# Washington D.C. Metro Photography



## MyCameraEye (Jan 9, 2006)

I seached around the forums for a good place to post this story and could not find any better place then this being this is a story about a perticular LOCATION...

What is this country coming too? I was on the way home today with my D70 and a small 50mm lens on it. I decided while waiting for the train to come it to take a few motion blur shots of the arriving train on the opposite side of the tracks. I noticed this particular day there was more metro security guards then I've ever seen in the station at one time. Anyways, As I took my lens cap off someone yelled "NO PICTURES" and I turned around and did not see where it came from so I thought someone might have been talking to someone else and then as I was about to shoot a picture, I heard voice say "I SAID NO PICTURES". I then noticed a security guard LADY sitting on the bench all relaxed and slouched down not even standing and looking professional as a authority figure should be. I walked up to her and said, "No pictures?" She said no pictures of trains. We are speaking cave man at this point it seems. So I went on to tell her I've taken my camera in the metro many times and taken many pictures of trains, people, turn styles, ticket vending machines etc. and this is the first I've ever heard of this. I do not see any signs posted saying "no photography in the metro" anywhere. I asked her if the metro station is considered a public place, she said yes, I then told her she has no right saying I can not take a picture of a wall or a train or anything of the nature. I have read my legal books well about public photography though I know there are some gray areas. She said she could write me a citation if I like and then they would have to take my camera away. I knew she would need a legally written warrant to confiscate my camera but to avoid further confrontation; I told her no thanks and walked away. What the hell country is this? I know security should be tight but there were a lot of people with cameras cell phone cameras all using them so this was kind of stupid. I plan to write metro an official letter about the incident and get the official word and then keep this in my camera bag with me for next time.


----------



## JonMikal (Jan 9, 2006)

love your website. your work is exceptional!


----------



## MyCameraEye (Jan 9, 2006)

JonMikal said:
			
		

> love your website. your work is exceptional!


 
Jon,

Thank you very much for the kinds words. I am looking forward to shooting with you the next time you and Jo and the whomever else meets up. I meant to include this update on my original post but I neglected to include it but this SHOULD clear things up and also I plan on keeping a copy with of this with me when ever shooting metro photography.

The Official Rules from WMATA:

_(2) Still photography that does not require a tripod, special lighting, film crews, models, impair the normal ingress/egress or operation of Authority services and can be accomplished by a hand held camera by one person is not regulated. Requests for photographic access that involve a camera crew of three or less, two pieces of lighting equipment or less, does not involve the use of a tripod, does not require assistance of Authority technical personnel or significantly impair the normal ingress/egress or operations will be allowed. Requests for a permit must be made two working days prior to the requested date of photography. Photography and filming that requires the use of models, special lighting equipment beyond two pieces, tripods, assistance and supervision from Authority staff, crews of more than three, or that impairs ingress/egress or normal system operations shall be governed by Section 100.8(a)(i). Television and newspaper press crews of five or fewer individuals and without any "plug-in" equipment are not subject to this regulation._

_The above excerpt can be found on WMATAs official web at the following location on the bottom of page 8. _

http://www.wmata.com/about/parp_docs/UseRegulations.pdf


----------



## JonMikal (Jan 9, 2006)

very good research and certainly something to keep in your bag :thumbup:


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jan 11, 2006)

Patriot Act forbids photographing of transpiration, power plates, bridges and etc


----------



## JonMikal (Jan 11, 2006)

it may not be in effect for the meet-up. it was due to expire at the end of 2005 but was extended for 30 days. guess we'll see what congress does with it in a few weeks.


----------



## n2ncq (Jan 25, 2006)

Patriot Act does not forbids photographing of transpiration, power plantes,
Bridges , Etc

Please read this I think it will clear up a lot !
 *Transit Photography and the "Patriot" Act: No Excuse for Harassment*


 We have received the following information from Portland (OR) lawyer Bert P. Krages, author of _The Photographers Right  A Downloadable Flyer_ www.krages.com/phoright.htm; he is also the author of _Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images_ available at [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158428059X/qid=1083974161/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-3821723-7372045?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"]Amazon[/ame].

_There is a lot of misunderstanding about what the Patriot Act covers. The Act's major provisions expand the government's authority to conduct surveillance, take measures against money laundering, and administer immigration laws. While the Act made some relatively modest amendments to the federal criminal code, it did not give law enforcement agencies expanded powers to restrict or prohibit photography. The only provisions in the Act that directly deal with photography are authorizations for the government to procure more photographic equipment so that law enforcement agencies can better protect the public. Sadly, many law enforcement and security personnel are oblivious to the fact that public safety is enhanced when citizens monitor and photograph public areas. For example, while none of the recent incidents of terrorism in the United States such as the September 11 attacks or the Oklahoma City bombing were dependent on the perpetrators photographing their intended targets, there have been many instances of photographers who have been unlawfully stopped, detained or harassed in the name of security. Ironically, visual monitoring programs such as "Neighborhood Watch" are encouraged by many law enforcement agencies as an effective means of controlling crime. Fostering the rights of citizen photographers to document their environments is something that should be encouraged from the public safety perspective.
_

We are grateful to Mr. Krages for confirming what we had suspected previously: the federal Patriot Act of 2001 does not empower police to impose a ban on photography at any location in the interest of national security, nor to confiscate cameras.

(The Patriot Act is formally titled the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001) 

As we stated in our previous post, it would not surprise us to learn that some law-enforcement personnel have used lines such as this to intimidate the unwary. The majority of U.S. peace officers abide by the laws they are sworn to uphold, but a minority is known to resort to unethical and unlawful tactics. 

The management of the New Jersey Transit Corporation must now act forthwith to end unlawful harassment of individuals excising their legal right to take photographs of whatever they wish when in a public place.

    Posted by msetty at 16:11:17. Filed under: "Friendly Facism" Rides the Bus & Train? 



Bob Campbell


----------



## josephD (Feb 21, 2006)

man i really like your work, i am intrested in buying a nikon D-50 or 70. i also live in DC, never really thought about taking shoots in metro.i am just getting into the photography world.


----------



## ralfsmith (Feb 26, 2006)

Oh its very interesting. Could you provide me more information ?
johntvery@operamail.com
johntvery@hotmail.com


----------



## girlbeautifulVIETNAM (Apr 20, 2006)

www.namhuynh.com photo very beautiful


----------

