Amtrak Candids

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tristan

Engineer
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
83
Ok folks listen up,

I got a little something going on for this site and I need your CaNdId shots of Amtrak crew and passengers. Boarding the train, waiting for it, talking to people, anything -- I'd prefer exterior shots because they'd be easier to work with but if you have any interior shots like this go ahead and send them and I'll see if I can use them.

The only stipulation is that I have to have rights to the image -- I will try to credit you but I cannot guarantee that I can as easily as I'd like. I probably will not be able to credit each and every image, the best I'd be able to do would be a disclaimer line of sorts or maybe some recognition on the credits page of the site. If this is an issue for you, do not submit your pics, but if you don't mind helping us out a bit go ahead and send em in. Email them to me @ my addy or post them right here, it's up to you.
 

AlanB

Engineer
Honored Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
28,402
Location
Queens, New York
Tristan,

You might want to tell people your email address, if you want them to send you pictures. You should also note that you must post your address in the topic. If you simply use the control panel to unlock your address no one will be able to send you pictures.

The BB software does not reveal your address; it simply opens a window controlled by the BB software for us to email you. This window does not provide any way to attach a file or a picture, unlike normal email software. The BB does this as a security feature, to prevent spamer's from grabbing people's email addresses off of the BB.
 
T

Toe Tag

Guest
Tristan said:
I got a little something going on for this site and I need your CaNdId shots of Amtrak crew and passengers. Boarding the train, waiting for it, talking to people, anything
What about the privacy issue? The traveling public has a right to expect their images not be publicized without permission. Doesn't Amtrak have such a policy?

Greyhound has their policy spelled out on their web site: "Please do not violate our passengers' privacy. Prior to interviewing, filming or taking photos of a passenger you must obtain permission from that passenger."

You are violating a basic rule of journalism by your request that could possibly get you into trouble with the offended individual.
 

Viewliner

Engineer
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
2,662
Location
New Jersey
I believe some of my (Viewliner) submissions have attendants standing out next to the sleeper. Also look at P-42 134, I believe there's an Amtrak Employee in it, I'll dig it up If I can.
 

Viewliner

Engineer
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
2,662
Location
New Jersey

battalion51

Engineer
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
7,193
Location
USA
Toe Tag said:
Tristan said:
I got a little something going on for this site and I need your CaNdId shots of Amtrak crew and passengers.  Boarding the train, waiting for it, talking to people, anything
What about the privacy issue? The traveling public has a right to expect their images not be publicized without permission. Doesn't Amtrak have such a policy?

Greyhound has their policy spelled out on their web site: "Please do not violate our passengers' privacy. Prior to interviewing, filming or taking photos of a passenger you must obtain permission from that passenger."

You are violating a basic rule of journalism by your request that could possibly get you into trouble with the offended individual.
Toe Tag, whether you realize it or not we are constantly having our picture taken. Security cameras are everywhere now, and no one objects to that. Or what about when the nightly news does a crowd shot, it's the same situation. I saw a report on my local NBC station about a year ago, about cameras being placed a top hotels on South Beach, where many sunbathe topless. Many of these people did not realize they were having their picture put up on the internet, but this is the same camera. If you happen to be in the way when someone takes a picture it's your fault, not the camera man's.

On a seperate note I will try to take some pictures from our baggage room as we enter station of the travelers waiting. I also already have a couple of good pictures taken inside and outside at Penn Station in New York.
 
T

Toe Tag

Guest
"Photographed in public" is a far cry from photographing someone who has purchased a ticket, be it on a bus, a train. or . That purchase carried an implied consent to a certain degree of privacy.

You could be causing multiple problems from yourself and for Amtrak when you solicit and publish photos of passengers who have purchased tickets. That purchase constitutes an understanding to a certain degree of privacy.

The courts can decide after you post the wrong individual's photo.
 

seajay

Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
216
I'm sure we're splitting legal hairs here but, if I'm sitting in the waiting room at Chicago's Union Station and a photographer from the Tribune takes a wide angle picture of the room and all people sitting there, what difference does it make whether or not these people actually have purchased tickets or not? A public place is a public place.

How many hundreds of pictures of airport, bus, and train terminals, clogged with thousands of holiday travelers, have we all seen before? I'm betting there aren't many of those people who signed releases for these photos to be printed in a newspapers or on web sites.

