April 3, 2008
Union Station Loves/Hates Photographers
We've reported a few times on the issues that photographers run into with security around the D.C. area. In fact, stories of photographers being wrongly told that they're not allowed to take pictures happens so often that there's a whole group on Flickr dedicated to fighting against it.
A few interesting stories have popped up this week, including the WUSA9 article about the Secret Service ordering a tourist to delete his photos at the National's opener on Sunday. Over on Flickr, a long discussion thread has started about the ongoing problems of photographers being harassed at Union Station. You know, that arriving point for many a tourist, camera in hand? Flickr user lightboxdc intervened when an Amtrak employee ordered a tourist to stop taking pictures of her friends near the arrival/departure gates. He tried to insist that Amtrak policy says nothing about non-commercial photography, but to no avail.
The continuing problem here, whether we're talking about Union Station, Metro, or even just standing on the street is that nobody seems to know anything about the rules they're enforcing. So many folks have encountered problems at Union Station that one Flickr photographer, erin m, has been trying to get a straight answer from station officials for months now. While she waited she scoured their web site for a clear policy, and though she didn't find one, she did find a whole page on their — oh yes — photo contest that includes images of Amtrak trains and stations. Yeesh.
Erin m finally did get a hold of the station manager two days ago, who told her all photography was prohibited without a permit. As discussion and confusion on the Flickr thread continued, she called again, this time to the Amtrak Media/Corporate Relations Department, where she was told that non-commercial photography in the Amtrak station is definitely allowed, and that the station manager and employees are wrong to enforce otherwise. Of course, the mall area of Union Station is owned by a different company, who reserves the right to prohibit photography. Confusion much?
It would be nice if owners and employees of these areas could just get together and straighten out their stance on the issue, rather than have photographers hear one thing, only to be confronted by security about their rule-abiding actions or have 9/11 thrown in their faces for any reason under the sun. We were somewhat amused by this statement from the Secret Service officer at the Nats game, "We have the authority to ask them to remove the picture from the camera," to which we have to say, "Then I have the right to decline," though we'll refrain from encouraging you to do so, to the Secret Service at least, lest we buy you a one-way ticket to Gitmo. (But we will direct you to this clever fail-safe.)
We'll offer you the following document again: The Photographer's Right (pdf) — which you may want to print out and keep in your camera bag. If you're approached by security telling you to put away your camera, don't lose your cool, but do ask to see the specific policy they're referring to. You won't always win, and in some cases there may be a decent reason for a strict rule, but standing your ground is the only way to push back so many illogical "security" rules being enforced that simply don't exist in the first place.
Photo of Amtrak train at Union Station by brownpau
|
I like how the WUSA9 article goes right to the ACLU quote, but also that the lawyer says ASK is the operative word. I can just picture it:
Authoritative Secret Service Guy: "Sir, for national security, you are ASKED to delete that photo. Right now."
Kowtowed Kitizen: "Say pretty please?? ...Simon says..." (stuffed into a bag, and thrown into a van)
There was also a recent incident in NJ where people were taking pictures of Picatinny Arsenal (from public property).. the authorities went so far as to shut down a highway for 3 hours. They ultimately decided that there were no laws broken and no reason for suspicion.
Maybe take fotos while draped in an American Flag?
I always like to point out that having more random people taking more photos of more "sensitive" locations actually makes everyone safer, so all of these photography prohibitions are stupid and counterproductive. If a major terrorist plot or attack is uncovered, there's a chance they're in the background of a tourist's photo. A dangerous structural crack may be uncovered by a photograph of a bridge posted on Flickr (and I'm sure you'd get yeled at for taking pics of the underside of a bridge). The security paranoia around here really gets on my nerves.
I always carry the "Photographers Rights" (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) paper with me in case situations like this arise. I've actually had to bust it out once at Union Station, not for a Security Guard or Police Officer, but from a paranoid civilian telling me I couldn't photograph them.
I've got to assume that a lot of serious photographers are familiar with this, but here's a very handy reference guide to legal rights for photographers.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm (It's linked in a PDF on that page)
Thanks guys, I also linked to the Photographer's Right in the post. :)
Easiest way to keep Union Station photo-free: Hire Amish Ninjas as security guards. They'll shun yo asses back to the 18th century.
I'll admit that I did not read any of the lengthy discussions on flickr, but I imagine that they are biased toward the side of photographers. This, like many other posts i've read on this subject, neglect to mention 1 VERY important rule. BE NICE.
When security approaches me at night with my camera and tripod set up aiming at the capitol, I simply explain to them that I'm a hobbyist taking pictures. When they ask me for my license or to look in my camera bag, i comply enthusiastically. Don't get defensive, don't cop an attitude, don't pull out a printed off pdf downloaded from some website, just be nice. They will more than likely let you get a few more shots and then send you on your way. No big deal. It's not like union station is going anywhere anytime soon.
