Photography forbidden on dart?

xshayx

Was on the dart last night, had the camera out. Was approached by two security guards and told that photography of or on irish railroad property is forbidden.... anyone else experienced this?

Fenster

Nope, I've used cameras on trains more than once and have had no problems. I remember on one occasion I had my 30D and a film camera both over my shoulder with no comments raised.

311

Maybe it has something to do with stopping theft.

If they told you to be careful with your equipment ,you would probably laugh.

decsramble

This is getting beyond a joke. Cant take photos here, cant have a camera there, soon it'll be forbidden to own a camera in Ireland.

This is not turning into a police state, it's turning into a security company state. The sole qualification of those muppets is they can button the shirt that comes with the job.

Paulw

xshayx wrote: »

Was on the dart last night, had the camera out. Was approached by two security guards and told that photography of or on irish railroad property is forbidden.... anyone else experienced this?

Total rubbish. Next time, tell them they can call the Gardai if they have an issue with it. You're not breaking any laws, and there are no signs to the effect that you can't take photographs.

You should also take their details and make a complaint to Irish Rail.

rymus

and dont forget to take a photo of them to accompany the complaint!

Borderfox

Its a bit much all this, getting like a police state with jobsworths stopping you taking shots here and there. I got stopped in Belgium taking shots outside a retail outlet. I showed them the shots of the monument in the background that I was taken and still got a load of bull off them, told them to shove it and get the cops and I would explain the harrassment to them

stcstc

but if you are on private property, the owner has the right to stop you taking shots, its their property

Covey

Yeah, was going to mention the private property bit as well.

However, when you think about it it's state owned and that means me and you as well. Be interesting to see what is private in this sense?


T.

newbusiness

stcstc wrote: »

but if you are on private property, the owner has the right to stop you taking shots, its their property

Correct, while you're physically on their property they can. You can shoot it from afar (public property) as much as you want, so long as their "expectation of privacy" isn't breached, ie a 600mm telephoto from a crane outside an apartment window would be out, but not a 50mm from a public street.

Is the Dart public or private though?
If it's public tell them to go stuff themselves.

stcstc

I agree its a little grey if it public or private

but i guess if it were public we could all sit with the driver or dance down track

I guess its the same with government buildings or limos, but we aint all allowed to travel i them

pete4130

sitting with the driver and dancing onthe track are prohibitted as it is dangerous not because it isn't a public area. while it is state owned, CIE or IE are responsible for the property and have legal obligations in relation to that.
I agree its stupid not to be allowed to take photos on the DART.
It could have been 2 gombeens with nothing better to do.

templeathea

Its the same old story. It is up to them if they want to forbid Photography but what exactly will they do if you don't comply? Call the Gardai? I am sure the Guards will be delighted to be dragged out of a warm station to come and apprehend another member of the notorious 'SLR club'. And what would you be charged with? Trespassing? Without any signs up and without evidence of any damage being done coupled with the fact that you are invited to come on to their property means their case is nonsense and would be treated so in court.

If they start this crap we should organise a mass photography session on the DART

templeathea

decsramble wrote: »

This is not turning into a police state, it's turning into a security company state. The sole qualification of those muppets is they can button the shirt that comes with the job.

You are over estimating their ability. They use press studs.

Borderfox

templeathea wrote: »

You are over estimating their ability. They use press studs.

Paulw

There is nothing on the IrishRail website anywhere that states that photography is forbidden. There are no signs anywhere on/near the DART that says photography is not permitted. There are no by-laws that says that photography on the rail network is not permitted.

These guys have no right to harass you. I've used my camera on the DART and LUAS before, and never had an issue.

isadub

I can't find anything but there is this (conditions of travel):
Which mentions:

Nuisance use of radios, recorders or musical instruments, (buskers etc) and prohibits hawkers or sellers of any kind.

Could a camera be a recorder??

It also mentions:

Suburban Rail entitles authorised persons to demand name and address from persons offending against bye-laws or suspected of such offences.