I'm not a lawyer. (Nor do I don't play one on TV. :lol: ) But, I believe it is the very essence of "public property" that one has no expectation of privacy. Regarding trains, a public place would include the public areas in stations, platforms, coach cars, dining cars, hallways, vestibules, etc. The only private place on a train would be a sleeping compartment and a bathroom.

If there is someone with direct legal knowledge of this (and can cite the actual law), I'm sure we'd all love to hear from them. Maybe "purchasing a ticket" does actually invoke some legal status of privacy. I don't know. I'm only offering an opinion.

seajay
 
G

Guest

Guest
seajay said:
If there is someone with direct legal knowledge of this (and can cite the actual law), I'm sure we'd all love to hear from them.
Statutes would vary state to state, so there would be hundreds of "actual laws" to cite. Many would appear to be in conflict. We have courts to sort these things out.

You might be well advised to contact Amtrak and ask their Legal Department's thoughts on snapping photos of customers for public display on the Internet
 

AlanB

Engineer
Honored Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
28,402
Location
Queens, New York
Toe Tag,

Let me start by saying that I’m not a lawyer, so it is possible that I may be incorrect. Perhaps one of our other members, TP49 who is better versed in the law may jump in here later today.

That said however, Amtrak is a public conveyance and not a private one. In fact public money helps to keep Amtrak running. Public implies, open to the public and therefore a lesser degree of privacy. Based upon your interpretation of the law, the mere act of an undercover police officer taking a photo of a person committing a crime while on board the train or in the station would now require him to first obtain a search warrant. Since there is the very real expectation that any photo taken of the criminal would end up in the local newspaper and/or on their website. That officer would also then have to track down and obtain the permission of every other passenger in that photo before it could be used in court as evidence.

As another example, one pays good money to enter any of the theme parks at Walt Disney World. If that entitled you to privacy, then no one would ever be able to take a picture while at Disney. It’s simply not possible to take a picture without someone that you don’t know ending up in your picture. Yet these days many people post their vacations pictures on the web for friends and family to see. There are even several websites that make doing this easy. Yes you may have intended for the picture to only be viewed by your friends and family, but once they are up anyone can take a peek if they like. If one plans to venture out into public areas, then having your photo taken is a risk that you must assume.

Yes I do think that you should ask the permission of anyone that you plan to feature prominently in a photo, such as your waiter in the dining car. It’s also common courtesy to ask first. However to obtain the permission of every person in the periphery of your photo, while they are in a public place is unreasonable.

Now if the person taking a picture stands to profit from said picture, then it’s a whole new ball game. A current example involving the Internet and photos for profit is Alyssa Milano the actress. Alyssa and her mother have created an organization whose sole function is to keep people from profiting from nude pictures of Alyssa and many other actresses. There have been many photos of Alyssa nude floating around the net over the past few years. These include screen captures from movies that she has done, a few by the tabloids, and some that an enterprising computer person cut and pasted together.

To my knowledge, they have only succeeded in forcing the removal of her pictures from websites under two circumstances. One is where the photo was doctored. The other is when someone is profiting from Alyssa’s image. However in the case of pictures that were screen captures of her nude scenes in a movie, unless the site was charging admission, Alyssa’s mom has been unsuccessful at forcing the removal of the pictures from the website.

Finally the reason that many public transportation systems are currently banning picture taking is due more to heightened security since 9/11, than the publics right to privacy. They don’t want terrorists taking pictures of possible targets. This is also an area that many civil rights groups are either currently challenging or planning to challenge.

Ps. Where on Greyhound site did you find that policy? I went through many of the pages on their site and couldn’t find it. Could you please provide a link to the page.
 
G

Guest

Guest
AlanB said:
Where on Greyhound site did you find that policy? I went through many of the pages on their site and couldn’t find it. Could you please provide a link to the page.
greyhound.com and then select "media contacts," followed by "media protocol" and read items 2 and 3.

BTW-You seem to be confusing security and law enforcement issues with photographing for fun.
 

