Taking of photos and videos ... Etiquette and bad form

 
  Brendan03 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Don't think he'll have the testicular fortitude to be back, though.
"Sir Thomas Bent"


Whilst I'd like to think that's true, I doubt the user in question will have the mental capacity to realise that he's widely disliked and will continue to post such inane comments and thoughtless photos.


Snap...as was i. Laughing seems we all think he is a tosser eh.
"42101"


I dislike people who show blatent disregard for other peoples privacy and personal space.
I myself have done a little bit of trackside filming and I've constantly got it going around in my head ... "am I in the wrong here, is this private property, I hope I don't get anyone's face in my video, am I in a safe position/distance from track" etc.

There's stuff when I've viewed back when editting, that has looked a bit questionable which I've had end up on the 'cutting room floor' so to speak (I do all my editing on computers)

Whilst I enjoy filming track work, I like to maintain a safe distance so that if anyone does happen to look over at me, Their faces aren't recognizable and further to that, when I'm filming, I make sure I stay out of people's way.
I also refuse to film on station platforms for that very reason.
I try to avoid getting general public in my videos as well.

Sponsored advertisement

  heisdeadjim Chief Commissioner

I'm going to go a step further.

I know there's been a "history" between this place and VicSig. However, I'd like to think we've all grown up beyond that. While here and there may not be the best of friends, I believe Railpage now has a duty to inform Chris Gordon that IF, and only if, the r761 here is the same r761 there, then, he really should be removed from his position as a VicSig mod.

Such a violation of trust should not be tolerated by the Railfan community.

-----

Edit, see below:

R761 on VicSig is a different user. He goes by Hansonator on here.
"Brendan03"
  42101 Banned

Location: Banned

Don't think he'll have the testicular fortitude to be back, though.
"Sir Thomas Bent"


Whilst I'd like to think that's true, I doubt the user in question will have the mental capacity to realise that he's widely disliked and will continue to post such inane comments and thoughtless photos.


Snap...as was i. Laughing seems we all think he is a tosser eh.
"42101"


I dislike people who show blatent disregard for other peoples privacy and personal space.
I myself have done a little bit of trackside filming and I've constantly got it going around in my head ... "am I in the wrong here, is this private property, I hope I don't get anyone's face in my video, am I in a safe position/distance from track" etc.

There's stuff when I've viewed back when editting, that has looked a bit questionable which I've had end up on the 'cutting room floor' so to speak (I do all my editing on computers)

Whilst I enjoy filming track work, I like to maintain a safe distance so that if anyone does happen to look over at me, Their faces aren't recognizable and further to that, when I'm filming, I make sure I stay out of people's way.
I also refuse to film on station platforms for that very reason.
I try to avoid getting general public in my videos as well.
"Brendan03"


Yep being thoughtfull,its not hard to do as Brendan says above just use your brains and think things through.

ABOVE ALL DONT be a tosser about your rights as its the quickest way to piss someone right off and then have them tell you to sod off.

A few years back out at Parkes i had a couple of Vic gunzels come to the office door and DEMAND permision to enter the yard to take pics of things (stating they were rail workers) and that they had the RIGHT to go where they wanted and were only TELLING US what they WERE GOING TO DO.

Guess what it dont pay to be offensive to a 6ft4in railworker in his domain so they were told to go fornicate themselves and when they wanted to argue they found that the office was full of large angry drivers and yard staff who were already having a bad day before these dorks turned up. 8)  8) stuff it was funny seeing them bolt like little girlies.

Two others turned up later that shift and they were so very nice and pleasant they got given train running sheets for the next 24hrs and a guided tour of the WHOLE yard.
  Brendan03 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I'm going to go a step further.

I know there's been a "history" between this place and VicSig. However, I'd like to think we've all grown up beyond that. While here and there may not be the best of friends, I believe Railpage Australia™ now has a duty to inform Chris Gordon that IF, and only if, the r761 here is the same r761 there, then, he really should be removed from his position as a VicSig mod.

