|
Search this group's discussions
|
Photo ban at the T?!
|
I dont understand it. I took some pictures and no said a word. The conductor on the train asked for my ticket and walked away! is there really a ban on the trains?
Originally posted at 8:18AM, 13 April 2006 PDT
(permalink)
dragongrl61 edited this topic 75 months ago.
|
|
I was once warned about taking photos over the loudspeaker. The conductor said you needed permission from the transit authority to take photos on the T. I'm not sure what the official policy is.
I couldn't find it on its Web site but ironically, they sponsor a photography and art exhibit in transit.
www.mbta.com/insidethet/photos.asp
So its okay to look at photos while on the T, but not to take any.
Posted 75 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There is an MBTA policy that you need a permit to take photos on MBTA property. However, no one at the MBTA has been able to actually show me what the policy actually says.
I spoke with Tony Perez in their legal department recently and he is working on finding the specific policy details.
More details (with links to flickr discussion about this topic on my blog and the form you need to submit to get a 30 day permit.)
part one
part two
part three
part four
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
And I would suggest that everyone download the form and apply for the permit. And when it expires, apply for another one. Perhaps if it's as much a pain for them as it is for us they'll drop this stupid policy.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
eek... I recently took a whole buncha T pictures... had no idea about this rule and no one said a word to me.
Posted 74 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How about a GROUP for MBTA photos? Or I'd guess there already is one, eh?
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, they can't get you for taking photos outside:
Posted 73 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
MBTA group would be great. I have taken many shoots at the T and nobody complained to me.
Posted 67 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As far as I understand it, if it's not posted that taking photographs is prohibited, you're well within your right.
I printed this page out just in case though and carry it with in my camera bag: www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Posted 67 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hi Folks,
Maybe I can shed some light on the whole T photos the problem is that it used to be ok they had no problem then this thing called 9/11 happen and then the stuff in London one of the things that the guys in London did was to case the places and take photos. Hence that is why the folks at MBTA get little edge. As noted all you have to do is appliy for the permit carry it with you and if someone ask you what your doing pull it out and show them. If they ask you not to take photos my suggestion is to just follow what they ask its better to leave with your camera then with out it :-)
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am sick of hearing of 9/11 as everyone's favorite use to take our civil liberties away. The ACLU maintains that the T "photo ban" is unconstitutional, and I maintain that it is legally unenforceable. There is no state law against T photography, and I'm not going to submit to a background check before I can take pictures in my own city.
If you want to prevent terrorism on the MBTA, don't blow yourself up on the Green Line. I'll keep taking pictures, and so should you.
BTW, Mitchel25J, no T employee can confiscate your camera, and no cop can take your camera without a warrant. Anything else amounts to theft.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
Rob Bellinger edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
@rbdeluxe,
Actually any Local/State/Munc Employed can take your camera away from you if they ask you to not take photos and you still keep shooting.
Asa for the whole 9/11 thing well welcome to a scarey new world I was in London two days after the July Bombings and I can tell you this i was taking some photos of the entranceway to market Sqaure and I was ask very nicely by a Bobby not to take any photos and she explain the reason behind it.
Also I think if you go ask the ACLU whats more important saving lives or being able to take some photoa they will side with lives. I'm very familur with the MassACLU stand on the whole T thing but the State and Federal Judge both ruled that getting the permit is the right way of doing things.
Look at it this way if you want to go shot a Concert you need to recieve a Press Pass, remember the MBTA is a Sudo-City Agency that have the right to make up their own rules.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're totally right about a property owner having the right to make rules that govern behavior on said property. But its employees can only ask you to leave the property in question if you don't comply (i.e. I could be asked to leave a T station, and I'd have no choice but to comply).
However, no one has any right to remove my property from me without my consent or without a warrant. I can be arrested for trespassing if I refuse to leave as ordered, but no one is entitled to my camera. I have the right to file a theft charge against any T employee (or even police officer) who forcibly removes my personal property from me and keeps it.
Photography is not life-threatening. To suggest that this as an issue of life versus death is ridiculous. Next we'll only be allowed to ride the subways blindfolded.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
Rob Bellinger edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
|
Also: the photo permit information has been excluded from the new MBTA website.
Can you please cite the federal decision in favor of the MBTA permit? My understanding is that there has not yet been a formal case, thus there has been no trial(s). If the feds are in favor of a photo ban, why has such a ban not been enacted in Commonwealth law? It's just an obscure rule, if it even still exists.