Hmm, is the last paragraph not showing up on the site...?
rudavis -- As for neglecting to mention "be nice," I thought that's what I meant by "don't lose your cool." Being rude and overly confrontational doesn't really get you anywhere, except maybe into a pair of handcuffs, on occasion, but it does make all photographers look bad and security guards more likely to try to beat them down.
rudavis - If you want to "comply enthusiastically", then by all means go ahead. Some of us have a different view of the authorities, especially when they make demands outside of the scope of their powers.
But if security stops hassling photographers, who will be left to marginalize them? Better yet, what will security do all damned day?
The irony is that the authorities, whoever they may be, are clamping down on individual photographers, while on the other hand the government is putting up more and more security, surveillance, speed and red light cameras so that we're always being filmed, but don't dare take a photo ourselves. Not good.
The Secret Service works in large part on intimidation. They often don't have the actual authority to enforce their demands, but you'll have spent some time in jail and they'll be long gone by the time you're proven right. They kicked me off my own deck and forced my entire building to close its windows, once (campaign rally for Clinton, in 96).
And this rubs off on the TSA - see http://flickr.com/photos/blacknell/2256691978/
RUDAVIS: it is a little different though than the cause of this post. The person was a tourist taking a picture of their friends at the Arrivals/Departure area of Union Station. I am assuming with a run-of-the-mill digital camera.
They weren't out there with tripod in hand, getting shots of the facade of the Capitol for a hobby. I can understand your logic and agree with your situation.
But, these are tourist taking pictures of their travels. The subject in the photo was them, and not of Union Station per se. I mean seriously, who wants a picture of the Union Station Arrival pen? Such poor lighting for my delicate skin.
I use a free online service that automatically uploads pictures taken with my cameraphone to Flickr and/or Picasa. If they seize my phone or make me delete the pics, they're too late!
www . shozu . com
But that, of course, doesn't do anything to get my phone back if they confiscate it...
"They will more than likely let you get a few more shots and then send you on your way."
Are there regulations against taking pictures of the Capitol now? If not, they can't "let" you take pictures of something they have no authority to forbid you to take pictures of, nor can they "send you on your way". If you want to submit to an unreasonable search, that's your business, and so is it your business if you want to comply with a command someone has no authority to give, but "being nice" is a separate issue from rolling over when you're in the right.
Ian, the Capitol grounds are one of the half-dozen or so spots that prohibit tripod photography. Sometimes they're on top of this, sometimes not. And sometimes a nice cop will take his time coming over to you to tell you to move along, so you can get your few shots and then everyone's happy.
Anything else, though, and the cops are out of bounds. And yes, Rudavis, I'm going to tell them that if/when they try to tell me otherwise. I'll be polite about it, but I will definitely engage them and get names.
Thanks, shesgone, I wasn't aware. Though I'm used to seeing people taking tripod shots of the Capitol from some distance away, so I was more imagining that scenario than someone who was right up on the grounds...
Obviously, spots like the Pentagon and The White House have rules and solid reasons forbidding photography, but I've never understood how anal some malls are - especially when most of them have a Ritz or Penn Camera in it.
What, are the terrorists going to war over the benefits of Orange Julius or Robeks, and start a citrus jihad?
Probably not Orange Julius, but I wouldn't be surprised if something went down at Sears.
um...telecomic? What "solid reasons" could the white house have for forbidding photography? It's one of the most recognizable and documented buildings in the world, and I can hop on over to Google satellite maps and look at the darn thing from a pretty juicy angle.
(They don't, by the way, prohibit photography. Just tripod stuff, for semi-bogus reasons.)
I still remember the time one of the Capitol police officers stopped me, asked for my ID and wanted to look at my pictures. I said NO to all three. They have NO RIGHT to make you do anything.
Telecomic:
Standard suburban shopping malls tend to have very active security that is accustomed to being pushy because they have to deal with issues related to kids young and old. They have an active involvement with teenagers (and others) keeping them from bothering "paying customers" and shoplifting. And they play to the interests of parents with young kids who are often very worried about people taking photos of their kids.
Where as I am an incredibly strong support of photographers rights, I don't personally think the fight is worth it in a standard shopping mall. There concerns are related to security, but more along the lines of shoplifting and kidnapping.
Union Station, however, is anything but a standard mall. They are a transit center, a mall, and a national historic landmark. Each would typically have different security approaches, and they have to find a way to put all three together.
The most depressing part to me is not that they have trouble figuring it out, but that what they say is there policy and intention are is not what the train and put into practice.
i'm in agreement with those who tend to (politely) fight back. this is a simple case of creeping authoritarianism. if you, in a representative democracy, allow those whose authority explicitly flows downstream from your vote, to have the right to get away with things that are not within the realm of reason, they will simply stretch it further every time.
give the government (and it's agents) an inch, and they'll take a mile.
i'm no conspiracy theorist or paultard libertarian extremist, but this just makes me want to say "keep your filthy hands off my rights"