Such a violation of trust should not be tolerated by the Railfan community.
"heisdeadjim"


R761 on VicSig is a different user. He goes by Hansonator on here.
  heisdeadjim Chief Commissioner

Okay, retracted. I'll edit my previous.
  Z1NorthernProgress2110 Chief Commissioner

Location: Burnie, Tasmania
Wow, i just read this whole thread. Had a good ole chuckle too.

As been said, be polite to who and what you take photos of. Just because you own your camera equipment doesn't mean you have a right.

AFAIK, there is a law about photographing people, i'm sure i've read it on the interweb somewhere.
  gxh Junior Train Controller

Location: SE suburbs

AFAIK, there is a law about photographing people, i'm sure i've read it on the interweb somewhere.
"Z1NorthernProgress2110"

While strongly agreeing with the need for common courtesy when taking photos, I doubt if there's a law (at least, in Australia) that means you have to get a person's consent to take a photo of them (that is, if the photographer is in a public place).   How often do you see pictures of people on the TV news or in the print media that have clearly been taken without that person's consent?   I've heard of a case where a person was being breath-tested by the police and a TV crew took a picture.   The police response was, this is a public place (it was on a roadway), nothing we can do to stop it.  Likewise, people being led into court.
However, if there is such a law, I'd accept the correction.
Of course, if the photographer isn't in a public place, the rules are different.   For example, as already mentioned, Metro require you to have a permit to use a camera on property that they occupy.  Mind you, I'm not entirely certain about the basis for this.  There must be a regulation somewhere that allows them to do this?   Otherwise, if the only basis for this was that it was a condition of entry onto the property, they would have to give notice of it at every entrance (like shops do, when they make it a condition of entry that you present bags for inspection).
  Gwiwer Rt Hon Gentleman and Ghost of Oliver Bulleid

Location: Loitering in darkest Somewhere
DONT be a tosser about your rights
"42101"


Sound advice indeed as you basically have none.  There is no right to take photographs neither is there a specific right to be not included in one whilst on or about places where the public are permitted to be.

It is all about consideration, respect and request.

This post wraps it up nicely.

If you wish to behave disrespectfully or intentionally break the Law then you may expect to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.  That might also include becoming rather unpopular on internet forums.

By contrast I have, after 40 or so years of railway photography from the far north of Scotland to the North Island of New Zealand, never been asked to move on other than once, to another spot on the same platform, to permit an official party (whose presence was not known to me) clear egress from an arriving train.

A few railway staff (including NSW Transit cops) have asked me what I was about and seemed genuinely interested rather than hostile.

One platform attendant in London decided I was not permitted to take photographs from his station but a swift read of the UK "Photographer's Rights" document which I always carry while over there persuaded him otherwise.
  jcouch Assistant Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a commuter train

AFAIK, there is a law about photographing people, i'm sure i've read it on the interweb somewhere.
"Z1NorthernProgress2110"

While strongly agreeing with the need for common courtesy when taking photos, I doubt if there's a law (at least, in Australia) that means you have to get a person's consent to take a photo of them (that is, if the photographer is in a public place).   How often do you see pictures of people on the TV news or in the print media that have clearly been taken without that person's consent?  
"gxh"


That's pretty much correct summary of the situation. If you are in a public place, you have no right to privacy. If not, it is close to impossible to take a photo or film anything. (Also, surveillance cameras in shops etc would also be illegal).  Think about taking a photo of your SO down at the beach - there's potentially thousands of people in the background of that shot that you would need to ask permission for.

If anyone pays attention to various US-things, there's several states that required consent of both parties in the photo, even in public places. This has lead to, among other things, police abuse of people filming them doing dangerous and illegal acts (eg things like the Martin King sorts of issues). Instead of the policeman(s) being subjected to punishment for their actions, they throw the photographer in jail. The ability to take photos in a public place without consent is a necessity for keeping everyone honest, including public servants of all kinds.
  Gwiwer Rt Hon Gentleman and Ghost of Oliver Bulleid

Location: Loitering in darkest Somewhere
US and Australian Law differs.  While I don't claim to be an expert on either there is in Australia basically no restriction upon taking still photographs in or of public places (including places to which the public has access on legitimate business such as railways stations), and no consent is required of anyone whose image might be captured as a part of the overall scene.  They might object but there is no right of objection. and unless some other law is allegedly broken no other legal redress.