Tristan

Engineer
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
83
Well let's start off by saying that Greyhound is a private entity -- if anyone is teetering on AlanB's last post that should help a bit...doesn't particularly matter too much though

Now the pictures I'm looking for are of a very "crowded" nature -- maybe a group of people boarding a train, a crew member waving to the engineer -- when I start working with the pictures it'll be hard to tell who the person is anyway. They will be cropped and "dimmed" anyway so there's no legal implications of someone worrying about being "sighted".
 

seajay

Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
216
Guest said:
AlanB said:
Where on Greyhound site did you find that policy?  I went through many of the pages on their site and couldn’t find it.  Could you please provide a link to the page.
greyhound.com and then select "media contacts," followed by "media protocol" and read items 2 and 3.

BTW-You seem to be confusing security and law enforcement issues with photographing for fun.
Well, somebody is confused and it's ME!

Guest, what point are you trying to make with this statement? When did "security and law enforcement" jump into this discussion?

I think maybe the first thing I'm going to do when I get home tonight is burn all the pictures I took during my trip aboard the CZ last summer. Some of them actually included people standing by a train.

seajay
 
G

Guest

Guest
Any time an organizations publishes a photograph depicting people, the right of privacy is implicated. The right to be left alone has been legally recognized in one form or another for a great many years. The Illinois Supreme Court joined many other states by announcing in 1970 that the right of privacy is a legally protected right, and one who violates that right can be subject to liability. [Leopold v. Levin (1970), 45 Ill.2d 434,259 N.E.2d 250]. In the case of a photograph taken at a public place like a park, three types of invasion of privacy claims can arise:

1) unreasonable disclosure of another's private matters;

2) placing another in a false light, and

3) appropriation of another's name or likeness.
 

seajay

Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
216
Guest said:
seajay said:
If there is someone with direct legal knowledge of this (and can cite the actual law), I'm sure we'd all love to hear from them.
Statutes would vary state to state, so there would be hundreds of "actual laws" to cite. Many would appear to be in conflict. We have courts to sort these things out.

You might be well advised to contact Amtrak and ask their Legal Department's thoughts on snapping photos of customers for public display on the Internet
Okay, don't cite the laws from every state. Pick one or two. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here. I am just very curious to see what one actually says about this issue. The last thing I am is a "Give Me the First Amendment or Give Me Death!" kind of guy.

seajay
 

AlanB

Engineer
Honored Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
28,402
Location
Queens, New York
Guest,

First let’s start with the easy one, the Greyhound rules. Those rules are intended for media only, that’s why they are under the media section. The media in return for insider access and probably discounted fares, must comply with Greyhounds rules. Greyhound doesn’t want pissed off passengers, passengers who never come back, and all the other problems that can come from the media filming. This rule in no way, as stated on the Greyhound site, would apply to a passenger taking a casual and innocent picture. Even if said passenger was to later post the picture on a website. The person, who started this topic asking for pictures, is in no way associated with the media nor does he work for Amtrak. He’s simply someone who happens to like Amtrak.

Next I don’t feel that I’m confusing law enforcement with photographing for fun at all. I was merely trying to point out, that if the right to privacy were interpreted as was suggested earlier in this topic, then it would also have to apply to law enforcement. I also suggested that the same interpretation of right to privacy would force Disney World to outlaw picture taking in it’s theme parks. If a person can be barred from taking a picture of the train in an Amtrak station, simply because he/she might accidentally capture the image of a person who brought a ticket that entitled them to privacy, then the same applies even more so to Disney World. Disney, unlike Amtrak, is truly a private company. Amtrak on the other hand is a public company providing a public service as I pointed out earlier.

Finally I only mentioned in passing that some public transit agencies have barred all photography while on their property. One such example is in Boston, the “T” has barred all photos. However, they barred photography without a permit because of security reasons. Not because they felt that buying a ticket entitled someone to a right to privacy. Ordinary citizens can still apply to the “T” for a one day permit to take photo’s while on “T” property, assuming that they can convince management that they are not terrorists. I also however believe that a civil liberties group is planning a challenge in court to force the “T” to revoke the no photography rule.
 

seajay

Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
216
Guest said:
Any time an organizations publishes a photograph depicting people, the right of privacy is implicated. The right to be left alone has been legally recognized in one form or another for a great many years. The Illinois Supreme Court joined many other states by announcing in 1970 that the right of privacy is a legally protected right, and one who violates that right can be subject to liability. [Leopold v. Levin (1970), 45 Ill.2d 434,259 N.E.2d 250]. In the case of a photograph taken at a public place like a park, three types of invasion of privacy claims can arise:

1) unreasonable disclosure of another's private matters;

2) placing another in a false light, and

3) appropriation of another's name or likeness.
Thank you for providing this information. This is exactly the type of information I was hoping to see. It is very enlightening. Here's an interesting "what if":

I call in sick to work. I sneak off to a ball game. The sports photographer takes a picture of the action and I'm included in the background. This picture runs in the newspaper the next day. My boss sees it and fires me because I have a clause in my employment contract that says I can be terminated for lying in instances like this.

