Photography on the MBTA

[NadCixelsyd]

) Finally the MBTA police, (we wanna be State Police)
go running after two guys, legally taking photos on the
MBTAs C trolley line. All operators on the whole line are
flashing the green help lights. The police run red traffic
lights and chase up and down the system, but never
catch these people

This is supposed to be a free country. Does anyone have a cite
(statute) that says it's illegal to take photographs? Supponse I
publish a newspaper (circulation 1625). Can I claim
Freedom-of-the-Press? How about if my circulation is only 3 instead of
1625?

[j***@gmail.com]

Perfectly legal to take photos. You just need the photo permit. Mind
you, this only applies when one is on MBTA property - from the
sidewalk, nothing can be done. Not like the T bothers with that, but
they are legally bound to let you take photos if you are on public
property - I've dealt with this before myself, and it seems to be a
problem of communication between the drivers and someone up high.

The T Police don't really care - I've had to argue with them too. But I
know where it stands, so all is well in the end.

Post by NadCixelsyd

) Finally the MBTA police, (we wanna be State Police)
go running after two guys, legally taking photos on the
MBTAs C trolley line. All operators on the whole line are
flashing the green help lights. The police run red traffic
lights and chase up and down the system, but never
catch these people

This is supposed to be a free country. Does anyone have a cite
(statute) that says it's illegal to take photographs? Supponse I
publish a newspaper (circulation 1625). Can I claim
Freedom-of-the-Press? How about if my circulation is only 3 instead of
1625?

[NadCixelsyd]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Perfectly legal to take photos. You just need the photo permit.

I've heard of MBTA employees harassing photographers who are on public
property, such as drivers yelling, "It's illegal to take photographs of
MBTA property".

As for the legal requirement to have a permit. I'm still looking for a
law (statute). If the T is public property and I paid my fare and I'm
not disturbing the operations (e.g. with a flash), I think photography
is a right, with or without their *&^%$ permit.

My theory is that this "law" is an urban legend started by some
over-zealous MBTA policeman trying to flex his muscle with the memory
of September 11th. So if anyone has a cite, I'm all ears. And if
anyone knows of a person who has been arrested, and arraigned (or
convicted) of this crime, all the better (even if the penalty was
dismissed).

[John F. Carr]

Post by NadCixelsyd

Post by j***@gmail.com
Perfectly legal to take photos. You just need the photo permit.

My theory is that this "law" is an urban legend started by some
over-zealous MBTA policeman trying to flex his muscle with the memory
of September 11th.

According to this page, the MBTA isn't sure but thinks it is
simply a policy:
http://redjar.org/jared/blog/archives/2006/03/28/mbta-photography-policy-part-three/

If it is a policy, they can evict you from the system for
believing in the first amendment, same as the fourth, but
can't do anything more.

The permit is shown here
Loading Image...

[NadCixelsyd]

The lawyer sidestepped the issue. The statement, "He said the MBTA was
within their rights to have policies that were for safety, ..." is
certainly true. However, he does not address the issue of photographs
that do not pose a safety risk. Nor did the lawyer say that the MBTA
had a right to evict you.

[NadCixelsyd]

The lawyer sidestepped the issue. The statement, "He said the MBTA was
within their rights to have policies that were for safety, ..." is
certainly true. However, he does not address the issue of photographs
that do not pose a safety risk. Nor did the lawyer say that the MBTA
had a right to evict you.

[auron]

The argument is "terrorism," taking photos of stations to make diagrams
or some nonsense. I'm honestly surprised, I've never been harassed
before. However moronic the policy is, they're within their rights to
toss you off the property. You can get the permit (my understanding is
that they'll just give it to you) or you can just keep taking your
chances; I've never bothered to get one.

Post by NadCixelsyd
The lawyer sidestepped the issue. The statement, "He said the MBTA was
within their rights to have policies that were for safety, ..." is
certainly true. However, he does not address the issue of photographs
that do not pose a safety risk. Nor did the lawyer say that the MBTA
had a right to evict you.

[mbsbusguy]

Post by auron
The argument is "terrorism," taking photos of stations to make diagrams
or some nonsense. I'm honestly surprised, I've never been harassed
before. However moronic the policy is, they're within their rights to
toss you off the property. You can get the permit (my understanding is
that they'll just give it to you) or you can just keep taking your
chances; I've never bothered to get one.

Post by NadCixelsyd
The lawyer sidestepped the issue. The statement, "He said the MBTA was
within their rights to have policies that were for safety, ..." is
certainly true. However, he does not address the issue of photographs
that do not pose a safety risk. Nor did the lawyer say that the MBTA
had a right to evict you.

Taking photos one Saturday at Watertown produced unexpected results and
wasted the taxpayers money. A bus driver at Watertown said only the
MBTA
can allow people to take photos. A photo permit was produced and he
said
he didn't care as he had never seen one. He called for the MBTA
police.
Finishing up we left for Mt Auburn Street bt the Star Market to take
photos.

About 10 minutes late a MBTA police car flew down the street, With
sirens
blaring it went through two red lights on its way to Watertown. We
finished
up on Mt Auburn, and got into the car to leave. No sooner had we left
but
in the rear view mirror we could see two police cars from Cambridge fly
to the spot we had just left a moment earlier. The officers ran all
over the
place looking for us.

The problem is no one in the MBTA knows what is going on. The T police
OK the passes, but keep no list of who has them. The drivers have no
idea
what is going on but are frightened and screem at you.

What a strange system, supposedly the 5th largest in the US, but run
like a
hick town

[D. Kirkpatrick]

Post by mbsbusguy
The problem is no one in the MBTA knows what is going on. The T police
OK the passes, but keep no list of who has them. The drivers have no
idea
what is going on but are frightened and screem at you.

Agreed here.

The MArketing Department at the state transportation building takes
the application and on first request the T police do a background
check. If it turns up Ok it just goes back to Marketing and no one in
the field has any record of who has one.

And there is no training as to what is legal and what is not, or what
policy is.

[D. Kirkpatrick]

Post by auron
The argument is "terrorism," taking photos of stations to make diagrams
or some nonsense. I'm honestly surprised, I've never been harassed
before. However moronic the policy is, they're within their rights to
toss you off the property. You can get the permit (my understanding is
that they'll just give it to you) or you can just keep taking your
chances; I've never bothered to get one.

Interestingly enough, while they restrict photos, it is perfectly
legal for anyone to sit at a station and draw a sketch of the station
on a drawing pad.

And depending on one's memory, you really don' tneed a pad or camera
if something improper were being planned.

Heck, 4 people sit there and take 20 minutes to memorize 4 sides of a
station then leave and sketch it.

As you can see the photo policy is an empty shell when it comes to
protection of the system and its people.

[David Chesler]

Post by D. Kirkpatrick
And depending on one's memory, you really don' tneed a pad or camera
if something improper were being planned.
Heck, 4 people sit there and take 20 minutes to memorize 4 sides of a
station then leave and sketch it.
As you can see the photo policy is an empty shell when it comes to
protection of the system and its people.

Some 35 years ago, my grandparents took me to West Point. On the way
in they asked the guard if there were any restrictions on photography
they should know about. The guard said "If you can see it, you can
photograph it." That may be the the most straightforward thing I've
ever heard from a government employee.

[jwardell]

Not long after I first moved here I went to take some photos of boston
and the T. Just after snapping this photo at park street
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwardell/10428713/
a T employee approached me and demanded to see my permit.
I had no idea what he was talking about, and stated I'm not press just
a tourist. After all we see people taking photos on the T and in
stations all the time and would never imagine a need for a permit.
That employee was more than aware of the permit and made it clear that
one was needed. I offered to delete the photo in front of him but he
just walked away.
I have no doubt it was because I was using my big SLR. So you can add
that to your double standards. Apparently terrorists use big camera and
wouldn't imagine using a small pocketable which you know the employees
see and ignore all the time.
Later I looked up and found the policy described on the rail sites. It
does make me think twice/be careful to be less conspicuous if taking a
picture near the T.
One of these days I'll pick a slow weekend, get a legitimate permit,
and take photos of the T. I did a similar thing (sans permit) with
chicago's L and got some beautiful photos.

[David Z Maze]

Post by jwardell
One of these days I'll pick a slow weekend, get a legitimate permit,
and take photos of the T. I did a similar thing (sans permit) with
chicago's L and got some beautiful photos.

Note that the current process requires a couple of days for the
background check, you need to pick up the permit in person, and the
relevant office is only open weekdays.

(Though now that I'm a couple of T stops closer to Park Plaza it's
probably worth trying to get a new permit myself.)

--dzm

[D. Kirkpatrick]

Post by auron
The argument is "terrorism," taking photos of stations to make diagrams
or some nonsense. I'm honestly surprised, I've never been harassed
before. However moronic the policy is, they're within their rights to
toss you off the property. You can get the permit (my understanding is
that they'll just give it to you) or you can just keep taking your
chances; I've never bothered to get one.

See my other posting on permits.

At first request a background check is done so th epermit could be
delayed 1-2 weeks. You can then get subsequent renewals at 30-day
increments.

I think the question is whether they can 'toss you off the property'
if they are state land or public property if you are exercising your
first amendment rights. If so, that pretty much blows the whole 1st
amendment to hell.

I had always thought this might be a problem for TV stations and the
like but it seems (from my limited investigations and calling TV
stations for info) that when ever there is an incident on the T that
warrants TV coverage, there is a T person there from the press office
whom they have to interact with when taking footage of things such as
accidents, etc. When they do other stories, they simply rerun stock
footage taken when they were with a T press spokesperson or footage
taken from public property (ie the sidewalk).

When I asked several TV reporters if they had an MBTA photo permit or
if their cameraman had one, the answer across the board was that they
didn't even know one was necessary.

Mind you, there is no such thing as press credentials issued by the
MBTA either. I asked. They are non-existant.

So clearly, there is a double standard.

[David Chesler]

Post by D. Kirkpatrick
I think the question is whether they can 'toss you off the property'
if they are state land or public property if you are exercising your
first amendment rights. If so, that pretty much blows the whole 1st
amendment to hell.

So instead of carrying a Charlie Card I should carry a printing press
or a Bible?

Just because the state owns some place doesn't mean it can't keep
people out. See for example the White House.

[NadCixelsyd]

Post by David Chesler
Just because the state owns some place doesn't mean it can't keep
people out. See for example the White House.

The T has a right to keep me out of certain locations (e.g. the money
counting room, walking the tunnel between Park & Boylston, the general
manager's office, for example). They can not keep me from exercising
my rights in readily accessible areas (like on the platforms). If
religeous zealots can hand out their beliefs, then I can take
photographs. That is my belief and I want to know if it has been
tested in the courts.

So far in this thread, all I've seen is MBTA sabre rattling (i.e.
harassment). Has anyone actually been arrested? Detained? Arrigned?
Had their property seized? And "detained" is more than someone asking
you questions. You have to be ordered to remain by an officer who has
"resonable articulable suspicion". (A) Has anyone pushed the issue and
(B) if I do, will you come to visit me in jail?

[John F. Carr]

Post by NadCixelsyd
So far in this thread, all I've seen is MBTA sabre rattling (i.e.
harassment). Has anyone actually been arrested? Detained? Arrigned?
Had their property seized? And "detained" is more than someone asking
you questions. You have to be ordered to remain by an officer who has
"resonable articulable suspicion". (A) Has anyone pushed the issue and
(B) if I do, will you come to visit me in jail?

I avoid jails for the same reason I avoid the T, but I'll
consider contributing to your legal defense fund, in the
unlikely event that you don't hit the 42 USC 1983 jackpot.
Federal law allows you to recover attorney's fees when
you win a lawsuit over federal rights violations.

[D. Kirkpatrick]

Post by NadCixelsyd
I've heard of MBTA employees harassing photographers who are on public
property, such as drivers yelling, "It's illegal to take photographs of
MBTA property".

Translastion:

Don't take my picture, I might have been doing something wrong.

[D. Kirkpatrick]

Post by NadCixelsyd
This is supposed to be a free country. Does anyone have a cite
(statute) that says it's illegal to take photographs? Supponse I
publish a newspaper (circulation 1625). Can I claim
Freedom-of-the-Press? How about if my circulation is only 3 instead of
1625?

This is not a problem unique to Boston.

Here is the score.

If you want to take a photo from someplace on or inside MBTA property,
you are supposed to get a photo pass from the Marketing Dept at the
state transportation building in Park Sq. (not Park St). They run a
background check on you through the MBTA and then issue a 30-day
yellow card pass.

They have certain restrictions. 1) No flashes - this can temporarily
blind drivers or patrons and lead to injury, 2) No tripods or
monopoles - tripping hazard, 3) No venturing from public access areas
without an assigned T person with you - for example if you wanted to
shoot off a platform and inside a rail yard a special appointment
would be necessary.

The permit used to be 90 days up through the Democratic national
convention. Then during the convention all passes were suspended then
changed to 30-days only afterward.

Now, if you are on public property, ie a city street, you can photo
anything.

It may very well be that T police were checking people out.

This is a serious problem nationwide because most don't know or
understand the law. Rail fan lists have been rife with horror stories
of people being stopped and detained - even questioned in the field by
FBI agents - for taking photos of passing trains form public property.

I often recommend this web site for rail photographers:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Bert Krages is an attorney who has put together a short guide. The
site states in part:

"As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on
what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at
restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law
enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that
neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any
provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have
a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of
protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always
meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from
public view if they want to protect them. "

I strongly recommend this file (PDF) and that a copy be carried with
you.

Important note... it is ILLEGAL for any police officer to demand your
film or insist your film be destroyed on demand. Your film may only
be confiscated and held as evidence on arrest.

I believe there has already been one challenge to a transit photo
restriction in New York? Someone can correct me on that possibly.

In Boston, the ACLU has been busy regarding the search policy. I
suspect it is a matter of time before th ephoto policy is also visited.

DMK

[toffner]

One thing worth noting: this photo policy isnt new. It was around
before 9/11 and before the DNC- terrorism just because the excuse for
it later, and now some overzealous officers actually (over) enforce it.

I have to say from personal experience that having a pass wont save you
much grief. Almost noone i've ever been stopped by has any idea what
one is. Part of the problem is that it is just a yellow slip of paper
and not very official looking-- If you're serious about using a pass Id
reccomend picking up a plastic convention name tag lanyard holder type
thing and put it in there- it looks at least slightly more official
that way, compared to you pulling a folded piece of paper out of your
wallet.

[David Marston]

Post by D. Kirkpatrick
...
I believe there has already been one challenge to a transit photo
restriction in New York? Someone can correct me on that possibly.
DMK

You're probably thinking of an incident on New Jersey Transit.
Eventually, it was resolved in favor of photographers.

[ftran999]

Post by NadCixelsyd

) Finally the MBTA police, (we wanna be State Police)
go running after two guys, legally taking photos on the
MBTAs C trolley line. All operators on the whole line are
flashing the green help lights. The police run red traffic
lights and chase up and down the system, but never
catch these people

This is supposed to be a free country. Does anyone have a cite
(statute) that says it's illegal to take photographs? Supponse I
publish a newspaper (circulation 1625). Can I claim
Freedom-of-the-Press? How about if my circulation is only 3 instead of
1625?

I'm wondering if the excuse of "fear of terrorism" for restricting
photography is just a red herring. Most likely the actual reason is that
the T is just concerned about controlling the use of it's image. Think
about it. Why would one need to obtain a permit from the MARKETING
department? If security was a real concern wouldn't the permit be obtained
from the Transit Police? As an amateur photographer I do have a vague
understanding of laws regarding photography. The first question one should
ask is "can I take the photograph"? If you can get past question one, then
the next question should be, "what can I do with the images?" There is a
difference between using the images for editorial purposes and using them
for commercial (advertising) purposes. The T is probably concerned about
the use for the latter.
Just out of curiosity. If anyone here has obtained a photo permit, once the
background check was passed did they just simply hand you the permit or did
you have to signed some sort of an argeement or contracting dictating the
use of the photographs you took?

[mbsbusguy]

Post by ftran999
Just out of curiosity. If anyone here has obtained a photo permit, once the
background check was passed did they just simply hand you the permit or did
you have to signed some sort of an argeement or contracting dictating the
use of the photographs you took?

When obtaining the permit you sign a copy of it for their use, and sign
the back of
the yellow ticket. You must show two forms of ID. Also the MBTA must
call you
to let you know it is ready.

With the permit you can take shots in any public area of the MBTA,
except with flash
and tripod. There is a differnent form for video takers.

About three years ago I was taking photos in New Jersey with three
other people by the
River Line. We all had permits to take photos. This was in the small
town of Burlington.
A police car tore through the downtown at 70 miles per hour to get to
where we were
standing. This bright light, hand on gun got out of the police car and
told us we had no right to take
photos. We showed the permits, he told us to have a nice day ant drove
off. It seems the T police and small town police crave the action.

Of interest is the fact that most T police work Monday through Friday,
makes sense. Some Saturdays and Sundays there is only one police car
North of Boston and one South of Boston.
A T police officer told me on some Saturdays he had to cover from
Downtown Crossing
to the New Hampshire border.

[David Z Maze]

Post by ftran999
Just out of curiosity. If anyone here has obtained a photo permit, once the
background check was passed did they just simply hand you the permit or did
you have to signed some sort of an argeement or contracting dictating the
use of the photographs you took?

I haven't gotten a permit since they started doing the background
checks. Before that they took photocopies of your ID and had you sign
that you agreed to no flashes, no tripods, only public areas, no
commercial use. Even at that point MBTA marketing had to be pretty
aware that random railfans were putting their photos on the Web.
Nobody's tried to contact me that I'm an evil evil person for giving
the Globe permission to print one of said photos.

I do get the impression that if you want to make real commercial use
of T imagery (in an advertisement, or a commercial, or a movie, or...)
they're happy to let you do it if you pay them enough. For personal
use, my impression at the time was largely that they wanted you to
agree to the safety restrictions.

(And maybe this is why Malden Place's Orange Line service in its Metro
ads is provided by Boeing LRVs on the SF Muni.)

--dzm

[s***@gmail.com]

it's very much possible for it to be a law. nyc has a law prohibiting
pictures on buses and trains, and even pictures of bridges.
theoretically, these could all be used to plot attacks in tunnels and
on bridges and whatnot.

also, the word you're looking for, i believe, is "citation," not
"cite."

Post by NadCixelsyd

) Finally the MBTA police, (we wanna be State Police)
go running after two guys, legally taking photos on the
MBTAs C trolley line. All operators on the whole line are
flashing the green help lights. The police run red traffic
lights and chase up and down the system, but never
catch these peopleThis is supposed to be a free country. Does anyone have a cite

(statute) that says it's illegal to take photographs? Supponse I
publish a newspaper (circulation 1625). Can I claim
Freedom-of-the-Press? How about if my circulation is only 3 instead of
1625?

[NadCixelsyd]

Post by s***@gmail.com
it's very much possible for it to be a law. nyc has a law prohibiting
pictures on buses and trains, and even pictures of bridges.
theoretically, these could all be used to plot attacks in tunnels and
on bridges and whatnot.
also, the word you're looking for, i believe, is "citation," not
"cite."

I believe (but I ain't sure) the NY laws were overturned in the courts.
If one is at Battery Park taking a picture of the Statue of Liberty,
are they obligated to make sure the Verrazano Narrows Bridge is not in
the picture? In addition to the civil rights violations, the courts
though it was unenforcable uniformly.

Mea culpa on the use of "cite" as a noun. I won't do that again
(sarcastic comment coming) if you remember that a preposition is a bad
word to end a sentence with!

[Pac Man]

"NadCixelsyd" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Post by NadCixelsyd
Mea culpa on the use of "cite" as a noun. I won't do that again
(sarcastic comment coming) if you remember that a preposition is a bad
word to end a sentence with!

Sorry, but I have to cut in with an old joke that my English teacher in
college told us:

A native New Yorker went on vacation to London and was looking to see
the sights. He had some trouble finding his way around, so he approached a
very proper looking English gentleman, complete with bowler and brelly, and
asked him, "Could youse tell me where da Big Ben is at?"
The English gentleman sternly replied, "Sir, in this country, we do not
end our sentences with a preposition!"
"Okay," said the New Yorker, "Could youse tell me where da Big Ben is
at, you asshole?"

Paul A. Cutler III
*************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*************

[r***@yahoo.com]

None of this is new, folks - I've been photographing the MBTA system
for three decades and have always had to deal with rude employees who
don't want their pictures taken. It's just that these people now get
to use '9/11' and 'terrorism' as legitimate-sounding excuses for
harrassing photographers now and will not hesitate to get the police
involved.

I don't get it - I've taken as many photos of buses and trains in New
York City and Washington D.C. in the past few years as I have in Boston
and I've never had anyone in those cities question what I was doing or
tell me it was illegal. Last week, I went out with a couple of friends
and my son to photograph the MBTA in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville.
All but a couple of my photos were taken from public property but that
didn't stop three bus drivers from stopping their vehicles in the
street to loudly inform us that 'You can't take pictures of this bus!'.
My friends had their permits and two of the drivers were satisfied,
but a third kept arguing the point and threatened to report us. If the
police were called, we didn't see them.

The photo permit has been around as long as I can remember. It used to
be good for a full year and was procured with a simple visit to 50 High
Strret or Park Plaza. The current process is a royal pain to deal with
for out-of-towners like myself, so I usually don't bother. That said,
I've found that the pass works great when I do have one, and I haven't
had any issues with employees or police refusing to accept it.

As for the ACLU - aren't they supposedly challenging the MBTA's
photography rules? There was an article in the Boston Globe about this
last summer but I haven't seen any recent updates. I hope the end
result is a very public proclamation that transit photography is not
illegal. I have no problem with people asking questions, but the
fiction that taking pictures of buses and trains was outlawed after
9/11 has to stop.

[NadCixelsyd]

Thanks to someone else in another newsgroup, I present link of NYCTA
restrictions. NY allows photography, subject to lack of things like
flash, tripod.

http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm#restricted

[D. Kirkpatrick]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
All but a couple of my photos were taken from public property but that
didn't stop three bus drivers from stopping their vehicles in the
street to loudly inform us that 'You can't take pictures of this bus!'.
My friends had their permits and two of the drivers were satisfied,
but a third kept arguing the point and threatened to report us. If the
police were called, we didn't see them.

Which suggests that a memorandum INFORMING employees of the policy is
in order and could be posted in their locker rooms or where ever other
operational policy memos are posted that drivers are supposed to
observe and comply-with.

We're talking a piece of paper here. Of course its another thing if
they fail to read it.

I can see why they don't want their pictures taken.

Last week I saw a bus on layover at the Dedham Mall that was parked,
lights out and unattended. The driver was in the mall doing
post-holiday shopping! Oh yeah, the rules allow that one. The
shopping bag with the loop was stuffed down aside the driver's seat.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The photo permit has been around as long as I can remember. It used to
be good for a full year and was procured with a simple visit to 50 High
Strret or Park Plaza. The current process is a royal pain to deal with
for out-of-towners like myself, so I usually don't bother. That said,
I've found that the pass works great when I do have one, and I haven't
had any issues with employees or police refusing to accept it.
As for the ACLU - aren't they supposedly challenging the MBTA's
photography rules? There was an article in the Boston Globe about this
last summer but I haven't seen any recent updates. I hope the end
result is a very public proclamation that transit photography is not
illegal. I have no problem with people asking questions, but the
fiction that taking pictures of buses and trains was outlawed after
9/11 has to stop.

Consider that Amtrak has a photo contest every year and ENCOURAGES
people to take photos. The winner of the contest gets their image on
the annual Amtrak wall calendar.

How do you recomcile Amtrak's encouragement of photography with the
MBTA's restriction of it?


DMK