NM Commuter train bans photography

nc5p · Feb 14, 2009

Back in the 1800's the pueblos sold the AT&SF railroad the land to build the rail line. The railroad merged with Burlington Northern some years back, then this section of track was sold to the state of New Mexico. Today it carries the Rail Runner and the Amtrak Southwest Chief. Different laws apply to non-tribal land that lies within the borders of a reservation than tribal owned land. In general, the tribes have a right to control what happens on roads through their land, but the railroad property is in a different legal status than a typical road. Remember that the original railroad was a private company. Signs along the track read that it was railroad property and warned against trespassing on it. The signs now say NMRX. Thus what we have here is essentially a train running on property that doesn't belong to the tribe anymore and hasn't for more than 100 years. I will also comment that the rail line runs out of the way to pass by these villages. I don't know the details but it would seem that the AT&SF and the tribes found it mutually beneficial for it to do so at the time. It would have saved track and travel time to run the track closer to it's trajectory south of Bernalillo, close to I-25.

I would re-iterate that I have absolutely no objection to them restricting photography while physically on their land. However, this case isn't that simple. It really is a case of public view of property from another location, albeit that location is a narrow strip many miles long that runs through the middle of their property.

Moopheus · Feb 15, 2009

Nicholas Lindan said:
If one lived in a sufficiently attractive house there would be people outside taking pictures and painting watercolors. If the crowd of photographers go to be too much I imagine the house owner could be charged with 'maintaining an attractive nuisance'.

Actually, the opposite might happen, at least in certain touristy areas. For example, the people who own the houses on San Francisco's famous "postcard row" of painted victorians are under a certain amount of pressure to maintain the houses as a tourist attraction!

One owner of a local landmark, on the other hand, tried to stop me from taking a picture of his house because of a copyright, but I took the picture anyway. Copyright law explicitly exempts photography of building in public view.

wrench · Feb 15, 2009

cloudhands said:
I don't believe me taking photos with a tripod would damage the Acoma culture, nor do I believe taking photos from a train would steal something from the San Fellipe culture. But that's not the point.

Cloudhands, I think that is the point. It is entirely possible that the tribe does in fact believe that photography does somehow damage their culture or steal something. There is a long history in the field of photography dealing with the phenonemological and anthropological implications of taking a photograph. It could just be that the experience of being used as a photographic tourist attraction is unpleasant or even insulting. I don't really know, but if the indians really feel that photography is having a negative impact on their culture, then by all means, I think that they should do everything they can to attempt to prevent it.

JOSarff · Feb 17, 2009

This question was setteled several years ago in Cleveland. A photographer made a photo of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame building from a public sidewalk. The R&RHoF took him to court and lost. A photo made from a public sidewalk, or publicly owned train right of way, is perfectly legal.

I think it's time to re-evaluate the US and New Mexican laws and remove the parts that discriminate and set one group of people above the rest.

snegron · Feb 17, 2009

AllenR said:
Virtually all of the reservations here in New Mexico, and elsewhere, have bans against photography, so I don't see any problem with what the Railrunner has done. The reservations are, after all, sovereign nations that have the right to set and enforce whatever regulations they choose. We need to respect that.

Thanks for the info! I have been planning a trip to NM for some time now and was not aware of these restrictions. I am glad I didn't make any hotel or air reservations. I think I will spend my photo vacation money on a more photography friendly place! Thanks!

nc5p · Feb 17, 2009

snegron said:
Thanks for the info! I have been planning a trip to NM for some time now and was not aware of these restrictions. I am glad I didn't make any hotel or air reservations. I think I will spend my photo vacation money on a more photography friendly place! Thanks!

That's not entirely so. There are many who will gladly sell you a photo permit for around $10. Check with the tribal offices before going to see if they do. Sandia and Acoma (sky city, no tripods allowed) are two that use the permits. A few tribes don't even charge, but many will restrict just where and when you can shoot. This thread wasn't about actually being on tribal land, there is some disagreement about railroad property being under their jurisdiction. Even the courts seem confused about jurisdiction and have reversed themselves on occasion.

snegron · Feb 17, 2009

nc5p said:
That's not entirely so. There are many who will gladly sell you a photo permit for around $10. Check with the tribal offices before going to see if they do. Sandia and Acoma (sky city, no tripods allowed) are two that use the permits. A few tribes don't even charge, but many will restrict just where and when you can shoot. This thread wasn't about actually being on tribal land, there is some disagreement about railroad property being under their jurisdiction. Even the courts seem confused about jurisdiction and have reversed themselves on occasion.