NYC--where I'm from, where 9/11 actually happened-- dropped its proposed, legislative subway photo ban when threatened with a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
Rob Bellinger edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
Photography is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also happens to be protected by the 16th Article of the Massachusetts Constitution. Nobody in their right mind would entertain the idea of applying for a permit to associate with their friends. Not in America. At least not yet.
For the same reason, I did not apply for an application to take photographs on the MBTA. It's a civil right. It's already mine.
After being stopped and interrogated by MBTA police for photography in the subway last month, after weeks of hounding the MBTA to actually disclose, in writing, what their policy IS on photography on the subway without a permit, after a dozen (or so) unanswered emails and about as many unreturned phone calls, this morning I spoke to Mary Logalbo, an MBTA lawyer. She specializes in Constitutional law.
Apparently Mrs. Logalbo obtained permission from the MBTA Deputy Police Chief Paul MacMillan to fax me a DRAFT COPY of their photography policy. It expressly allows amateur photography on the MBTA but requires that you provide ID upon request, photography of the subject cannot pose a security risk, the activity of shooting cannot disrupt MBTA operations and the pictures must be for strictly non-commercial use only.
No more background check.
No more one-month expiration.
John Reinstein and the ACLU deserve a lot of credit for forcing the MBTA to reconsider the policy and put it on legally defensible footing. Note the "original issue date" of 2006 -- this policy was likely written in response to Reinstein's letter to MBTA Police Chief Joseph Carter in June of that year. All my yapping did, I suspect, is get me a copy of the draft before anyone else.
You can find a copy of the draft policy here.
Regards,
Jason Desjardins
jason@pho7o.com
http://www.pho7o.com/
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Mitchel25J: With all due respect, your advice to photographers on the subway is reprehensible. Photography is a civil right and the MBTA is a public area. A camera is a box that collects light -- nothing more, nothing less. I expect hysteria out of regular folks but to hear it out of a photographer is jarring.
A few simple questions...
1.) Suppose you're a terrorist, you buy a 1.3 megapixel cameraphone and walk around like you're playing Tetris or sending TXT messages but you're really taking recon photos of support structures, police, exits, etc. Who would even notice?
2.) OK, perhaps you're less than cautious and someone sees you and an MBTA employee says "you can't take photographs." You nod, apologize, put the phone away and leave. Since the pictures are still in your posession, what harm has this done to your bombing plot?
I've been shooting the subways for six years. When I actually thought photography was illegal on the subway, I'd keep it on the down-low and get a "you can't shoot here" warning perhaps once every two weeks. Once I realized it was perfectly legal I became less concerned with being seen. Now I carry my camera 100% of the time in full view, usually at chest level, these days I get stopped about once every 48 hours. I've had four cops at once in my face telling me that it's "illegal," a "federal crime" and "against MBTA rules," none of which are true.
And not once, during any of these experiences, has anyone even asked to see what's on my memory card, much less actually view the photos. So tell me ...who exactly is this policy stopping? Because it sure as !@#$ isn't a terrorist.
You wrote, "...all you have to do is appliy [sic] for the permit carry it with you and if someone ask you what your doing pull it out and show them. If they ask you not to take photos my suggestion is to just follow what they ask its better to leave with your camera then with out it :-)"
No, it's better to know your rights as an American citizen and do your duty to prevent them from being trampled rather than kowtowing to ridiculous rules that one cop even admitted was in place to "give people the impression we're doing something."
Mitchel25J wrote, "Actually any Local/State/Munc Employed can take your camera away from you if they ask you to not take photos and you still keep shooting.
When you're wrong, you just run with it, don't you?
NOBODY can take ANYTHING from you, that's called "theft." If you are told to stop shooting, you can refuse. You can then be asked to leave the property. If you refuse, you can be arrested for trespass by an officer. If a non-police employee takes your property, you can sue them. If a police officer takes your property without you being under arrest, that's known as "illegal seizure."
To give an example, suppose you went to a concert with a "no photography" policy, you get caught taking pics and are thrown out. Finding an unlocked side gate, you sneak back in, and take more pictures while in an area open to the public. The cops show up, you're arrested. The cops can seize anything on your person now that you're under arrest. They cannot delete the photos legally. Further, you can publish those photos and even profit from them (presuming they don't violate any privacy restrictions on photography). In other words, the act of trespassing doesn't make any photographs you take illegal by default.
Also I think if you go ask the ACLU whats more important saving lives or being able to take some photoa they will side with lives.
This is a 1st Amendment issue so any law or policy would have to pass what's known as "strict scrutiny." The MBTA would have to "be justified by a compelling governmental interest," "the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest" and "the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest."
The government would likely pass the first test but fail the last two spectacularly.
But since you brought it up, I think the ACLU would think of Patrick Henry who said "Give me liberty or give me death." Perhaps it doesn't occur to you but that phrase means that there are worse things than death and loss of civil liberties is one of them.
"I'm very familur with the MassACLU stand on the whole T thing but the State and Federal Judge both ruled that getting the permit is the right way of doing things."
OK, now you're just making stuff up as you go along.
The informal MBTA policy barring photography without a permit is precisely that; an informal policy. It isnt' a law. So why would a state or federal judge have anything to say about it unless it was being challenged? Judges don't just weigh in on subjects for giggles.
"Look at it this way if you want to go shot a Concert you need to recieve a Press Pass..."
It is legal to restrict photography on private property (see above).
"...remember the MBTA is a Sudo-City Agency that have the right to make up their own rules."
The MBTA is what's known as a "public corporation" and there is nothing "pseudo" about it. I was given this load of bull by one of the officers who justified it by noting that "the MBTA doesn't receive all of their funding from taxes." Well, the same thing goes for the police force, which gets some of it's money from fines, but nobody in their right mind would argue they aren't a completely public organization.
Mitchel, you are embarrassing yourself. Maybe you just like coming off as an authority, I don't know, but please stop handing out bad advice and please stop inventing facts out of whole cloth.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sir I work for the United State Federal Government to be more percise I work for the Dept. of Homeland Defensive so maybe I might know the Law a tad better then you do. I really don't care what you or the ACLU think its one of my jobs to make sure folks like you are kept safe and if it means that you have to get a bloody permit to take photos so be it.
Question have you ever seen what a Subway looks like after a Suicide Bomber sets off a bomb well I have,London and Madrid its not a very pretty site. One of the reason that Homeland ask major city's to adopt new rule is because in both of these Bombings the Bombers had cased the areas and had taken photos of how many folks enter at what times and the most effect locations to set off the bombs.
Boston isn't the only Major City in the US that ask you to get a permit New York/Chicago/San Fran/LA basically any city that has a public Underground ask that you get a permit to do photo work. I personally don't care if you believe me or not and please in the future don't send me a e-mail telling me STFU because frankley sir your the one who needs to learn the law.
Oh and the MBTA recieve a far amount of funding from the City of Boston hence they are a Suedo-City Agency they fall under part of MASSPORT control. Maybe you should ask a MBTA person if they can tell you the address on their pay-stub you will find it come's from the Mass State Treasurey.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Mitchel25J, could you provide a reference that states that MASSPORT runs the T? Because neither website for the T nor MASSPORT says that the T is under the control of MASSPORT.
MASSPORT is not even a state agency. It is an independent public authority that manages the Ports, Airports and Bridges.
Posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Mitchel25J, you don't work for the "United State Federal Government." There isn't any such thing. Nor do you work for the "Dept. of Homeland Defensive." Again, there isn't any such thing. There is a Dept. of Homeland Defense, but if you worked for them you'd presumably know their name.
Regarding the London bombings: they occurred not in subway stations but in the tunnels between them. To see the bombing sites, as you claim you did, you'd have to have access to those tunnels. Perhaps you could tell us how you managed that.
"Boston isn't the only Major City in the US that ask you to get a permit." Regarding noncommercial, private, and unobtrusive photography, shooting without permit is allowed in transit systems across the country. New York allows it. (From Part C of Section 1050.9 of the MTA's Rules fo Conduct, "Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment." For the whole code, see www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm#use .) For those who want to see the subway shots New Yorkers are taking, go to Flickr groups like The NYC Subway ( www.flickr.com/groups/nycsubway/ ) and NYC Transit ( www.flickr.com/groups/nyctransit/ ). Chicago and Cleveland allow it. New Jersey Transit allows it. The Bay Area's BART system allows it. And so on. (For more, see www.nycsubway.org/faq/photopermits.html, which is based on communications with transit administrators -- which means that Boston is represented by the MBTA's official line.)
This doesn't mean people aren't occasionally hassled in these places, but it does mean that your "knowledge of the law" is as weak as your knowledge of your supposed employer's name.
Nor is there any such thing as a "pseudo" (not "sudo" or "suedo") city agency. For those who don't know, "pseudo" means false or fake. What Mitchell25J means is anybody's guess.