Assuming I live in Illinois, can I sue the newspaper and/or the photographer? Was this an "unreasonable disclosure" of my "private matters"?

I realize we're getting way off topic here but I do find this stuff interesting. I guess that comes from watching too many "Law & Order" reruns.

seajay
 

AlanB

Engineer
Honored Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
28,402
Location
Queens, New York
I would also add that a person has a reasonable right to privacy, not an absolute right. This would mean that deliberately taking a photo of a person could be considered a violation. A picture where the subject is a train and a person happens to be in the frame on the side of the picture is not a reasonable violation of his right to privacy.

By the way Seajay, I think that argument has been tried in an actual case. I seem to recall that the person bringing the suit lost.
 

Tristan

Engineer
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
83
None of this really applies to this site, as the photos will not be "published" or included in any kind of article that will express or imply the opinions of anyone. I can see where that one person would get mad -- his picture was associated with an opinion that wasn't necessarily his own -- but in this case the pictures will stand alone.
 

tp49

Engineer
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
2,747
Guest said:
Any time an organizations publishes a photograph depicting people, the right of privacy is implicated. The right to be left alone has been legally recognized in one form or another for a great many years. The Illinois Supreme Court joined many other states by announcing in 1970 that the right of privacy is a legally protected right, and one who violates that right can be subject to liability. [Leopold v. Levin (1970), 45 Ill.2d 434,259 N.E.2d 250]. In the case of a photograph taken at a public place like a park, three types of invasion of privacy claims can arise:

1) unreasonable disclosure of another's private matters;

2) placing another in a false light, and

3) appropriation of another's name or likeness.
First, I don't believe that the cited case relates in any way to the facts pertaining to this forum. The greatest problem would be appropriating one's image for commercial purposes. The court in the cited case warns that the interpretation has to be narrow otherwise there will be Constitutional considerations, namely first amendment issues. If you are in a "public place" there is a reasonable expectation that you could be photographed for more or less a private use. However, I feel that the real issue hinges on the usage of any images of another person for profit. If this forum is viewed as a private use (we can argue this either way) then there should not be any problem. The court in Leopold focuses on the usage of images (and this is actually a case cited in Leopold) for commercial gain, i.e. for profit. In that instance the court is want to protect the right to privacy of that individual.
 

tp49

Engineer
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
2,747
Tristan said:
None of this really applies to this site, as the photos will not be "published" or included in any kind of article that will express or imply the opinions of anyone. I can see where that one person would get mad -- his picture was associated with an opinion that wasn't necessarily his own -- but in this case the pictures will stand alone.
Not so fast...

Actually placing of the photos on the site does constitute a legal publication. The difference is that under the legal definition of publication all you have to do is tell or show one person other than yourself. We could then argue that each separate viewing of the material would constitute a separate publication (it probably would). While this is not the normal common usage of the term placing the photos on the site would in fact constitute a publication.

However, if you do alter the shots as you stated in another post making people barely recognizable then you should not have any problems (especially concerning passengers). Amtrak employees should understand that there is a reasonable expectation that they could be photographed while in the performance of their jobs.

Just use commmon sense, and if the person in the photograph is known to you then a release always does the trick :)
 

seajay

Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
216
AlanB said:
I would also add that a person has a reasonable right to privacy, not an absolute right.  This would mean that deliberately taking a photo of a person could be considered a violation.  A picture where the subject is a train and a person happens to be in the frame on the side of the picture is not a reasonable violation of his right to privacy.
By the way Seajay, I think that argument has been tried in an actual case.  I seem to recall that the person bringing the suit lost.
Good to hear that! I was hoping to point out an absurdity by being absurd!

:D

seajay
 

seajay

Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
216
Well, if the Amtrak legal department says these pictures would be a "no-no", I hope someone will take it upon themselves to contact the administrators of the dozens (or hundreds) of other rail-related web sites that have posted similar pictures.

seajay
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top