[PRCo] Re: Brilliance in Transit Management

[Bob Rathke]

Good points, Fred.  I think it comes down to using common sense and courtesy
regarding personal rights.  If I take a mid- or close-up view of a person,
I'll ask their permission, but taking a photo of a passenger train
approaching a station with people on the platform is somethings else.  Fair
game.

When I was living in New York City in the late 1960's, I went down to
Rockefeller Center one evening to photograph the large Christmas tree and
skating rink.  A policeman approached me as I was setting up my tripod and
he told me that photography was prohibited on Rockefeller Center property.
I cooperated, and as I was packing up he asked me where I from and what I
liked to photograph.  After a short conversation, he told me that he was
going on a break for about 15 minutes, and that he wouldn't be in the area
for a while.  I don't remember if he winked, but I caught his message, and I
proceeded to take all the photos I wanted.

I guess he was practicing common sense because hundreds of people take
photographs there during daylight hours when it's impossible to control
their activities.

Speaking of over-ambitious policemen, Bob Schmidt probably remembers the
Millvale motorcycle policeman known as "Boots and Saddles" who handed out
tickets to dozens of motorists a day who made illegal turns at the
intersection of E. Ohio St. and the 40th St. Bridge in the 1950's.  He
always stationed his cycle just northeast of the intersection, near the
former location of the Millvale cabarn  (there, I got this e-mail on-topic).

Bob 1/8/05

-----------------------------
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Schneider" <fschnei at supernet.com>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 2:02 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: Brilliance in Transit Management


> You would throw in a moral or ethical question in the last paragraph,
wouldn't
> you?
>
> It is generally considered illegal for me to sneak onto your private
property to
> take your picture but perfectly legal if you are on a public street as
part of a
> crowd.
>
> But what do you do with a religious sect such as the Amish, right here in
> Lancaster County, who believe that the camera takes away part of their
soul.
> Their religion forbids photography.   By not driving, they escape photo
drivers
> licenses.  By not traveling outside the U. S. or Canada, they evade having
a
> passport photo.   Most recently their was a suit by one Amishman who
entered
> from Canada that they should not have forced him to have his picture taken
for
> an INS immigration card.  He tried to sue from Canada and lost.  But now
he is a
> citizen of the U. S., and is suing from a slightly different platform.
Ah, but
> what about all the tourists who come to Lancaster and very rudely stick
cameras
> out of car windows at the Amish, or pull over to photograph them in the
buggy as
> they go by.....   Not illegal but it does force some of the most
productive and
> hard working people to move away to some place where there are fewer
tourists
> and cheaper farmland.
>
> And should it be illegal to photograph a motorman or bus driver at work
and then
> use that picture to prove he was lying when he told the court that he had
no job
> and therefore could not pay child support?   I was lead to believe from
some
> BSRA members that that was the root cause of the MBTA's prohibition of
> photography.
>
> Is it illegal to photograph a transit employee goofing off when he should
be
> working?   If he was in the break room watching TV and having a sandwich,
the
> public would naturally believe he is goofing off.  Maybe he is on break.
Or
> maybe he is taking the fifth break of the morning.  It has also been
alledged
> that this is the reason why MBTA doesn't want cameras around.
>
> Should you ask each person out of courtesy before you include them in a
> picture?  I think so if they are close enough to be recognizeable.
>
> Wonder how long this will drag out since most of us tote cameras.
RR