NM Commuter train bans photography

[2F/2F]

I found this wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty

I didnt read all of it, but I did skim over it. hope this gives some insight on the whole tribal sovereignty thing

Thanks for posting that. As is usual with Wikipedia, there is good information there, though on principal it has the regular problem that a wiki or Internet page cannot be used as a reputable source by any stretch of proper journalistic standards.

If you can see it from public land, you can shoot it. Not only do the Federally-approved tribal Constitutions assure this, but the U.S. Constitution does, and that trumps all when it comes to challenges. No one is saying you can shoot wherever you want whenever you want. I am saying that the public view is just that: the public view.

Some seem to think that the term "reservation" is equal to "private", but this is not the case. Being on a reservation does not automatically mean that you are no longer on public land. You are not on public land only when you leave public land, NOT when you enter a reservation. The status of "reservation" has nothing to do with the definitions of "public" and "private". Your geographical location on a map of property lines has everything to do with it.

 

[markbarendt]

That might work on a public thoroughfare, but when you are on tribal land, it is private property, it is sovereign land, and they are holding all the cards. If you do not want to play by their rules, then they have make you leave.

The question is, for the OP, what is the legal status of the rail right of way?Steve

The area in question is essentially the Interstate 25 transportation corridor and, if memory serves, the rail road easement in question is the old north-south freight line between Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

It would be my guess that that easement has be carrying passengers off and on since before NM was a state.

Suggesting that this isn't a public right of way seems a bit far fetched.

What's next no cameras on I-25?

 

[2F/2F]

Suggesting that this isn't a public right of way seems a bit far fetched.

Don't hold back. It is more than far fetched. It is just plain factually incorrect.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"In New York City, Rockefeller Plaza and some of the surrounding roads are private property. They maintain that status by closing the roads to all traffic, including foot traffic for one day during the year. This private property extends below the ground and includes part of the subway station."

Above ground, yes, some of it is private property just like a lot of other public plazas on private property are in this city. Underground there is a network of passageways, essentially a subterranean shopping mall, leading to and from the buildings of Rockefeller Center and the fare control areas of the NYC subway system. Once you enter the fare control area, you are on the subway station proper, which is MTA property. There is access directly to the subway from the street. One need not ever set foot on Rockefeller Center property to reach the subway.

Correct. While Rockefeller Center property is not in the right of way to the subways, some of the promenade [? right term] and shops are private property and passage may be prohibited.

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

The area in question is essentially the Interstate 25 transportation corridor and, if memory serves, the rail road easement in question is the old north-south freight line between Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

It would be my guess that that easement has be carrying passengers off and on since before NM was a state.

Suggesting that this isn't a public right of way seems a bit far fetched.

What's next no cameras on I-25?

The thread is about the NM commuter train, not I-25.

Steve

 

[2F/2F]

Correct. While Rockefeller Center property is not in the right of way to the subways, some of the promenade [? right term] and shops are private property and passage may be prohibited.

Steve

The thread is about the NM commuter train, not Rockefeller Center.

Rockefeller Center is private. The Rail Runner is public.

So what is your point?

The best I can gather is that your point goes something like this: You can't take pix on public land in NM because you can't take pix on private land in NY.

:confused:

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

Thanks for posting that. As is usual with Wikipedia, there is good information there, though on principal it has the regular problem that a wiki or Internet page cannot be used as a reputable source by any stretch of proper journalistic standards.
QUOTE]

good point. There is links at the bottom just in case someone wants to check the validity, though. Wikipedia was the first site that showed up when I did a Google search.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The thread is about the NM commuter train, not Rockefeller Center.

Rockefeller Center is private. The Rail Runner is public.

So what is your point?

The best I can gather is that your point is something like: You can't take pix on public land because you can't take pix on private land.

You stated that if is exists you can photograph or do what ever you want. Rockefeller Center is a counter example.


Is Rail Runner public? I do not know. It could be private. The point is that while public has access, the question of the ownership and right of the property owner is the question. The status of this land has been characterized at public, private, tribal, ... by posters who live in New Mexico. Without a clear, unambiguous answer to that question the discussions will resolve nothing.

As it was stated before:

This is pointless, I see.

Steve

 

[2F/2F]

"You stated that if is exists you can photograph or do what ever you want."

No. I did not. Are you daft, man, to misquote something of which there is a clear record? Did you actually read anything in this thread or in the article? I did not state anything remotely close to "if it exists...you can do whatever you want". I stated that if it is in the public view, you can photograph it, with the exception of certain facilities for national security reasons.

The only time I used the word "exists" was to state the Rail Runner's status as a public right of way, as in: The public right of way exists.

The only time I used a term close to "do whatever you want" was to describe what you are allowed to do with photographs of private property taken from public property.