As I understand Australian Law consent is required if a person is to be the main or sole subject of the photograph and is clearly identifiable and is wearing an identifiable uniform (or other similarly recogniseable clothing) such as a Police officer or member of railway staff.

If these people happen to be included as incidental to the main image subject then there is no legal restraint on image capture as such.

There are laws restricting the capture of certain images which might include Prohibited Places (jails, military locations etc) or scenes of crime, distress or security interest which might include road or rail accidents, suspect packages and the like.

It may also be unlawful to use images captured lawfully for purposes which are themselves unlawful such as the publication (including on the internet) of images of minors, of indecently attired persons or of lewd acts.

Basic common sense applies.  It's fine to take pics of your young kiddies playing on the beach and to have other (unknown) people included as incidental to those images.  But take pics of someone else's kids without their knowledge and consent and you might be considered to be behaving inappropriately.

Consent is also required in most cases where an image is submitted for intended publication and is taken on, of or from a place other than public land.  This applies whether or not any financial gain is sought or offered.

The capture of moving images can require consent in similar circumstances but again there are generally no restrictions in public places so long as no other law (such as obstruction) is contravened.

Images taken by accredited press and media photographers fall within certain legal dispensations.  Thus it can be in order for a journalist to take pictures of a fatal accident but not a private individual.  The former is considered to be acting in a professional capacity and in the public interest; the latter may be thought of as an uninvited rubber-neck.

If you happen to be in such a situation and manage to grab some photos then exercise discretion before posting them to YouTube or the many "Were You There?" news boards.
  heisdeadjim Chief Commissioner

Believe it or not, there is a difference.
"miss_x"


Precisely, and well put miss_x. While I've disagreed with Gwiwer a couple of times, I'd have no issues with him as he'd be polite about it.

Others here, possibly not so.
  Gwiwer Rt Hon Gentleman and Ghost of Oliver Bulleid

Location: Loitering in darkest Somewhere
There is a big difference.  A difference which some of us realise, some choose to ignore and some seem quite incapable of comprehending.

Which category I fall into would be for the other party to decide.  I believe I am respectful and polite but not everyone may choose to interpret my actions that way.
  richardlu_yy Chief Train Controller

Location: Singapore
I believe we already had a extremely lengthy discussion on the regulations, laws, appropriateness and whatsoever regarding photography on the Metro network. -_-'

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11354956-0-asc-s0.htm

And according to the Metro photography regulations, you are supposed to ask staff for permission before photographing them (please don't start another discussion on the law here, regulations are still regulations). I have photographed staff a few times before Connex said goodbye after asking them nicely for the purpose of the keepsake of a bit of history. Do the right thing and life will be good to you.
  heisdeadjim Chief Commissioner

I believe we already had a extremely lengthy discussion on the regulations, laws, appropriateness and whatsoever regarding photography on the Metro network
"richardlu_yy"


Indeed.

Classic example, here:

http://www.railpage.com.au/f-p1348646.htm#1348646
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
I just read all of this thread. One thing that I don't believe has been made clear:

It is NOT illegal to take photos of people in a public place. It is however illegal to publish a photo of a person without their permission.

At least that is my understanding. Even if a person has posed for a photo (having given permission for the photo to be taken), you MUST obtain their permission before publishing it.
  Gwiwer Rt Hon Gentleman and Ghost of Oliver Bulleid

Location: Loitering in darkest Somewhere
If that person is the main or only subject then that is my understanding also.  But not if the person just happens to be in shot but is not the intended subject.  

It is not expected that you would seek to obtain a release from everyone in a crowded scene for example and it is unrealistic to attempt that anyway.  

