Had problems taking pictures of the railways?

Discussion in 'Photography Advice & Discussion' started by Snapper, 1 Apr 2008.

  1. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Essex
    Yes, there are. I will link to it lower down.

    Misguided? I think it is you that is misguided, or just misunderstood. Perhaps you would like to tell Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M how she is absolutely wrong on this, and you are correct as she states in her UK Photograpers Rights guide the following:
    http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf
    Clearly Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M has made the whole thing up in some sort of conspiracy to stop photographers as Jon would no doubt believe :roll:
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    Unfortunately Jon is guilty of his own charge has he hasn't (unlike me) managed to back any of his posts up except with hearsay or opinion.
     
  2. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,380
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    I never suggested people should take photos into private property and I did ask for evidence which you've now posted. If you'd done that earlier...

    I still don't see what taking a photograph of someone in their own home has to do with the taking of photos in public. Are all of the people who get harassed each and every day by security guards, rail staff, members of the public who take exception, PCSOs and police officers getting harassed because they were taking photos of someone in their bedroom? All of this started in a thread about taking photos on the railways, which has extended to other public areas.

    I have never taken a photograph of someone in their bedroom. I have many, many times (for mystery shopping purposes) taken photos of shop fronts where staff (and members of the public inside) are visible. I've also taken photos on police raids, and agreed in advance to blank out faces (as a condition of being invited to go along with the police). However, that was always a courtesy and the police did acknowledge that we (the press) could take photos outside of the premises raided.

    Even the quoted text above includes the word 'might' and so doesn't point to any specific legislation, but highlights that a photographer may have to waste time explaining his or her actions. What it does also do is bring up some things to be worried about, as in the gradual erosion of the rights to the point where one day it might become illegal to take photos on the street.

    So, cut the rolling eyes and other put downs and admit you could have easily provided your 'evidence' earlier.
     
  3. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Essex
    Sorry about having a life outside these forums and not being able to find (actually very easily found) evidence immediately just for you.
    As I did. I even capitalised it for you in my post at 11.15 today.

    Of course, it's quite hypocritical of you to try and tell me to 'cut down on the put downs'. I actually apologised earlier for being a little too rude, yet in you next post wrote this:
     
  4. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,380
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    I took a while to write my post (as, funnily enough, I also have a lot of things to do too), so more than one reply appeared above my message come the time I'd come off a call and finished.

    Not that I should have to explain every single action, but yes I accept your 'apology' about coming over as rude.
     
  5. GB

    GB Established Member

    Messages:
    5,498
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2008
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The "evidence" was posted earlier except you decided to go off on a rant about the Human Rights Act.


    It hasn't, but you were the one that brought up the issue in your post about it.


    You can thank yourself for that then.

    Anyway, like you, I'm bowing out of this particular argument as clearly we are going round in circles.

    Edit: Where I said exposed earlier, I was thinking along the lines of potentially being sued.
     
  6. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Essex
    Thank you Jon, and I hope we can leave it at that (ignoring the implication in your acceptance).
     
  7. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,380
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    People can sue anybody, but that doesn't mean the photographer did anything wrong or illegal.

    I wouldn't encourage people to go around harassing people by taking photos of them (let alone the mention of taking a photo with a telephoto lens of someone in their bedroom), but nor do I think that anyone on this thread that has been harassed has been doing that.

    I'd sooner accept that your definition of 'exposed' would refer to the increased chance of being assaulted, which IS an issue, than being sued. The people who take exception are unlikely to pursue a claim in court as they'd prefer to dish out their own justice - from attacking the photographer (as happens quite a lot) or damaging/destroying the camera.

    I'm still unclear of how many people have, or would, take things to the ECHR - or if anyone has done so with a successful outcome. I'll admit it's not something I'd considered before, and doubt I would when doing my job (which isn't taking photos of people close-up, and rarely of people at all).
     
  8. alexdodds

    alexdodds Member

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    29 Jul 2009
    Location:
    Chester-le-Street
    I can tell you one of my friends was at Marylebone and got confronted by 2 security guards. It was all caught on his camera and he put it on youtube however if you got the chance to see the video I can tell you I felt sorry for the staff because I had never seen such appalling behaviour from an enthusiast because he was swearing and shouting at the staff even when the female station manager was present. It started by the guard asking him if he signed in and had permission but when he touched his camera it all kicked off. He took the video down because it was getting attention very quickly and Chiltern had seen it.

    Then at Ealing Broadway he got approached again and this time the staff were giving him the opportunity to go and sign in straight away and carry on with his videoing but he kept refusing even though he was been asked kindly by FGW and the security guards and so the BTP were called. they then give him one more chance but still refused and so him and his mate got kicked off the station.
     
  9. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,380
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    That sounds like a case of an arrest for a public order offence.
     
  10. phil8715

    phil8715 Member

    Messages:
    266
    Joined:
    19 Aug 2007
    I was on Burnley bus station and my mate was taking photos of buses, he got told to put his camera away or he would get banned from the station. The security guard said the manager of the bus station has a camera linked to his home computer and if he see everything he can see if his security guards are doing their job properly.

    Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express
     
  11. 172212

    172212 Member

    Messages:
    307
    Joined:
    28 May 2012
    Location:
    On a local stopping service near you
    Yes, I have, I'm so glad someone brought this up.
    I haven't had a problem per say, but I was taking footage at Coventry and a security guard came up to me and asked me what I was doing; I replied with taking pictures of the trains, he then told me to ask permission, as it was 'required', I told him that the guidelines stated that I didn't have to ask - but it was recommended.
    The outcome was that he told me to ask a member of staff, who said I could anyway...
    I usually just ask permission nowadays, just to be on the safe side + I've heard stories where people have been forced out of the station for taking photos and I don't really want to be one of those people.
     
