Chicago photo ban at train stations

Dave Parker said:

I happen to disagree, a private corperation that owns the property has the rights to do what they want when they deny access to the property, short of killing someone or maiming them, this is not a government situation, this from what I have read was a private corp dening access to photographers to their property...

I do know one thing, running around calling companies fascist, does not further our cause to have access to the areas we want to photograph, this is not even a 1st amendment thing, from the articles I have read, 100% in whole this is private property..

And I have worked for many corperations, and I agree that many are very militant in their thinking, I also spent 26 years in the military, so am very familier with the terms and definitions, but I can tell you this, if someone showed up on my personal private property and started taking photographs with out permission, they run a good chance of getting a butt full of rock salt from the 12 gauge..and here in Montana, I would win in court...personal private property rights are held in the highest reguards where I live.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps then, by the policies that are being instituted in this godforsaken country now - perhaps you ought to be preemptively locked up...! Seriously - you would want to KILL a person because they thought your house looked good enough to take a snapshot of?? Are you effing SERIOUS??

No landlord (corporation or otherwise) has any right to prevent someone standing on public property of taking pictures or video/film, what have you. Besides - why would they ever object unless they're doing something visibly illegal - which would be something of a telling sign, I'd think.

But usually - if one WANTS to take pictures while standing ON private property - it seems reasonable to me to request permission to do so. I think that is fine. A public transportation system, however - is far more of a grey zone.

Sparky,

Yes, I am effing serious, I don't live where their is any Ajacent public property, I am over 2 miles beyond the public road, there is no public property where I currently reside, besides shooting somebody with rock salt in the butt is not going to kill them..the whole point of my posts was, ASK and most likly you will receive, try to dictate and your most likely to piss someone off, the articles I have read on this situation state this IS private property and the company that owns it decided they didn't want to take a risk, some people and some companies, as has been outline in another thread today, JUST DON"T WANT THEIR PICTURES TAKEN and if they own the property, they have the right to say so, there is no public railway property in this country, every single rail line is owned by private companies, and hence when you enter the property they own, unless you have permission, you are in fact tresspassing, they have the right to have you cited and they have the right to deny you access, depending on what their agreements state, heck if you get out of line at an airport, they have the right to have you ejected...it seems to me this situation could be very well solved if photographers, would just talk to the management at the particular property, I know I always secure permission when I want to photograph and I secure the permits that are required, that includes National Parks, and such, and hell I own part of them..

Dave

I can appreciate that position Dave. Sorry to be getting all up in arms about it. I was mostly referring to the larger phenomena of security guards bullying people who are actually ON public property - if you've been following the threads on this and other related forums lately. However - I really don't like the trends happening in this country, at all. It seems there used to be this concept called 'liberty' which has been replaced by a concept called 'freedom' which means that you are surveilled at every corner - your internet activity tracked, your credit cards tracked. It's disgusting, IMO. It wouldn't take much imagination to see that previously 'public' property, owned by the 'city corporation' will now become 'private property'. I think it's something we really need to keep tabs on. In the interest of 'liberty'.

Sparky said:

I can appreciate that position Dave. Sorry to be getting all up in arms about it. I was mostly referring to the larger phenomena of security guards bullying people who are actually ON public property - if you've been following the threads on this and other related forums lately. However - I really don't like the trends happening in this country, at all. It seems there used to be this concept called 'liberty' which has been replaced by a concept called 'freedom' which means that you are surveilled at every corner - your internet activity tracked, your credit cards tracked. It's disgusting, IMO. It wouldn't take much imagination to see that previously 'public' property, owned by the 'city corporation' will now become 'private property'. I think it's something we really need to keep tabs on. In the interest of 'liberty'.

Click to expand...

Sparky,

I agree wtih you, I see alot of things I don't like when it comes to what we can and cannot photograph and as I stated, I don't agree or disagree with what they did and to the joy of photographers who work in that area, they have recinded their choice, but after many years of being a photographer, I just don't see how calling them names and bulling up to the bar, does anything to further our cause, I am old enough now to understand, you get more by offering honey than you do vineger, it sounds as if the public was able to get their point across in this situation and it will continue to be these little victories that allow us to continue to do what we do and love to do...as I said, ask me and I will most likely give, tell me and I will most likely tell you to go to hell, hell bent for election is not always the best policy and with some restraint and cooth, we can win the world back over again..

Have a great day..

Dave

Dave Parker said:

Sparky,

I agree wtih you, I see alot of things I don't like when it comes to what we can and cannot photograph and as I stated, I don't agree or disagree with what they did and to the joy of photographers who work in that area, they have recinded their choice, but after many years of being a photographer, I just don't see how calling them names and bulling up to the bar, does anything to further our cause, I am old enough now to understand, you get more by offering honey than you do vineger, it sounds as if the public was able to get their point across in this situation and it will continue to be these little victories that allow us to continue to do what we do and love to do...as I said, ask me and I will most likely give, tell me and I will most likely tell you to go to hell, hell bent for election is not always the best policy and with some restraint and cooth, we can win the world back over again..

Have a great day..

Dave

Click to expand...

Fully agree with everything you said there. I think, instead of arguing about all these things in the abstract - what would be a good use of our time is to put together a little kit that we can all carry with us - spelling out the letter of the law - that we might show to those who give us a hard time when we're on public property. Kind of like a Miranda - but in reverse. "I have the right to..." etc. etc... Nothing cocky or confrontational - just a transcript of the regulations that allow us our freedoms - because the cops and security guards sure don't seem to know them.

Dave Parker said:

I happen to disagree, a private corperation that owns the property has the rights to do what they want when they deny access to the property, short of killing someone or maiming them, this is not a government situation, this from what I have read was a private corp dening access to photographers to their property...

I do know one thing, running around calling companies fascist, does not further our cause to have access to the areas we want to photograph, this is not even a 1st amendment thing, from the articles I have read, 100% in whole this is private property..

And I have worked for many corperations, and I agree that many are very militant in their thinking, I also spent 26 years in the military, so am very familier with the terms and definitions, but I can tell you this, if someone showed up on my personal private property and started taking photographs with out permission, they run a good chance of getting a butt full of rock salt from the 12 gauge..and here in Montana, I would win in court...personal private property rights are held in the highest reguards where I live.



Dave

Click to expand...

Dave,

While I agree with you that a private corporation has every right to control access and usage of its property - in the particular instance this is not a clear-cut situation.

From what I understand of the Metra/UP set up it is this: UP (a private corporation) owns the rail right of way. Metra (a public agency) owns the stations, including the platforms and certain surrounding land (e.g. parking facilities).

Metra also contracts with UP to operate commuter train service for it.

As such, we have a mixed situation with property ownership divided b/w a private and public entity and with a private entity operating services on behalf of a public body. Those services likely include security (either directly or via sub-contract).

UP was apparently out of bounds in announcing that photogs could not take pics from the Metra station platforms because they were attempting to restrict usage on what is actually public property. I believe this is why they ultimately did a climb down.

However, if UP did own the station facilities then, yes, it would have the right to restrict access and/or usage.

This particular situation arises because UP once owned the facilities and provided the service. The public sector stepped in and acquired the facilities (but not the ROW) when UP could no longer financially make a profit. It then contracted with UP (as an experienced operator) which, under such an arrangement could now operate profitably since it was relieved of such costs as station maintenance and repairs. UP was acting according to an ownership structure that no longer exists - and was call on it.

George,

I understand the situation as you do, my only point in this was that if we all go off hell bent for election, often times we are going to be met with a flying bird, it is quite obvious the cooler heads prevailed in this situation and the photographers still have the permission to photograph the trains...Often times in our zeal to invokve the rights we believe we have, our actions dictate the outcome of the situation..