As in most things legal a good test would be to ask "What would a reasonable person do / be able to do?"
  Sir Thomas Bent Minister for Railways

Location: Banned
Not be a pompous git, for starters.  Carrying around some piece of paper marked "Photographer's Rights" is probably going to mark you, to any reasonable person, as a dangerous idiot.
  prometheus_au Chief Train Controller


Stop being a precious puss.

It is NOT illegal to film on public property. If you believe otherwise, quote the actual law, not just slap your gums.

Re: your 2nd comment, once again, its NOT illegal to film someone.

Learn the law before flapping your gums. The cops would just laugh at you
"Michaelje"


Actually, the Metro system is not considered 'Public Property'. One needs a permit to film or take photographs on Metro Property, see http://www.metrotrains.com.au/About-us/Filming--Photography.html

However, in NSW All Council restrictions against "unauthorised" photographs at Sydney beaches or swimming pools were revoked in 2005. This was because the restrictions were found to be legally and politically unenforceable. This could probably be sucessfully argued in relation to Metro property.

In Australia, publication is fully legal, provided the pictures aren't defamatory; They aren't indecent, offensive or otherwise demean the people in them or; They aren't being used for a "commercial purpose"

Under the Federal Trade Practices Act 1974, photographs cannot be used for "commercial purposes" without the written consent of people in them.
If the photographer / publisher doesn't have your permission (usually in the form of a signed release), then they are in breach of the Act and are liable for statutory fines. Contact the ACCC to pursue the matter further.

That having been said, whilst it may not be illegal to film someone, it's common courtesy (there I go again, there's nothing common about it) to ask prior to taking a photo or filming.
  Maikha Moderator Not a gunzel

R761, we, and the folks at SRV I'm sure, are still waiting for your apology. Right now, you're proving us correct at how pathetic you are at running and hiding from doing so  Evil or Very Mad
  Gwiwer Rt Hon Gentleman and Ghost of Oliver Bulleid

Location: Loitering in darkest Somewhere
Carrying around some piece of paper marked "Photographer's Rights" is probably going to mark you, to any reasonable person, as a dangerous idiot.


That is done in the UK where - particularly in the major cities - the security situation differs to that in Australia.  It was widely claimed that photography of railways could be a criminal offence once the Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed and under that act many thousands of people taking photographs (of all subjects) were "randomly" stopped and questioned by the Police.

Common sense is slowly starting to return but many photographers there will carry the document I mentioned "just in case" as there are still frequent reports of them being stopped, interviewed, asked to delete images and allegedly harrassed or arrested in some cases.  No conviction has ever been brought so far as I am aware.

The same enactment does not apply to Australia.  Attitudes are less guarded here.  I do not carry the document here as it is not relevant.  A polite approach and common sense is all that is needed.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
Happened to me a couple of weeks back- I was trying to  attempt to take a photo of a train- This was on NYE - up the top of a street where I can view over a bridge- Some people did not like me being there, As they thought I was taking their picture, I explained to the fella, Anywho I heard them mumbling about it- So in the end I was forced to move on , I didn't like it for one bit- But what could I do - Given that the house that said people were in were bascially 50-100metres from where I was standing


Kind Regards
  Attila76 Junior Train Controller

Perhaps I have been lucky in that I've yet to encounter any issues with gunzels filming or photographing on the network. Have I seen plenty? Yep, but they've never been intrusive, rude or sanctimonious even when station staff were not treating them the best (one SM and his barrier staff were demanding I arrest them for filming on the platform during an occo when the tracks had been ripped out). I do hate gunzels wearing a railway uniform while they're doing it, but that's another issue.