  12. lifeboat1721

    lifeboat1721 Member

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    8 Oct 2009
    Location:
    Morecambe lancs
    I used to get asked when I arrived at Lancaster would I go to the office and check if it was ok to take pics, I just used to stick my head round the door say I've just come to shoot the Steam special!! There reply was fine mate carry on... Now I don't even bother asking.
    --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
    I once took a pic of a Police car driving down the Prom at Morecambe he then stopped and asked me if I'd taken a pic of him? I replied not of you just the car, he got back in and drove off..
     
  13. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,380
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    And if you had been taking a photo of the officer, what business of his was it?
     
  14. 172212

    172212 Member

    Messages:
    307
    Joined:
    28 May 2012
    Location:
    On a local stopping service near you
    Ha, I've had a couple of looks by conductors when taking pictures of the cab, but they don't even show up on the picture
     
  15. 43167

    43167 Member

    Messages:
    1,020
    Joined:
    18 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Keighley
    Thats intresting with Coventry, because its a Virgin Station and at other Virgin stations there the well known posters openly welcoming enthuisasts. Rugby, Crewe, Preston and carlisle ive seen them.
     
  16. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Essex
    If you don't want to follow the guidelines, then don't expect staff to follow them either. After all, they are 'guidelines'.
     
  17. 172212

    172212 Member

    Messages:
    307
    Joined:
    28 May 2012
    Location:
    On a local stopping service near you
    But that's the point. I DID follow the guidelines. I was standing away from the yellow line and went to the end of the platform, as the guidelines say, it is RECOMMENDED that you ask for permission, but it's NOT required.

    Rant over
     
  18. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,380
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    I am not sure you need to ask permission anyway, but rather just let someone know you're there.

    To say you need to ask permission suggests that the person you ask can just say no, depending on what mood they're in.
     
  19. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Essex
    By the guidelines and the byelaws they can ask you to leave the station (it doesn't specify when they can ask, but overcrowding, safety issues etc etc). To remain would be an offence.


    Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
     
  20. ralphchadkirk

    ralphchadkirk Established Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Joined:
    20 Oct 2008
    Location:
    Essex
    That's funny, the guidelines don't even mention the word "recommended". It says "when you arrive at a station please let the staff at the Network Rail Reception Desk know that you are on the station". If you want to treat that as a request: fine, but don't expect staff to follow them. The only legitimate reason I can see for not letting staff know you are there is if you are literally passing through the station and are taking one or two photographs.


    Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
     
  21. 172212

    172212 Member

    Messages:
    307
    Joined:
    28 May 2012
    Location:
    On a local stopping service near you
    It doesn't say ASK for permission, it says let them know you're there. Which is pointless if a staffed member can see what you're doing, if I had to ask for permission then why didn't I get stopped at Wolverhampton, New Street or Birmingham International
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2012
  22. jon0844

    jon0844 Veteran Member

    Messages:
    24,380
    Joined:
    1 Feb 2009
    Location:
    UK
    And I bet they do that very rarely, most likely for people loitering around (like when people used to try and snag travelcards and re-sell them), being drunk etc.

    Imagine if they just started picking on random people and chucking them out of the station? Luckily that doesn't happen (or the Daily Mail would be full of stories) and simply deciding you don't like someone taking photos - when NR has said it's okay, as long as you follow the guidelines - would land said person in a lot of trouble. Not legally necessarily, but certainly from a PR point of view.

    I've seen BTP dealing with drunks at King's Cross at midnight and even they don't chuck people out, but do certainly do everything to get them on the last trains.
     
  23. 172212

    172212 Member

    Messages:
    307
    Joined:
    28 May 2012
    Location:
    On a local stopping service near you
    Has anyone ever been kicked out of a train station for taking photos before?
     
  24. causton

    causton Established Member

    Messages:
    5,416
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2010
    Location:
    Somewhere between WY372 and MV7
    Exactly!

    And this is what happens when you try to deliberately obscure your face...

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/0causton0/7157943502

    It makes it obvious, whereas her face would have not shown up because the glass was so reflective. :P
     
  25. Charlie2555

    Charlie2555 Member

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    12 Jun 2012
    Location:
    Near Gillingham (Dorset)
    I had a man at Clapham Junction poke his head out of a 456 at me and say "no cameras". He was invisible and wouldn't be in my picture (now deleted) if he hadn't stuck his head out. I'm not sure if "no cameras" meant he believed you weren't allowed to use them or whether he just didn't want to be in a picture.
     
  26. electra27000

    electra27000 Member

    Messages:
    111
    Joined:
    17 Jun 2011
    Location:
    Low Moor
    Did you delete it as a result of what he'd said?
     
  27. Temple Meads

    Temple Meads Established Member

    Messages:
    2,216
    Joined:
    2 Sep 2010
    Location:
    Devon
    I see you use the term "a man", was this man staff or just a camera shy passenger? :lol:
     
  28. Charlie2555

    Charlie2555 Member

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    12 Jun 2012
    Location:
    Near Gillingham (Dorset)
    I did delete it because what he said and he was a Southern driver :(
     
  29. 40fan

    40fan Member

    Messages:
    54
    Joined:
    7 Aug 2010
    Location:
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Why did you delete it? It is none of his business, not to mention the fact that he was lying when he said no cameras.
     
  30. electra27000

    electra27000 Member

    Messages:
    111
    Joined:
    17 Jun 2011
    Location:
    Low Moor
    Have you used the card since?
     

Share This Page