

The entire right of way is owned by the rail company. That includes, the track, the rail bed and anything leading up to a tree line or fence. Usually this is 50-100ft wide. This is all private property. Technically the ONLY legal place to cross the track is at road or pedestrian crossings. Traveling anywhere inside the right of way is considered trespassing regardless of intent.

 

[pixmedic]

I remember a judge ruling in an American case, that a photographer was NOT "Trespassing to make money." He was shooting photos to make money and shooting photos in this situation is of course, not a crime.

if the photographer is trespassing, then its a crime. whether someone is making money at it or just walking, trespassing is still a crime..

Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave. If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.

i guess it depends on the area. this problem goes well beyond train tracks though, and easily spills over into people going onto private property. even despite no trespassing signs. abandoned/vacant buildings being one of the most popular. That really wasn't the main point of this particular thread though, but since its my thread, i wont lock it if i derail it myself.

My issue, really, is this... just because it is not technically illegal, does not make it right.
I have noticed that photographers are one of the absolute worst groups for having a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
Don't steal my copyrighted photos, but Ill jump your fence to get into your empty building to take pictures because i want to.
they can gussy it up however they want, justify it however they want, but I just can not see it as anything but a blatant disrespect of
someones property... those same people would go ape**** over someone else taking their photos (IErivate property) and using them, even in a non commercial sense.

maybe some of them wouldn't care. there's always the exception to the rule, but i am willing to bet that if I took their photos, removed their watermark (you know, jumped the fence and ignored the signs) and posted them on my website giving them away for free, they would be pretty upset....even though i am not making any money with them.

I dunno...like i said. this is just how i personally feel about that. its irrelevant really.
I am always being told i should focus my attention more on things that actually matter....Thing is though, I feel that honor, integrity and respect really do matter...I guess they went out of style somewhere along the way, replaced by rationalization and gratification. Maybe im just a moralist. maybe i have just spent too long having rules and protocols drilled into my head. I just cant shake the feeling though.

 

[lambertpix]

My issue, really, is this... just because it is not technically illegal, does not make it right.
I have noticed that photographers are one of the absolute worst groups for having a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
Don't steal my copyrighted photos, but Ill jump your fence to get into your empty building to take pictures because i want to.
they can gussy it up however they want, justify it however they want, but I just can not see it as anything but a blatant disrespect of
someones property... those same people would go ape**** over someone else taking their photos (IErivate property) and using them, even in a non commercial sense.

Fair point. I'm curious, though, whether this phenomenon is really worse among photographers, or is it just that we've got a little more visibility over both ends of the spectrum for this group?

There's always a "one bad apple" problem with any group that tries to promote an ethic or standard of behavior -- as soon as a member of the group does something outside the bounds of good behavior (according to that group), that bad apple can be held up as an example of how broken the group is. I'm not going to name any examples, because I think we can all think of a few of these, but I'm not convinced that photographers have a corner on this market.

 

[BrandonSCMedia]

Ouch! I might be reconsidering my track shoot on the 1st. lol

 

[rexbobcat]

Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave. If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.

That sounds a lot like a "If I don't get caught, I didn't REALLY do anything wrong" approach.

I don't think that's how the law works.

And if you're in a truly public place then you're not trespassing even if you're asked to leave.

This is what has caused so many conflicts with photographers taking photos of police in public areas.

 

[AlanKlein]

that video is surprising though, its pretty much the opposite of what i would have expected.

I've worked near the line down in DC and its unnerving how quiet the catenary/overheard line trains are.

Sadly this is what most people think trains are still.

The crazy people in this movie are not on the tracks; they're on the train! Check to see how they're hanging out the windows.

 

[vimwiz]

New trains here in GB are much faster than the one in the top gear video - That train is a bit 80s.
A BR class 390 does roughly 100-150mph now.

You can buy a "platform ticket" for enthusiasts to sit around and spot the trains in the station - the police dont like you taking photos though. Tresspassing is (very) illegal and usually there is high traffic, and high fences.

 

[skieur]

Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave. If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.

That sounds a lot like a "If I don't get caught, I didn't REALLY do anything wrong" approach.

I don't think that's how the law works.

And if you're in a truly public place then you're not trespassing even if you're asked to leave.

This is what has caused so many conflicts with photographers taking photos of police in public areas.

In both US and Canadian law, in a public place you are not trespassing UNTIL you are asked to leave AND do not do so.

 

[snowbear]

Okay, just add fuel to the debate here.

If it is federal land or federally owned, then if you are a citizen of that country, then technically you can't be trespassing because you technically own the land as a taxpayer.

Not all federally owned land is for public access. Try using this argument on a military base.

 

[Tiller]

Okay, just add fuel to the debate here. If it is federal land or federally owned, then if you are a citizen of that country, then technically you can't be trespassing because you technically own the land as a taxpayer. Not sure it would hold up in court, but I think if I was confronted, then I'd have to use the argument.

That might be the worst argument ever :mrgreen:

 

[Tailgunner]

This looks like a good place to post some train photos

 

[pab]

safety aside, its also trespassing.
I have always found it interesting that people can be so moralistic about copyright laws, and fight vehemently against anyone stealing their photographs or using them in a manner prohibited by their contract, yet have no issues at all violating someones private (or government) property to get a shot they want or to do a "shoot" for a client. Trespassing to make money. I call them hypocrites.

I dont really care either way in this argument but riddle me this. If your driving over a train crossing you stick your phone/camera out of the window and take a photo down the tracks.. are you violating someones property? Are you disobeying copyright laws? In plain view anything can be shot.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

[skieur]

Legally however a photographer is not trespassing in a public place until he is told to stop taking pictures or leave. If the government or private property is accessible to the general public then same rules apply.

That sounds a lot like a "If I don't get caught, I didn't REALLY do anything wrong" approach.

I don't think that's how the law works.

And if you're in a truly public place then you're not trespassing even if you're asked to leave.

This is what has caused so many conflicts with photographers taking photos of police in public areas.

A public place or by legal definition in the US: "a place that is accessible to, by the general public" can still be private property as in a shopping mall, arena, museum etc. This means that trespassing laws can still apply.
Even on private property walking up to the door of a house is not trespassing, but if the owner at the door tells you to leave, then you are trespassing if you do not do so immediately.

By the way, you can be charged with trespassing in a public school in some areas, by the principal if you are told to leave and do not do so.

 

[Tailgunner]

 

[Ron Evers]