I have, however, had more than enough experience with being filmed for the news,along with having cameras shoved in my face and having some idiot screaming because "they know the law," even though they aren't the ones being reported, and they then become convinced that the only reason that someone isn't getting bashed is because of their presence. Or restraining someone and being filmed from every angle possible while being abused and threatened. Annoying? Yep, but hey, if someone wants a rectal shot of me for their and their scrotal friends viewing pleasure, whatever. It's their eyes, not mine. I can ask them to stop filming but I can't stop them, I can report them for hindering and/or refusing to obey a reasonable request if they do interfere.
  Maikha Moderator Not a gunzel

I have, however, had more than enough experience with being filmed for the news,along with having cameras shoved in my face and having some idiot screaming because "they know the law," even though they aren't the ones being reported, and they then become convinced that the only reason that someone isn't getting bashed is because of their presence. Or restraining someone and being filmed from every angle possible while being abused and threatened. Annoying? Yep, but hey, if someone wants a rectal shot of me for their and their scrotal friends viewing pleasure, whatever. It's their eyes, not mine. I can ask them to stop filming but I can't stop them, I can report them for hindering and/or refusing to obey a reasonable request if they do interfere.
"Attila76"
Are you referring to two forms of people filming, one for the news and one for the idiocies of Youtube? I can't think of any professional cameraman that would want a rectal shot... of anyone Razz

Having done work as a News Cameraman (And a job I still greatly miss!), out in a regional market, we were a lot more restrained and respectful towards filming people in public, even if we were filming someone leaving a Courthouse. The law was on our side though, that we were pretty much free to film on all public space as long as we were safe about it, but pretty much all the time, a courteous ask to a subject usually got some good results.
  Attila76 Junior Train Controller

Are you referring to two forms of people filming, one for the news and one for the idiocies of Youtube? I can't think of any professional cameraman that would want a rectal shot... of anyone Razz

Having done work as a News Cameraman (And a job I still greatly miss!), out in a regional market, we were a lot more restrained and respectful towards filming people in public, even if we were filming someone leaving a Courthouse. The law was on our side though, that we were pretty much free to film on all public space as long as we were safe about it, but pretty much all the time, a courteous ask to a subject usually got some good results.
"Maikha"


Yes, sorry, I should have written that more clearly. News Cameramen and crews have never approached us to get any up close and way too personal shots of us. They have filmed us while they and we're on railway property, they never ask us (because we'd say no
Laughing ) but they never approach us (they probably know we're not allowed to speak to the media). The ones I'm bitching about are the hinderers, the ones who are filming us to "protect" the offenders, who nearly and sometimes have hit us in the face while filming. They invade personal space a lot more than your average gunzel filming at the side of the reserves does. So unless a gunzel is filming in a dangerous spot or  trespassing, it doesn't bother me where they film or shoot pics.

I did like after the Ombudman report came out, we were booking 1 idiot, 6 of his mates show up, start carrying on. Some random do-gooder starts filming us because "we're thugs and bash people." The 6 mates then start charging and threatening the do-gooder because he's filming. We separate them, then they turn all sweet towards him when he tells them he hates us and is filming "to protect their friend, because we assault people all the time, the newspaper said so. " Mind you, there was only 3 of us there, dealing with 8 people, and they need protection from us. Shame, Duty of Care prevents us from letting him get bashed by the ferals and having his phone stolen in front of us.
  Webslave Site Admin

Location: Altona, Melbourne
There's a lot of bluster going on in this thread, and a lot of rubbish about rights to privacy.  Can anyone cite here a tort of privacy existing in Australia?

It is not illegal to photograph a rail worker going about their business unless they are in a situation where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (and that's reasonable as tested in court, not by what they may think is reasonable).  It doesn't matter whether you, they, or both of you are on private land or not.  If you've been asked not to photograph by the landowner or their lawful representative while on private land then you are to cease filming, regardless of what you're pointing the camera at.  You can subsequently happily film that private land from either another piece of private land, or public land without too much trouble.

That's not the end of it, there is laws regarding harassment, defamation, obscenity, and decency to consider.  Gunzels taking photos of trains generally don't have problems with these issues, however.

As a rail worker you may not like being in people's photographs or films, but you really don't get much of a say.  Your permission to film you is not a requisite for them to film you.  If you don't like the idea of potentially being caught out doing the wrong thing, then my advice is to avoid doing the wrong thing.  If, however, your reputation is tarnished by a photograph or film (or commentary by the photographer thereof) that conveys an inaccurate or misleading message about you, then you are entitled to pursue the photographer under defamation laws.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.