Maybe the photography ban can be found in the 'bye-laws' but you can't search their site for 'bye-laws' since the '-' is an invalid operator....

Did the s'curity guards have peaked caps? Sounds like they were just throwing their weight around.

xshayx

He wasnt really being pushy about it.... but other ones might if its what they're being told to enforce...

Him "you're not allowed to ...."
Me "I'm not"
Him "Just so you know"

Least it wasnt like my incident in NY where the cop took the camera, got annoyed cause they werent staying on for long enough, then deleted them!

5uspect

templeathea wrote: »

You are over estimating their ability. They use press studs.

I even had a clip on tie!
Happy days...

m_stan

I had a similar incident while taking a photo in Easons almost exactly a year ago. While I understand this is private property and the security god was within his rights, it's still stupid. I was hardly doing any harm. Still got the shot though, so I won

Wouldn't stop me doing it again either. :eek:

pixbyjohn

During Greystones Summer Festival I and many more were taking shots of the street parade and a Garda came up to me and said I was not allowed to take any photos of a garda or of a Garda station in Ireland. I find this strange as I constantly see photos of gardai in the papers, eg, at the Shell to sea protest and at the Labour day parade in Dublin a few years ago.
Also I was informed that I could not photograph Greystones dart station from the footbridge by the guy in the ticket office.

faceman

Why not email irish rail and ask them about it? Or if you dont get an answer email george hook, he regularly has the PR dude from irish rail on the show.

stcstc

I was told it is against the law to photograph a Gaurd on duty. I think the exception is where it in public interest and news

Masada

I had a similar thing walking around in brown thomas with a camera around my neck, wasnt even using it (was a compact, Lumix LX2)., and another time in bray train station aswell (where i was using the camera, a D80),. my answer is to them simple, if they are approaching you about a camera then they obviously have nothing better to do as security personell and there are no indications to say you cant take photos there, just say "Fuk off! and they wont bother you., the one who approached me in bray grabbed the front of my lens and said "heeyor ya cant take pitchurs in heeyor!", I nearly smacked him with the thing over the head.,lol, how dare he touch my camera, if i had let it fall and broke it he would have been a sorry man., needless to say he left me alone in the end.,:D

you would think they have enough junkies and all sorts to deal with rather than bothering decent folk who only intend to take a photo.,

decsramble

vtec wrote: »

the one who approached me in bray grabbed the front of my lens and said "heeyor ya cant take pitchurs in heeyor!",

Politely inform him that he has just assaulted you and if he touches you or your camera again you are going to make a complaint to the Gardai :-)

Masada

i always wish afterwards i could have been that calm but when stuff like that happens im too volitile.,lol

Coupster

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_seize_films_from_photo_enthusiast_Photographer_insists_his_street_photography_pics_in_Hull_were_legal_Humberside_Police_investigate_as_photographer_files_complaint_news_169825.html

Sorry for the long link but this is an example of where it can go a bit too far!

tnkrbell

Dear god pretty soon we wont be allowed to take any pictures in public places.What's going to happen is street photography will be a thing of the past

This is an article printed in Amateur photographer http://tinyurl.com/29zbfm

decsramble

Photography is now forbidden, please form an orderly queue on the right of my desk and leave your cameras and lenses here for *ahem* destruction. You can destroy your own kit lenses but 300mm 2.8s to the front of the queue please. ;-)

But seriously the earlier suggestion of contacting Newstalk when the CIE guy is on George Hooks show is a good one. If anyone hears a day or so in advance that he will be on post a message and we should all txt in complaints.

bernard0368

I had the same experiance with a security guy on the luas. In fairness he was very polite about it explaining that the company was required to provide a safe comfortable and hassle free journey. He asked me not to take any shots as some people might feel uncomfortable and may not be where they should be.