Thanks for the info! My original plan was just to shoot landscapes and some of the old mission buildings, but I don't know if they are located on tribal lands. The area I was considering was Santa Fe.

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 17, 2009

snegron said:
Thanks for the info! My original plan was just to shoot landscapes and some of the old mission buildings, but I don't know if they are located on tribal lands. The area I was considering was Santa Fe.

The city of Santa Fe is NOT on tribal land. Santa Fe was the Spanish (the 'white man' who stole the Indian's land in New Mexico) capital, and today is the state capital. Very few Indians reside in Santa Fe, which is about 3/4 Hispanic and 1/4 Anglo with a few Indians and a few foreigners of various sorts thrown in (there are a lot of Sikhs and Tibetans there, strangely enough!).

The Rail Runner goes through several reservations between Albuquerque and Santa Fe. I left Santa Fe before it was extended north of Bernalillo, but I beleive it was planned to go through the Sandia, San Felipe, and Santo Domingo reservations. Sandia Pueblo is actually visible from I-25 as you drive into Albuquerque. The highway runs through the Sandia reservation, and the pueblo itself (the town....pueblo indians live in small towns) is located just west of the highway right before you enter the city of Albuquerque.

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 17, 2009

To elaborate on my last post...you can photograph anything you want in Santa Fe.

nc5p · Feb 17, 2009

Santa Fe is very much photo friendly. The Santa Fe cops don't even bother you there. They couldn't care less. Much better than Albuquerque where the goon squads (APD & FBI) lie waiting for an errant camera downtown (while dozens of banks are robbed and they do nothing).

steve · Feb 18, 2009

snegron said:
Thanks for the info! I have been planning a trip to NM for some time now and was not aware of these restrictions. I am glad I didn't make any hotel or air reservations. I think I will spend my photo vacation money on a more photography friendly place! Thanks!

Good idea. There are poisonous snakes, large spiders, and people often carry guns....please, stay as far away as possible....

Sirius Glass · Feb 18, 2009

snegron said:
Thanks for the info! I have been planning a trip to NM for some time now and was not aware of these restrictions. I am glad I didn't make any hotel or air reservations. I think I will spend my photo vacation money on a more photography friendly place! Thanks!

You over reacted. Reread my post on restrictions.

For the most part, you are not to take photographs of their homes at some locations. That should not be much of a problem.

You cannot take photographs or drive in some areas. There are plenty of other areas where you can.

You can drive and photograph a large part on Monument Valley. There are some other areas of Monument Valley where you need a guide to get to. Those areas are near or on sacred land.

Steve

snegron · Feb 18, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
You over reacted. Reread my post on restrictions.

For the most part, you are not to take photographs of their homes at some locations. That should not be much of a problem.

You cannot take photographs or drive in some areas. There are plenty of other areas where you can.

You can drive and photograph a large part on Monument Valley. There are some other areas of Monument Valley where you need a guide to get to. Those areas are near or on sacred land.

Steve

Just curious, are there signs posted in the areas where photography is not allowed? Here in Florida I don't remember seeing any restrictions posted in nearby reservations (Seminole or Miccosukee). A main highway (I75) goes through part of the Seminole area and they have a couple of police vehicles on their section of that State highway enforcing traffic laws (speeding mostly).

snegron · Feb 18, 2009

steve said:
Good idea. There are poisonous snakes, large spiders, and people often carry guns....please, stay as far away as possible....

Sounds just like Florida, except in addition to snakes, spiders, and gun-toting folk we also have large alligators and senior citizen drivers!

nc5p · Feb 18, 2009

There are sometimes signs but not always. Most tribes have websites now. They usually have addresses like .nsn.us and often have forms or information on photo permits. Many of them actually welcome tourists and wish to make money off them. Then there are some that want their privacy and actually have locked gates on all the roads leading to their pueblos. No two are alike and it's foolish to assume anything until you get the facts. As was mentioned you sometimes need a guide. I believe the Navajos require that, but otherwise don't really restrict photos of the landscape. I've seen hundreds of photos of Shiprock. Wander off the road and you need a guide. Much of Indian land is checkerboarded with private property. Be careful of ranchers as they can be much more trouble than any Indians.

markbarendt · Feb 19, 2009

df cardwell said:
It isn't the photographing of the land,
it is the photographing of the pueblo.

That distinction is irrelevant in my estimation.

The view from any place open to the public is just like the air and the rain available there. The surrounding business and land owners don't own the view from public places, "We the People" do.

