posted
This is from the capitol hill newspaper "Roll Call"
----------------------------
Norton Seeks Uniform Photo Rules for Station By Alison McSherry Roll Call Staff July 29, 2008
Congress has asked Union Station to draw up a clear policy on photography following a hearing last week at which it became apparent that there has long been confusion over rules regarding shutterbugs at the historic railway station.
“The public access grievances of residents and others are particularly disturbing to me,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who is chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. “We had Union Station gloriously redone precisely because we wanted it to be a majestic public space. I want it to be photographed.”
Because the station is managed by three different entities — the Union Station Redevelopment Corp., the leaseholder Ashkenazy and management agent Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. — the photo policy, as it relates to media and amateur photographers, has not always been clear. Citing First Amendment violations, Norton has requested an outline for a new policy within 30 days and a final policy within 60 days.
“I’ve asked them to get a First Amendment lawyer and others who are experts in this matter,” she said. “I’m not saying that every corner of the facility should be open at all times, but you need to have somebody familiar with the caseload do it rather than flying by the seat of their pants the way they have been.”
Norton has also offered the subcommittee staff as a resource, saying that Union Station should not shoulder all the blame for conflicting rules.
“I suppose the important point is to understand that these people have been left without any Congressional oversight despite the fact that it’s a federal facility,” she said. “They’ve made rules up as they go along and some of these rules violate the First Amendment.”
Amtrak spokeswoman Karina Romero said the company, which operates out of the station, traditionally allows ticketholders to take photos on the platforms of the station and allows nonticketholders to shoot in the waiting area. She added that Amtrak is ready and willing to draft a photography policy with Jones Lang LaSalle Inc., Ashkenazy and the Union Station Redevelopment Corp.
“The difficulty here is that so many entities are involved. It’s not all Amtrak,” she said. “It’s confusing for us. It’s confusing for those people who have to enforce it, as well as the customer.”
The delegate credits testimony delivered at last week’s hearing by amateur photographer Erin McCann, who has repeatedly dealt with the vague policy, as the impetus for taking action. McCann presented to the committee detailed records of when and why she has been asked to stop taking photos at the station. The reasons she was stopped vary from the type of camera she used to guards simply telling her there is a no-photography rule.
“There are communication breakdowns on so many levels because there are so many people that are supposed to be in charge of Union Station and no one person will go and say, ‘Knock it off and let these people take their pictures,’” McCann said in a phone interview.
There is currently a sign on the entrance doors leading to the station that says photography is prohibited. Norton wants to see this removed, along with other signs claiming the building is private property. She is also asking that the rules be posted on the station’s Web site.
Another key to a clear policy is making sure all the security guards at the station know what the rules are, Norton said.
“The photo policy, for example, will not matter if the security guards have not been totally retrained,” she said. “We have got to see a new training regimen so everybody is saying the same thing.”
Posts: 416 | From: St. Albans, Vermont | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example of Homeland Security policies gone amoke. Its time for American citizens to stand up and say we are tired of this harassment.Big Brother is still alive and waiting to take your rights away.
Posts: 87 | From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that Homeland Security as an institution can be blamed specifically for this contretemps -- it seems to be more a combination of unclear policies among differing entities plus overeager rent-a-cops.
But the national paranoia that Homeland Security represents certainly is part of the problem.
It's not limited to DC Union Station but is prevalent everywhere in the United States.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never had a problem taking videos or photographs ANYWHERE in Union Station, and I have never seen the sign on the door mentioned above.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Volks, I have a question of our "mall rats" around here (the only reason I have occasion to go near the one by me, Oakbrook Center, is that's where "Dr. Drill's' office is located - and I've had to see a little more of him lately than I wish were the case). What policy, if any, do the malls' management have with regards to amaetur photography?
I can understand an aversion to having photos taken within the premises of a business for competitive and privacy reasons, and maybe that even extends to the common premises as well (traffic counts I would think are proprietary). To further this point, when at a restaurant a party desires a group photo to be taken at a table, the staff is happy to oblige; lest the photo include details of either head count or "someone sitting with someone they should not be sitting with".
But even I am inclined to say, "who cares".
Besides it's unenforceable; is security going to nail every last Hannah Montana tweenie with her cell phone (I understand cell phones take photos; for all I know or care, my present one can do same)?
Now regarding Wash Union Station rail facilities, I know I disagree with the main stream of thought (and even more so than over at "paytopostland") on that around here; let's just leave it at that.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who has many years of photographic experience under my belt, I say having a clear and legal policy at WAS is way overdue. Actually, the laws have been pretty clear for quite a long time, so clear policies shouldn't be that difficult.
Generally speaking: You can take pictures of anybody or anything from any public place or publicly accessible place (this includes transportation facilities). About the only exceptions are military bases or places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy (like their backyard).
Nobody has a right to confiscate your film or digital media unless they are a law enforcement officer arresting you for a crime (and photography itself is not a crime). Private security guards do NOT have the authority, and if they use threats or coersion to obtain your film they are in violation of the law.
posted
In the real world, telling a belligerent rent-a-cop (or even a genuine one) that what he's doing is illegal can be a good way to get inconvenienced, even roughed up.
One way to solve this problem, a photographer for the newspaper I worked for told me, is to tug one's forelock, say "yessir, I didn't know, I'm sorry," open the camera's memory card door and instead of taking the card out, offer the cop a worn-out or kaput card hidden in your palm.
Later, complain to the authorities.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those posting to this thread apparently have not seen a hilarious bit of video that made the rounds of the Internet a couple of months ago. A camera crew from a local TV station was interviewing Cliff Black of Amtrak, in Union Station, about photography policies. He was in the middle of telling the reporter that Amtrak allows photography anywhere in its portion of the station when a rent-a-cop showed up and loudly told the TV cameraman, "No photos!".
Apparently there is a disconnect between Amtrak's policy and that of the developers/operators of the Union Station retail complex.
Posts: 614 | From: Merchantville, NJ. USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that one, RResor. It was hilarious, indeed, but it was also bathetic.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that one, RResor. It was hilarious, indeed, but it was also bathetic.
I think we ALL saw it, and that MontanaJim posted the original message in this thread as a follow-up.
(Or was that on another railroad forum? I am getting old and can't keep my forums straight, although I remember enough not to call them fora.)
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've encountered similar problems at LA Union Station, but I believe the difference is that LA Union station is privately owned. Nevertheless, it irkes me. It's rules for the sake of having rules. I stopped into LAUS to take pictures and I was told unless I had a valid ticket, I was loitering and would have to leave. When I tried to reason with him, the security guard got beligerent and threatened to have me removed for trespassing. I wasn't in anybody's way. I was just snapping pictures. It doesn't make sense. Public money is used to restore these landmarks, but then we can't appreciate them? Or is this just a case of security guards who have nothing better to do with their time? Power for power's sake...nothing new under the sun.
-------------------- Patrick Posts: 387 | From: Bakersfield, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