5uspect

decsramble wrote: »

Politely inform him that he has just assaulted you and if he touches you or your camera again you are going to make a complaint to the Gardai :-)

Rule no 1 of security as I was told is never never ever touch anyone.
Too much of a legal liability.

axer

Many people don't like the thought of someone with a camera out to take pictures of the public around them - especially when they don't notice when you take the pictures. It would kinda make me feel uncomfortable and that is not fair on me or anyone else as a result. So even from that point of view I am glad they told you to stop even though that wasn't their reason.

magicbastarder

i have no issue with candid photography being prohibited on the dart; as has been pointed out, it's invasive to other passengers, and i'm sure security don't want the hassle of having to deal with a photographer whose lens has been inserted rectally by a disgruntled punter who objects to having his photo taken.

mikeanywhere

On a recent commercial job, the police came up to me wanting to know what I was doing as they had received a complaint. When I explained what I was doing, who I was doing it for, they apologised for the confusion and walked up to the guy and told him to sod off for wasting their time.

I felt good!!!!!!!

AnCatDubh

decsramble wrote: »

Politely inform him that he has just assaulted you and if he touches you or your camera again you are going to make a complaint to the Gardai :-)

Strange but technically i think you are quite correct. I can recall reading that in legal terms, assault is the threat whilst assault and battery is the carrying out of the threat.

Masada

strange coincidence actually, i became involved in photography when i was at school and they ran a photography course sponsored by none other than "iarnrod eireann".,lol now that i think about it we went to conolly dart staion (the one thats closed now) to take pics as a class outing.,

Thirdfox

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Strange but technically i think you are quite correct. I can recall reading that in legal terms, assault is the threat whilst assault and battery is the carrying out of the threat.

They've simplified it to the term "assault" for both the threat and battery.

Personally when I'm on private property I respect their rules (however I will not delete previous images that I've already taken before the trespass was committed).

Many shopping centres apparently do not let you take photos either (especially in the United States). It's their land, you're just a guest there (but with the DART you're a paying guest so they have no right to eject you unless you were formally breaking the rules).

axer

Thirdfox wrote: »

(but with the DART you're a paying guest so they have no right to eject you unless you were formally breaking the rules).

they do if it is effecting other paying guests which in this case it actually does.

Thirdfox

I do not think so - even if you are affecting other guests (which the OP wasn't it would seem) the contract between the DART service and himself has to be fulfilled i.e. he gets to travel from A to B. If there is nothing in the terms and conditions in the contract that he is breaking then they cannot legally eject him.

Mint Sauce

there is a similar rule, not sure how accurate it is, or how its enforced, about taking pictures on the london undergound, think it may be more about the flash distracting drivers or the underground symbol being copyright

axer

Thirdfox wrote: »

I do not think so - even if you are affecting other guests (which the OP wasn't it would seem) the contract between the DART service and himself has to be fulfilled i.e. he gets to travel from A to B. If there is nothing in the terms and conditions in the contract that he is breaking then they cannot legally eject him.

No it does not have to be fulfilled.

Section 2 (2) of CORAS IOMPAIR &#201 wrote: »

Any person offending against any of the following Bye-Laws numbered, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 and failing to desist or quit, or failing to comply with the Bye-Law as the case may be, when requested so to do by an authorised person may be removed from the railway or any part thereof or any lift or vehicle by an authorised person without prejudice, where any penalty is prescribed as aforesaid for the contravention of any such Bye-Law, to such penalty.

How do you know that he wasn't effecting other customers? I know if I was there I would not like the idea of not being able to sneez, sleep or pick my nose with a camera possibly recording it.

Section 23 (1) of CORAS IOMPAIR &#201 wrote: »

No person while upon the railway or in any vehicle shall to the annoyance of any other person or if requested not to do so by an authorised person, sing, perform on any musical or other instrument or use any gramophone, record player, tape recorder or portable wireless or television apparatus.

I think that covers it.

