Subway photography and the law

[mrelsewhere]

This afternoon, before boarding an above-ground Green Line train in Boston, I snapped two pictures of the train and people standing on the platform. As I boarded the train, the conductor informed me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures of the train. I was surprised and told her that I hadn't heard that rule and that it didn't make sense to me. She simply repeated that it was not permitted. That was the extent of the encounter. She didn't seem upset or ask for me to erase the pictures, but I suddenly felt like a criminal. Like someone was accusing me of being a terrorist because I carried a camera.

So I googled it.

Here is the official policy of massDOT (Massachusetts Department of Transportation): Only tripods and equipment that can disrupt foot traffic are prohibited on train platforms. No permission is required for non-commercial photography (e.g. images taken by tourists, railroad buffs, students, artists). Any person wishing to take images for commercial purpose must first obtain a permit (at no cost) from the MBTA. If approached by an MBTA official, a photographer must be willing to provide identification or show a permit. Except as otherwise permitted by law (e.g. lawful arrest), officials cannot confiscate or delete images without first receiving permission from the photographer. Persons taking images of MBTA property or vehicles from a public area not MBTA property (e.g. street or public sidewalk) are not subject to this policy.

 

[dots]

Maybe get a permit and then you can show it in future

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Would have been great if you googled that on your smart phone and informed her she was wrong!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Maybe get a permit and then you can show it in future

Why? No permit is needed for non commercial photography.

 

[dots]

Could be useful in these situations

 

[mrelsewhere]

I might request a permit to avoid the hassle of explaining to train conductors that I don't need permission.

 

[dots]

I might request a permit to avoid the hassle of explaining to train conductors that I don't need permission.

Exactly!

 

[Overread]

A permit for commercial photography is likely to come with strings attached - eg letting them have Royalty free use of the photos; only allowing you to distribute photos after they ok them; getting a cut on income from the photo; etc....

In short if there were no restrictions on use of commercial photos they wouldn't have a permit system, the fact that they do strongly suggests that they get something out of the deal as well (course it could just be a one time permit fee).

In the end this situation happens all the time, especially when someone pulls out a more professional camera than an iphone or point and shoot and it mostly reflects the fact that staff will learn the rules that apply directly to them the most, whilst others will only get a quick glance. Thus there is always a good chance that staff will pass on rules that are incorrect or that don't exist or that did exist but were removed.

For one off events like the above its not worth it, but if you were doing a days shoot somewhere it can be a great benefit to read up and print off the rules of where you're shooting, so that if challenged you can directly reference the specific rules (remembering to remain calm and polite, start being all smug and loud about it and chances are they'll cause all kinds of problems just cause they can ).

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I might request a permit to avoid the hassle of explaining to train conductors that I don't need permission.

Why hassle with getting a permit, when you can just print the information you just posted and hand it to them, and tell them to call their supervisor if they need further clarification.

 

[sm4him]

Just last week, I was taking photos at our transit center, and a security guard approached and told me that one of the drivers had reported me as "suspicious." Fortunately, the security guard knew something that escaped the driver...I work there!! Part of my job is to take pictures, of the transit center, the buses and drivers, the passengers...besides, as is the case in Boston, there is no explicit rule prohibiting photography (though, in my case, to be fair, I was going places regular passengers aren't allowed to go, like walking across the busway).

However, I will say one thing in *slight* defense of the Boston train conductor. If it is the same there as it is here, it is absolutely DRILLED into our heads, at safety meeting after safety meeting, that we are to ALWAYS be on the lookout for suspicious activity, that if we "see something" we are to "say something." And I've seen many, many videos on transit safety that specify show or talk about people taking "suspicious" photos. Homeland Security and APTA won't rest until we are sufficiently aware that everyone we see up on that bus platform just might be a terrorist.

On the other hand, in the six+ years I've been there, I have *never* heard anyone mention our "policy" on photography. In fact, this past summer, I had someone email me and ask if they could do a photo shoot at the station. It was a wedding shoot; the couple had rented a trolley to get from the wedding venue to the reception and wanted to do some of their photos at the transit center. I had to ask my boss what our policy on this was. She had no idea, and she's been there over a decade. Her boss didn't know either, and she's been there 25+ years...
I finally set a policy about it myself, and allowed them to do the shoot in exchange for a couple of pictures we could post on the website and/or our FB page.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Don't even consider shooting a "Rest Area"!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...yi-rest-areas-careful-what-you-take-pics.html

 

[BlairWright]

This has been an issue since the introduction of the TSA, they tell mass transit to watch for photographers. It's a security measure that is miscommunication down the line.

The bottom line is that in America you can legally photograph anything any anyone in a public place. Once in awhile you will run into an idiot that doesn't understand the law, that's just how things tend to go these days.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Don't even consider shooting a "Rest Area"!

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...yi-rest-areas-careful-what-you-take-pics.html

This has been an issue since the introduction of the TSA, they tell mass transit to watch for photographers. It's a security measure that is miscommunication down the line.

The bottom line is that in America you can legally photograph anything any anyone in a public place. Once in awhile you will run into an idiot that doesn't understand the law, that's just how things tend to go these days.

Yeah but when an unstable lady has a Tazor..............

 

[KmH]

Rights that don't get exercised, get taken away.

Just print the web page and have it in your gear bag.

Only get a permit if you're going to do a commercial shoot. The purpose of the permit is to allow for using tripods and other gear, and while it may not cost anything, may require the photographer have insurance. It is a common practice that part of the qualification for a permit includes submitting a CoI (Certificate of insurance) that lists the venue (massDot in this case) as an additional insured.

 

[jwbryson1]

Rights that don't get exercised, get taken away.

Just print the web page and have it in your gear bag.

Only get a permit if you're going do do a commercial shoot. The purpose of the permit is to allow for using tripods and other gear, and while it may not cost anything, may require the photographer have insurance. It is a common practice that part of the qualification for a permit includes submitting a CoI (Certificate of insurance) that lists the venue (massDot in this case) as an additional insured.

My thoughts exactly.