I am glad to see that if I visit this area, I still have the right to set up my camera and take photographs, this really is a situation we should ALL keep an eye on, but sometimes we need to enter through the back door instead of bursting through the front with guns blazing..

Dave

The position of railroads as far as property ownership is pretty ambiguous. Many US rail lines were built on easements acquired by the government through the right of eminent domain, then transfered to the railroads. Other similar arrangements also exist. Whether this makes them truly private property I will leave to a real estate attorney.

Dave Parker said:

George,

I understand the situation as you do, my only point in this was that if we all go off hell bent for election, often times we are going to be met with a flying bird, it is quite obvious the cooler heads prevailed in this situation and the photographers still have the permission to photograph the trains...Often times in our zeal to invokve the rights we believe we have, our actions dictate the outcome of the situation..

I am glad to see that if I visit this area, I still have the right to set up my camera and take photographs, this really is a situation we should ALL keep an eye on, but sometimes we need to enter through the back door instead of bursting through the front with guns blazing..

Dave

Click to expand...

DBP said:

The position of railroads as far as property ownership is pretty ambiguous. Many US rail lines were built on easements acquired by the government through the right of eminent domain, then transfered to the railroads. Other similar arrangements also exist. Whether this makes them truly private property I will leave to a real estate attorney.

Click to expand...

Dave: One of the things that concerns me with these threads is the thinking that folks have that they have an "unfettered" constitutional right to take pics on public property. That is not true. No right is "absolute".

So I agree that to go off "half cocked" screaming about rights is likely to result in diminished freedom. If you constantly petition the courts you may be disappointed in the decisions.

In situations such as this (at least before the UP climb down) I think it is important to keep two thoughts in mind:

1) It is easier for "functionaries" to be safe and say "NO" than to take a risk and say "YES".

Therefore, as regards shooting pics in "questionable" circumstances.

2) It is better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission!


DBP: I am an attorney and work in R/E law. The rights-of-way conveyed to RR's and other common carriers by the grantor (property owner - whether public or private) include all of the rights of control as if the grantee were the fee simple owner of the property.*

With one caveat:

So long as the grantee of the ROW continues to use the property for the reasons vested in the conveyance by the grantor (e.g. to operate a railway line).

*BTW: this usually includes the obligation to pay property taxes.

Prohibiting photographers from taking pictures of train stations, airports, public buildings etc is a falsehood in security. One can bypass this by using digital or video cameras that are extremely miniature in size to hide in a briefcase, purse without arousing suspicion. There isn't enough manpower or electronic surveillance equipment to watch for all possible intel gathering unless we are living in a nation where everyone is spying on everyone. The government wants us to feel save by implementing these types of actions claiming it is for the good of the people knowing fully well this is not true. We the people allow the government and our enemies to play on our fear, lack of participation in our government and ignorance to control us. Throughout history there has been groups of people or nations that did not agree with another and this will continue til the end of mankind. Yet we can attempt to make changes through understanding the issues we have to break barriers. Despite this attempt many will not be happy with the answers or results. Not only does our government wants us to feel that we actually need them they thrive on it. The American people can actual use good judgement when provided with truthful information and make decisions that are sound. It only takes a few to make life miserable for many. So, if you do not like what you see voice your opinion and vote in this up coming elections in you state. Remember: "Evil wins when good men do nothing"

I can go on and on.

So VOTE.

SAVE should be SAFE

Edwardv said:

Prohibiting photographers from taking pictures of train stations, airports, public buildings etc is a falsehood in security.

Click to expand...

But what if that property is private? does the good of the many out weigh the good of the few? and if it does, do you agree wtih the supreme courts choice last year?

You have NO rights when it comes to private property, if you don't own it..Period, end of story...

I think by the many postings in this thread has shown that there was an uproar that didn't need to happen, part of the property in question is in facct private, part of it is public and the public prevails, which is the way it should happen.

Dave