"Is Rail Runner public? I do not know. It could be private."

Yes. It is. The fact that you do not know this by now shows that you have not even read the article you are arguing about, or the entire thread, which contains the portion of the article that states it is public.

FWIW, my *opinions* on the matter have been stated, and are separate from the *facts* that I am now talking about. It is time you learned to separate the two as well.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

The Rail Runner is owned and operated by the government of the state of New Mexico. So, yes, it is public.

I-25 is relevant to this debate because it runs through the same Indian reservations that the train runs through (the train runs parallel to the highway for much of the journey, though parts of it are far enough from the highway that you can't see the road from the train).

I drove that stretch of I-25 hundreds of times when I lived in Santa Fe because I drove to Albuquerque several times a week to shop, go out to eat, and visit friends. I often stopped along the road to do landscape photos on tribal land and no one cared. I was not in the actual towns the Indians live in, however. Part of the railroad runs through the town of San Filipe Pueblo and very close to the town of Sandia Pueblo. I think the Indians don't want their towns photographed, but they don't care about the landscape. I suspect that the blanket prohibition of photography from the train on reservation land is just to make it easier to keep people from shooting the towns since someone would have to keep watch for cameras during the minute or two the train spent running through each Indian town (the term Pueblo is Spanish for town....the Pueblo Indians, unlike most Indians in the USA, are town-dwellers with a thousand year old urban culture based on small towns built of adobe, though the pueblos now have a lot of modern buildings too).

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Rail Runner is owned and operated by the government of the state of New Mexico. So, yes, it is public.

I-25 is relevant to this debate because it runs through the same Indian reservations that the train runs through (the train runs parallel to the highway for much of the journey, though parts of it are far enough from the highway that you can't see the road from the train).

I drove that stretch of I-25 hundreds of times when I lived in Santa Fe because I drove to Albuquerque several times a week to shop, go out to eat, and visit friends. I often stopped along the road to do landscape photos on tribal land and no one cared. I was not in the actual towns the Indians live in, however. Part of the railroad runs through the town of San Filipe Pueblo and very close to the town of Sandia Pueblo. I think the Indians don't want their towns photographed, but they don't care about the landscape. I suspect that the blanket prohibition of photography from the train on reservation land is just to make it easier to keep people from shooting the towns since someone would have to keep watch for cameras during the minute or two the train spent running through each Indian town (the term Pueblo is Spanish for town....the Pueblo Indians, unlike most Indians in the USA, are town-dwellers with a thousand year old urban culture based on small towns built of adobe, though the pueblos now have a lot of modern buildings too).

Frustrating at best.

I am good deep powder skiing in Canada for a week so you guys can continue figuring this out by yourselves.

Steve

 

[markbarendt]

The thread is about the NM commuter train, not I-25.

Steve

You are right this isn't about I-25, even though the train and the highway take essentially the same route, and they are both public transportation routes, and they even cross each other several times.

It's also not about the commuter train.

The real issue is a local bureaucracy overstepping it's authority to placate a local constituent group and in doing so infringing upon the rights of the other 300,000,000 of us to enjoy a vacation.

As far as I'm concerned the tribe is welcome to build a fence to protect their privacy if they are that concerned about having their picture taken, just like I would have to do on my property if I wanted privacy.

 

[aluk]

Frustrating at best.

I am good deep powder skiing in Canada for a week so you guys can continue figuring this out by yourselves.

Steve

If you're going to BC, better watch where you ski:

http://www.no2010.com/

 

[removed-user-1]

The real issue is a local bureaucracy overstepping it's authority to placate a local constituent group and in doing so infringing upon the rights of the other 300,000,000 of us to enjoy a vacation.

This is the key, and this is the slippery slope that has people bringing up I-25 and the Santa Monica Pier and any other public areas where photography is being challenged.

I got into a similar discussion on a non-photography forum recently, where the argument about private vs. public photography was made. Basically, I made the same argument there that I will make here. IF I am not trespassing, and can see the property, current US law supports my right to take photographs. IF another party feels that they have been genuinely damaged by my photography, then they certainly have the right to take me to court (not that they will necessarily win). Google's street view camera vans have brought this issue to the courts several times recently.

I reacted with some anger on this issue because my current plans have me traveling to NM this October, and in fact I WAS going to take the train to Santa Fe (but not anymore; I'll rent a car instead).

I carry a business card with me, and if anybody really challenges me I hand them the card so they can see what I do with my photos (almost nothing, in fact, besides display a few of the best from time to time).

 

[JOSarff]

The real issue is a local bureaucracy overstepping it's authority to placate a local constituent group and in doing so infringing upon the rights of the other 300,000,000 of us to enjoy a vacation.

AMEN. Finially someone else understands.