Masada

the emphasis there should be on,

sing, perform on any musical or other instrument or use any gramophone, record player, tape recorder or portable wireless or television apparatus.

it doesnt say anything about photography and theres no T&Cs to say, "or botther commuters in any other way" etc., in fact all of those conditions are based on Annoying commuters by noise/sound etc,.,

axer

Actually just noticed it was the DART the OP was on. According to section 6(1)(f) of the LIGHT RAILWAY (REGULATION OF TRAVEL AND USE) BYE-LAWS 2004

6. (1) A person shall not on a light rail vehicle or a light railway without permission given by or on behalf of an operator
(f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person

I think this covers it exactly in this case.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/si/0100.html

joolsveer

axer wrote: »

Actually just noticed it was the DART the OP was on. According to section 6(1)(f) of the LIGHT RAILWAY (REGULATION OF TRAVEL AND USE) BYE-LAWS 2004

I think this covers it exactly in this case.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/si/0100.html

I believe the term "light railway" applies only to the Luas. Dart is "heavy railway" in that it mixes with mainline trains.

trooney

axer wrote: »

... I know if I was there I would not like the idea of not being able to sneez, sleep or pick my nose with a camera possibly recording it...

Better just stay in bed so. Haven't you noticed the CCteevee cameras at pretty much every street corner these days? Surely these are the cameras that people should be more concerned about. Surely these are the cameras that are more obtrusive. How can somebody say they are concerned about their image being recorded when their every move is recorded anyway? Its people being petty and a little silly. The majority of people don't complain. Only the occasional person. Its a little petty and small minded of people to have an over inflated image of self importance if they think the amature photog on the street is 'stalking' them in anyway. IMO.

axer

trooney wrote: »

Better just stay in bed so. Haven't you noticed the CCteevee cameras at pretty much every street corner these days? Surely these are the cameras that people should be more concerned about. Surely these are the cameras that are more obtrusive. How can somebody say they are concerned about their image being recorded when their every move is recorded anyway? Its people being petty and a little silly. The majority of people don't complain. Only the occasional person. Its a little petty and small minded of people to have an over inflated image of self importance if they think the amature photog on the street is 'stalking' them in anyway. IMO.

The last I checked you won't see a close up of me on flickr from those cameras. I am not that bothered about it - I still wouldn't like the idea of someone possibly taking photos of me when I don't know - but I can imagine there are some that absolutely hate the idea. There are also those that are in witness protection and the likes and thus don't like some randomer taking photos of them and possibly posting them on the net.

Masada

I was walking down the quays one morning and a photographer came up an snapped my pic., it was near the court so i presume he mistook me for someone else.,lol, was annoying though.,
and yes, id be more concerned by the fact that every thing you do is recorded on CCTV rather than worrying about a photographer.,

xshayx

axer wrote: »

Actually just noticed it was the DART the OP was on. According to section 6(1)(f) of the LIGHT RAILWAY (REGULATION OF TRAVEL AND USE) BYE-LAWS 2004
(f) use any camera or video recorder or any form of equipment for recording sound or images so as to interfere with any other person

Well me and my friend were the only ones in that carriage, (only had the camera out cause i was recommending him to get a 50mm 1.8 and was showing him) if it was day time and i wanted to take a photo of Killiney Bay, or friends sitting with me, would that be interfering with other passangers??
Surely if its such a big deal there should be signs up saying its prohibited.

Technically leaving someone a voicemail is recording sound

Still no reply from dart...

Cabaal

Does this mean Irish Rail have to ban all mobile phones with camera's, after all I don;t feel comfortable that somebody could take my picture with one

Kali

irish-stew wrote: »

there is a similar rule, not sure how accurate it is, or how its enforced, about taking pictures on the london undergound, think it may be more about the flash distracting drivers or the underground symbol being copyright

It's enforced alright... I've seen a fair few amateurs with tripods getting the riot act read to them (and seen security guards actually run down escalators towards a guy with taking shots with a tripod). Canary Wharf is a no-go area for tripods as well (all private land).

Kintarō Hattori

It's all getting quite rediculous. Technically this picture is breaking their rules. Are they trying to drive a segment of their customers away?

(My missus just CAN'T take pictures. They always always come out blurry!)