Land owners do have the right to control physical trespass but the eye cannot trespass by itself.

IMHO if they want privacy they can build a fence.

df cardwell said:
I'd run him off... and so would you !

Sorry DF but you'd actually have to call the cops to run me out of a public situation and no I wouldn't.

Sirius Glass · Feb 19, 2009

markbarendt said:
The view from any place open to the public is just like the air and the rain available there. The surrounding business and land owners don't own the view from public places, "We the People" do.

Land owners do have the right to control physical trespass but the eye cannot trespass by itself.

IMHO if they want privacy they can build a fence.

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

2F/2F · Feb 19, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
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

yet again.....

1. It is largely Federal property, not private property.
2. It does not matter whose property it is. If you can see it from public property, you can photograph it, aside from the aforementioned restrictions for security purposes. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?
3. Tribal areas are NOT sovereign. They are domestic dependent.
4. They are nowhere close to "holding all the cards", especially in a Constitutional issue.
5. Even their own Constitutions, when applied in a legal challenge, would not be able to uphold the ban, not to mention the U.S. Constitution.
6. What the heck is the "legal status of the right of way"? It exists, and it is public. End of story.

This idea that reservations are sovereign nations within our borders that can do whatever they please is wrong. Do your research before you spread this kind of stuff over the Internet.

Sirius Glass · Feb 19, 2009

2F/2F said:
yet again.....

6. What the heck is the "legal status of the right of way"? It exists, and it is public. End of story.

This idea that reservations are sovereign nations within our borders that can do whatever they please is wrong. Do your research before you spread this kind of stuff over the Internet.

It goes two ways. 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. Your arguments would not go very far legally if they told you not to photograph something or they ordered you off their property. This has been held up in court many times.

And yes I did my research before I posted.

Steve

2F/2F · Feb 19, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Your arguments would not go very far legally if they told you not to photograph something or they ordered you off their property.

Steve

Huh??? What point are you trying to make? It is PRIVATE property! Of course I would not argue the same point in that case. How does this go two ways?

The responsibility of the photographer lies in knowing what is private view and what is public view. If something is private view, and shooting is normally tolerated, one must understand that they must comply with any requests to cease shooting or face a trespassing ticket.

Please inform us what research you did that informed you that native American reservations are sovereign nations that can do whatever they want because they exist outside any of the laws of the U.A. Federal gov't, that the land on the reservations is private property, and that the U.S. Constitution does not apply. These are all things you have stated in this thread, and they are all dead wrong. My understanding of these issues comes not only from a fundamental and general understanding of the history of the U.S. and its laws, but from specific knowledge of media law from taking required courses in media law, ethics, public relations, etc., not to mention constant dealings with the authorities when covering events. Journalists have to know this stuff so they can deal with people like you getting in the way of us doing our jobs. The public falls under MANY these protections for the press. They have just as much right to cover a public event as a credentialed reporter. The media privileges come in behind closed areas and on private property.

eric · Feb 19, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
They maintain that status by closing the roads to all traffic, including foot traffic for one day during the year.

The reason for the 1 day a year is an obscure "squatters rights" law in NYC.

Sirius Glass · Feb 19, 2009

2F/2F said:
Please inform us what research you did that informed you that native American reservations are sovereign nations that can do whatever they want because they exist outside any of the laws of the U.A. Federal gov't, that the land on the reservations is private property, and that the U.S. Constitution does not apply. These are all things you have stated in this thread, and they are all dead wrong.

Each reservation has its own rules. If you do not believe me, take a trip to Monument Valley and check it out yourself.

Steve

2F/2F · Feb 19, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Each reservation has its own rules. If you do not believe me, take a trip to Monument Valley and check it out yourself.

Steve

That is your "research"? Signs and regulations posted on non-public-view land are what you use to inform your knowledge of law, that you then repeatedly state as fact on the Internet?

If John Doe posts a "no photography" sign on his personal driveway, does that mean there is no photography from the public street? Even if John Does owns every house on the block? Absolutely not. He does not own the public view no matter how much property he has.

You must follow those rules when what you are shooting is not in the public view. This does not mean native American reservations are sovereign nations that can do whatever they want because they exist outside any of the laws of the U.S. Federal gov't, that the land on the reservations is private property, and that the U.S. Constitution does not apply.

How you got from signs posted in Monument Valley to the conclusions above blows my mind.

This is pointless, I see.

WGibsonPhotography · Feb 19, 2009

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

fschifano · Feb 19, 2009

"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.

NM Commuter train bans photography

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency