NY Times article about photographing in the subway

figfoto said:
dmr, i know that site very well, [some really good pics] and I am very sure the MTA knows about it [some of the contributors are probably employees :D].
Click to expand...

I kinda figured you knew it. I get the impression that Peggy D. (frequent contributor) is or was a MTA employee. There may be others too.

My biggest contribution to the site has been the stuff on the Las Vegas Monorail.

http://world.nycsubway.org/us/lasvegas/

Back then when I used to work down there, it took a brave soul to take a camera out, because you where just inviting your self to be robbed [seen this as a conductor too many times].
Click to expand...

I will never forget my parents having a total cow when they learned I spent the majority of a Sunday joyriding the subways with my then-new used Mamiya SD. I was enraptured by the fact that I could shoot Tri-X without flash and get good shots, even in such places as subway stations. They read me the riot act regarding somebody killing me just to get the camera. This was about 1969 and I was somewhat gutsy for a 16 year old. :)

Here's one of the surviving shots from that shoot, scanned from an old print, negative long gone.

img_36501.jpg


I think you hit the nail on the head, this guy must of mouthed off at the wrong cop at the wrong time to get him self in a jam, but because of his actions we all know for the record there is no law concerning photography on the subway at least.
Click to expand...

The one thing I don't understand, not only on the subway, but other places, why are there almost never any "No Photography" signs or a circle-camera-slash icon posted? I would think that the Powers That Be would want to announce the fact, rather than have to enforce things after the fact.
 
figfoto said:
Sorry about that:

One thing I have learned from being a life long resident of NYC [and a former NYCTA Subway Conductor], is that there is always 3 Sides Of A Story: What you said Happened, What they said Happened and what Really Happened.

This was an unfortunate encounter between a Train Buff and an Overzealous Cop.
Train Buffs are generally harmless individuals who love Trains And Take Pictures Of Them,[just like some of us who love Rangefinders and take pictures of whatever] But, usually Follow The Rules. I also work for a 'MTA Agency' and I was surprised that there was No Law On The Books concerning Photography, in fact when a train reports someone photographing or video Taping on the Property, the Police are immediately dispatched. However, this is the first time I have heard or read about someone actually being Arrested For Photographing Trains, [the Cops usually just say 'You can't do that, Put It Away'], Which leads me to think there is something More To The Story.

The Article said he was cleared for photographing, [apparently there is No Law About Photography, and he was In His Right] However, they are letting the other Tickets Stand, I believe one was for 'Noise' and the other for 'Blocking The Platform'.
From my experience working as a NYC Subway Conductor back in the late '80's, some individuals loved to 'make a scene' when they are confronted by a Cop and there is an Audience To Watch It.
This seems to be the case, since a supervisor [sargent] was present and had made the decision to have him arrested. This was'nt a ' Hey You, Put The Camera Away' - 'Oh I'm Sorry Officer I Did'nt Know' and move on. This Guy wanted to make a point, and he did.

Now, was the Cop overzealous? Of course he was, taking a picture of a train on a Subway Platform is not doing ground work for a Terrorist Organization. However taking pictures of say Yard Facilities, Tunnels or any other Safety Sensitve Areas would be, and The Cop should have been able to Tell The Difference.

Just wanted to give a different view, Now Back To Taking Pictures.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no.

I'm a railfan photographer AND an officer with my county's Homeland Security department (OEM). The only criteria for being prohibited from taking photographs of railroad or transit facilities is trespassing, and even that is tempered by whether the private area is public access or not.

I will *not* put my camera away because some tinhorn thinks I can't take photos of trains and I'm in the right, and I've had more than one swallow their words when they saw my car or my ID.

Most cops are perfectly OK with the topic or are at least open-minded, but there is a minority that thinks they are the supreme arbiter of what's permissible. And many railroad employees are just a pain in the arse about it and enjoy causing problems with railfans.
 