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
AntyDiluvian edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
|
@Mitchel25J writes:
"Sir I work for the United State Federal Government to be more percise I work for the Dept. of Homeland Defensive so maybe I might know the Law a tad better then you do."
HAHAHA. Oh good grief. I can smell you from here. "Dept. Homeland DEFENSIVE?" Riiight.
OK, I've got some questions for you, Mitchel...
1) Back up your claim that the London bombers cased the subways with photographs. It's irrelevant, since you can't stop photography, but it's just One More Bit of Bullsh*t you're shoveling so I might as well point it out.
2) Cite specifically which law allows for "any Local/State/Munc Employed can take your camera away from you if they ask you to not take photos and you still keep shooting." If a municipal "employed" can do it, it's the law and if it's the law, you can look it up on the internet and if you can look it up on the internet, you can prove it.
So prove it.
3) Cite evidence that "State and Federal Judge both ruled that getting the permit is the right way of doing things."
4) Provide evidence that the MBTA is a "Sudo-City Agency."
@Mitchel25J continues to make a fool of himself with:
"...and if it means that you have to get a bloody permit to take photos so be it."
Yeah, ...uh ...we don't. Read. Educate yourself. Perhaps it will stem this never-ending deluge of effluvium shooting out of your mouth.
"Boston isn't the only Major City in the US that ask you to get a permit New York/Chicago/San Fran/LA basically any city that has a public Underground ask that you get a permit to do photo work."
Wrong again, NYC's MTA proposed a ban and it was shot down spectacularly.
First rule of holes, Mitchel; when you're in one, stop digging.
"I personally don't care if you believe me or not and please in the future don't send me a e-mail telling me STFU because frankley sir your the one who needs to learn the law."
I get a kick out of people who reply and in that reply, claim they don't care what other people think. Sure you do. If you didn't ...you wouldn't have replied.
I'm knocking your BS out of the park sentence by sentence and it's driving you nuts.
"Oh and the MBTA recieve a far amount of funding from the City of Boston hence they are a Suedo-City Agency they fall under part of MASSPORT control."
Let's assume you're right. Why does funding from the City of Boston make the MBTA non-public?
Fact is, the MBTA is a "public corporation." Here's the Budget for 1997 for the Executive Office of Public Property and look! The MBTA is one of the properties it manages.
If the Office of Public Property manages it, that's a pretty good indication it's public property.
(hint: "seudo" isn't a word.)
Hugs and Kisses,
Jason
Originally posted 63 months ago.
(permalink)
bodhisoma edited this topic 63 months ago.
|
|
Well, MBTA has a new web site design, and it seems they've updated some of their policies.
There is still no policy on non-commerical photography posted, but there is a whole page on how much they would like to charge you should you want to do some commerical photography.
www.mbta.com/business_center/filming/
There's even a whole page dedicated to subway performers. Why can't they post a paragraph defining the rights of a photographer? Maybe it's because they don't want you to know your rights, and therefore be able to bully people around if they like.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I did a thorough search of both the MBTA site and the Transit Police site. There is no mention of photography other than on this page.
Posted 62 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just today I was mildly hassled by an MBTA Inspector at South Station.
I stood my ground and requested that she use her radio to ask a supervisor about the draft MBTA policy concerning amature/non-commercial photography.
The inspector tried again to tell me that taking pictures was not allowed and then walked away.
I really need to print out that draft and carry it with me.
Posted 60 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wish I had found this site last week. I went to a Red Sox game over the weekend and tried to take photos inside South Station (of the friggin CEILING. what kind of security threat is that???) and was told that I couldn't take photos inside the station. Later I took a photo of the train approaching, thinking that inside the station was a no-no, but that at the actual stops would be okay. Nope. Got another talking to. I didn't have a thing to say. Now I think I'm going to have to print out the draft of the rules and bring it around with me when I'm in town.
Posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Gotta LOVE the MBTA.
No mention anywhere of the new formal photography ploicy on the MBTA website.
The Transit Police website, on the other hand...
transitpolice.us/Photo Policy/Photo Policy 1.pdf
Nice PDF file, ready for printing and keep with one as one photographs the MBTA.
Originally posted 59 months ago.
(permalink)
tuckerch edited this topic 59 months ago.
|
|
the mbta is so half-assed I wouldn't worry about it. I take photos all the time, usually everyone is so self-involved that they don't notice. I've never had anyone say anything to me.
Posted 58 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Boston Photo Nerds /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Boston Photo Nerds discussion threads