BTW on the commuter railroads [where i work] we do get reports from engineers or crew members, of individuals photographing and or video taping trains and police do respond. This is to do more with safety than terrorist activities usually because these individuals where too close to the 'right of way' of on coming trains or in restricted areas [yards, repair facilities etc.] were they could get themselves hurt or worse killed. Which is different from what the Times article described as far as that incident with photography is concerned. However, right after 9/11 , crews [on the commuter rails] where turning in everything that looked suspicious including photographers. And you could'nt blame anyone for doing so right after the attacks.
But in my opinion some things have been relaxed since 9/11 but security in the subway and commuter rail has'nt and may never.
 
No issues like that on this side of the puddle (yet). I did read something like it on RFF recenlty where a Danish shooter invited the shopping mall employee to call the cops right away. All went out quietly that time.

I think the definitive link on the subject for the US shooter is here
 
To resurrect a thread on an occasionally-recurring topic ...

nightfly said:
Anyone have a bookmark for the law? Would like to print it out and keep it in my bag. Probably only thing it will get me is a baton shoved my @ss, but I'd like have it anyway.
Click to expand...

... This appeared on "another network" and it looks official. It's similar to the Rail Service Bulletin published by the CTA a few years back, although this appears to be direct from NYPD.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2337/3544963391_7f1d30700c_b.jpg
 
This is a subject dear to me as I also enjoy shooting in the NYC subway system. Back in 2004 I was taking shots on a Manhattan-bound F train from Smith/9th St and an officer riding in the car with me ignored me completely. I try to be as inconspicuous as possible and it has served me well with nary an officer or MTA employee voicing protest so far. Shooting with a rangefinder has certainly helped.

Just yesterday it seemed my luck was about to run out when, on my way back from a rehearsal off the Ditmas stop on the F, a police officer suddenly appeared, looking my way. I had made my way to the northern-most section of the platform and was taking pics of the very curious, steeply-graded tracks that head underground. A south-bound F was pulling into the station just as I had started to take some pics and perhaps he had radioed about me. I wasn't sure if it was just coincidence or if the cop had really been called on me as he only glanced my way before I boarded the train and never stopped me. It made me think twice though just because of his apparent alertedness and the fact that he didn't board the train. In any case, I am glad to have come across some of the relevant materials regarding our rights within the system. Now I will be duly prepared when the time comes. I have seen big DSLR users buckle to requests that the officer sees what was taken. There is additional security and distance that comes with the fact that film cannot be 'previewed' like digital no matter how demanding nor intimidating the authority figure may be - even though our rights are still one and the same.

I am moving to Astoria soon and am excited about the new area I will be exploring with my rangefinder. One of the first times I ever went all the way to the Ditmars stop, I remember it being around sunset and there were two photogs on the platform with SLRs on tripods taking pics. I talked to them for a moment and they said they had been there for about an hour and no one had paid them any mind. In the .jpg dmr just posted (issued 04-03-09), there is a stipulation in section 3 (an excerpt from Patrol Guide 212-21 "Photography on the New York City Transit System") that states that "permission is required for commercial shoots and/or the use of additional equipment such as lights and tripods" essentially constituting that tripod use falls under commercial photography. The more tenuous question is whether a large dedicated SLR strobe ala Canon 580EX falls under the definition of a "light" thus constituting commercial photography. As most vaguely-worded laws present in NYC, I reckon it is completely up to the discretion of the officer on the scene. I would hope they would delineate between a large commercial strobe (perhaps with reflector) and a pro-sumer "flash" but that's often too much to ask.

Thanks for the accounts and info, all!
 
Last edited:
My guess is that tripods and lights are considered at least intrusive if not hazardous, rather than a sign of commercial activity.
 
I find that usually the best response is to hand them a business card while introducing yourself with the implication that you are someone significant and they really should know who you are. (recently had a security guard ask if I wanted him to come back later and unlock the gate to the fence I had just climbed over to photograph)

Then, pull out a notebook and ask the guard to carefully spell his complete name. Ask for his badge number. Ask for his supervisor's name. Ask him to agree on the date and time. Then write furiously while asking him to confirm specifically that he told you that you were not allowed to photograph there.

Then back off a bit and allow the guard a graceful exit. 4 out of 5 will put potential for a reprimand at a much higher priority than protecting something. Of course there is that 1 out of 5 remaining that you must make the decision to push the issue or walk away. But you can win most of the time just by having enough chutzpah.
 
Bob, that sounds like great advice. I need to get some business cards printed, anyway.

I was also thinking of the strategy of just claiming that my camera was not, in fact, a camera, but a phone. Just place the camera up to your ear and start talking loudly. "What's that? Lettuce? Yea, I'll get some lettuce on the way home. What? Hamburger buns. Okay. Got it. Anything else? Yea. Five thirty. Got it. Bye."

~Joe
 
My take on this, and every individual is going to have different experiences, is that it's a lot tougher photographing in big cities. There is much more paranoia and fear, more of a control structure that is always present (cameras watching you to make sure you're not watching them, etc), and it's all more of a negative experience, for myself and the people I may be photographing. It is somewhat outweighed by the fact that there's obviously more going on in large cities. More to photograph. But for me it makes it unpleasant. I guess I've had my fill of all that and really enjoy being in towns and cities where that sort of thing isn't going on. I can be more relaxed, the people outside these cities are more relaxed, and I am sure that once you adjust to the differences you can make photographs that are just as memorable, or just as bad, as the case may be.
 
Last edited:
We do not have a metro in my home city. So I am not often presented with the opportunity to take photos of people in this setting. But pretty well everywhere I go these days I find that there are uniformed "rent a cops" wandering about. Law and order has been privatised in good old Australia. Well maybe not but partly so. Real uniformed officers I find are generally well trained and non uptight in Oz and mostly to be fair the private sector guys are too. If one asks me to move along it is usually settled with an "Ok mate, no worries" and any problem is averted.
But I am most often confronted in places like enclosed private shopping malls where I guess these guys just feel that they have to earn their keep by harrassing innocent photographers like me. I have even been confroneted when with my wife and obviously photographing her. But we have not had the sort of 9/11 hassles found in USA. Thankfully. I think this is partly down to the good old Aussie tendancy to be laid back. I find there has been little problme to date in open areas - if you look at my Flickr site (below) you will see lots of photos shot in our local CBD shopping street, and touch wood, - to date this has not been an issue.
 
Last edited:
dmr said:
Thanks for posting this!

Hopefully, articles like this will serve to educate the transit workers and the law enforcement community. Cases like this will hit them in the pocketbook, where it really hurts. If common sense and the written law will not convince them, money talks!



Ya know, sometimes you just don't want to get into a hassle. You really can't expect a maintenance worker to know the law, or even the transit regulations. (I'm referring to a brief confrontation I've cited many times here, covered in: http://omababe.blogspot.com/2008/02/beneath-windy-city.html)

It's far easier in many cases to just feign an apology and move on, and continue shooting. In this case I just wanted to get the situation over with quickly and continue. No, I did not quit shooting. :)
Click to expand...


At first I thought that every citizen should defend their rights to do what ever the law is permitting them to do, even if the police don't like it.

But, you might be right. In practice it's sometimes better to act different from your believes if you want to achieve a better end result.

I'm thinking that maybe if every photographer did the same (just apologize and go somewhere else) the issue would be left alone by the police as they'd think they are in control, but if every photographer starts to argue with law on their side the law might change over time because it's creating problems?

Of course a better option would be to educate the police about the law and hire only smart people as cops, but that's unlikely to happen, so the utilitarian thing to do is just humble down and hope that the issue is left alone with no stronger restrictions to come.

It's sad though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom