Photography on stations

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Christopher Hay

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 3:22:14 AM12/3/05
to
Hi all

I will be in Sydney during Janurary and when I lived in Sydney I used to be
a keen railway photographer.

But since all the terrorist problems worldwide I know here in the UK, the
police and station staff have sometimes not taken to kindly to railfans
taking pics at stations. What;s it now like in Sydney?

Also, I have seen Melbourne has a system in place where you register and get
a pass to take pictures. Have Sydney done this as well?

Chris


Matthew Geier

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 4:13:23 PM12/3/05
to
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:22:14 +0000, Christopher Hay wrote:


> But since all the terrorist problems worldwide I know here in the UK, the
> police and station staff have sometimes not taken to kindly to railfans
> taking pics at stations.

Network Rail in the UK actually have a page up on their web site saying
that personal photography on their stations is fine, as long as no bylaws
are being infringed while you are doing so.
Doesn't stop some station staff and security contractors from harrasing
photographers anyway.

> What;s it now like in Sydney?

After a photographer being harrased, a transport minister said that
there is NO photography ban on Sydney stations. Said minister has since
been transfered else where, but...

Like in the UK, some station staff and security contractors see rail fans
taking photos as 'suspicious activity' and take action to remove them.
It's not worth arguing with such bozos though. Move on and file a
complaint with the region manager and the DOT later.

Now the new terrorist laws have been passed, this may change. The control
freeks will probably get a real photography pan in place, but it will be
secret and all rail photographers will end up under detention orders but
unable to tell anyone why.

stationmaster

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 4:46:22 PM12/3/05
to
You are joking of course, Australia is a Free Country, taking photos of
Trains and Locomotives would be fine so long as you leave the Infrastructure
alone, including track formation and bridges. Do not wear a back pack or
Head Dress, apart from a Sun Cap of course. If you look at all suspicious
someone will more than likely complain. Just my Opinion .

-------------------------------------------

Robin at Crystal Brook.
Online Blogs: http://www.mrstationmaster.biz/


wb

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 5:53:46 PM12/3/05
to
Its acutally a blind eye rule.
Railway property is enclosed lands which means you have no right to take
photos from within the railway property, but the blind-eye is turned. You
turn up with a broadcast TV camera and you get a different reception.

You can take as much photos you like from the public street


"stationmaster" <statio...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:43921238$0$8583$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Eddie Oliver

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 6:42:09 PM12/3/05
to
wb wrote:
> Its acutally a blind eye rule.
> Railway property is enclosed lands which means you have no right to take
> photos from within the railway property

Rubbish.

David Bennetts

unread,
Dec 3, 2005, 7:03:31 PM12/3/05
to

"wb" <war...@southernhighlands.com> wrote in message
news:43922204$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> Its acutally a blind eye rule.
> Railway property is enclosed lands which means you have no right to take
> photos from within the railway property, but the blind-eye is turned. You
> turn up with a broadcast TV camera and you get a different reception.
>
> You can take as much photos you like from the public street
>
>
> "stationmaster" <statio...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:43921238$0$8583$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

AFAIK there's nothing in law preventing you from taking non-commercial
photos on railway land, providing you're not trespassing or venturing
outside the normal circulating areas of overbridges, platforms and the like.
If you don't have a ticket and you're on a platform in an "enclosed area"
you could be busted for that, or if you're hindering movement of passengers
in some way you could be moved. No doubt you'll attract the attention of
security if you hang around for any length of time and you could be quizzed
as to what you are doing. Obviously there should be some stated policy for
the guidance of security, station staff and the public. But I look up
CityRail's website, type photography in the search box and what do I get?
Nothing, but that's exactly what I expected!

David Bennetts



William Pearce

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 3:13:53 AM12/4/05
to
In Melb., the Loop stations now have notices on their platforms implying
no photography (camera crossed out). There's still doubt as to whether this
ban is legally enforceable.
Of course, you can use a mobile phone with a camera and take as many
shots as you like, no-one will know what you are doing, which is why such
bans are stupid.
Regards,
Bill.

"David Bennetts" <davibenn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43923255$0$23333$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

stationmaster

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 7:27:59 AM12/4/05
to
I do not have a camera phone, but I should think you would have to actually
look though the thing to take a shot instead of using your ear.

--------------------------------------------
Robin at Crystal Brook.
My Main Site: http://www.trainweb.org/mystation
AusRailPhotos:
http://www.clubphoto.com/reward.php?id=289811&mid=members5_robin334854&pwd=


C. Dewick

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 4:32:10 PM12/4/05
to
"William Pearce" <ben_i...@optusnet.com.au> writes:

> In Melb., the Loop stations now have notices on their platforms implying
>no photography (camera crossed out). There's still doubt as to whether this
>ban is legally enforceable.

That could well be related to the problems camera flashes cause to us
drivers when coming into platforms and getting one or more camera flashes
going off on our faces! It happens here in Sydney all the time too and the
worst station is Kingsu Crossu due to all the Japanese tourists who like to
have a friend or member of their family stand on the wrong side of the
yellow line as a train approaches just to get a 'happy snap' for back home.
grrrr. 8-)

> Of course, you can use a mobile phone with a camera and take as many
>shots as you like, no-one will know what you are doing, which is why such
>bans are stupid.

He he well it depends what you do with the images afterwards doesn't it.
People have been prosecuted for using mobile phone cameras immorally and
that's going to get worse since I don't think any new phones come out
without a camera now, and the quality of the cameras is improving to the
point that they're as good as really cheap throw-away digital cams that you
can buy on Ebay, etc.

Craig.
--
Craig Dewick - Professional Train Manager (RailCorp) + HO Scale Rail Modeller
http://www.railzone.org -- Galleries, Forums, Links, Data, etc.! Send email to
cra...@lios.apana.org.au -- RailCorp Train Crew Council: http://www.rctcc.org
Oz Rail Safety List: http://lios.apana.org.au/mailman/listinfo/aus_rail_safety

C. Dewick

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 4:28:05 PM12/4/05
to
"wb" <war...@southernhighlands.com> writes:

>Its acutally a blind eye rule.
>Railway property is enclosed lands which means you have no right to take
>photos from within the railway property, but the blind-eye is turned. You
>turn up with a broadcast TV camera and you get a different reception.

>You can take as much photos you like from the public street

Actually in any 'public' area on railway property that's not quite true,
since you are, at least here in NSW, allowed to take photos for private use
of anything you can see from a public area of a station, etc. and providing
you get permission of any staff that will be in the picture, you're
fully-covered from a legal angle.

However the new federal anti-terrorism laws probably extend the powers of
police to approach and question you if they think you're looking suspicious.

What makes it interesting is if you are in a public area (say concourse at
Sydney Terminal) and you are taking pictures of something, then you get
asked to not take pictures of that particular subject... That's a grey area
and there is no clear rule or law saying who or what has more 'weight'.
There has to be a very good reason for someone to tell you to stop taking
pictures of a certain subject in a public area which means the onus of proof
rests with the staff member, etc. who's approached you.

If you are in a non-public area then it's the other way around as you'd
expect - you have to justify what you're doing.

David Bromage

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 6:01:13 PM12/4/05
to
William Pearce wrote:
> In Melb., the Loop stations now have notices on their platforms implying
> no photography (camera crossed out). There's still doubt as to whether this
> ban is legally enforceable.

It is not enforceable. The only legally enforceable prohibition on
photography anywhere in Australia is at defence installations. Connex
claims otherwise, but even some Connex staff don't take it seriously.

Cheers
David

David Bromage

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 6:04:52 PM12/4/05
to
Christopher Hay wrote:
> But since all the terrorist problems worldwide I know here in the UK, the
> police and station staff have sometimes not taken to kindly to railfans
> taking pics at stations. What;s it now like in Sydney?

There is no prohibition on photography for non-commercial purposes. It
is useful to inform station staff what you will be doing so there is no
misunderstanding but in a very few cases you may need to reinforce that
you are not asking their permission since you don't actually need it.

Just in case, it is worth printing out this statement from Hansard and
keep it with you.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20040224053

Cheers
David

David Bromage

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 6:14:43 PM12/4/05
to
C. Dewick wrote:
> "William Pearce" <ben_i...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>> In Melb., the Loop stations now have notices on their platforms implying
>>no photography (camera crossed out). There's still doubt as to whether this
>>ban is legally enforceable.
>
> That could well be related to the problems camera flashes cause to us
> drivers when coming into platforms and getting one or more camera flashes
> going off on our faces!

Connex says otherwise. They claim it is for security reasons.

Cheers
David

David Bennetts

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 8:04:48 PM12/4/05
to

"David Bromage" <dbro...@omni.com.NOSPAMTHANKYOU.au> wrote in message
news:43937864$1...@clarion.carno.net.au...

London Transport have always banned flash photography on their underground
stations. I expect that it would have taken into account temporary blinding
of the drivers when the trains emerge from dark tunnels, as well as
confusing the flash of the camera with electrical flashovers which are quite
prevalent on the third (and fourth) rail system.

The New York Subway were going to ban photography on their system altogether
ostensibly for security reasons after 9/11, but I don't think it took place.
Probably Mr Kodak and Mr Fuji objected to the loss of business, no doubt for
similar reasons why you are still permitted to take on board aircraft (at
least in the USA) cigarette lighters and up to four boxes of matches, after
protests from the tobacco industry, despite the potential hazards of these
materials. You can't let business suffer for security reasons.

Regards

David Bennetts


David Bromage

unread,
Dec 4, 2005, 8:29:33 PM12/4/05
to
David Bennetts wrote:
> The New York Subway were going to ban photography on their system altogether
> ostensibly for security reasons after 9/11, but I don't think it took place.

MTA did a knee jerk and tried to ban photography. There was a public
outcry and eventually the NYPD said it was unnecessary.
http://www.straphangers.org/photoban/letter.htm
http://www.nyclu.org/mta_photo_ban_ltr_010705.html
http://www.nycsubway.org/photoban.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=779540

Connex says there is an outright photography ban in the City Loop and
repeatedly claims this is required under the Terrorism (Community
Protection) Act 2003, but the Act doesn't even mention photography.

Cheers
David

Nathan Cox

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 12:58:22 AM12/6/05
to

"C. Dewick" <cra...@lios.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:dmvn15$rbq$3...@yoda.apana.org.au...

Back in the days when A.N ran the Indian pacific the CLP's derailed the car
unloading wagon in the back dock platform at Sydney terminal and there was
on old AN inspector who got most upset when I took photographs and of
derailed wagon, and wanted me to empty my camera and said I had no right to
photograph their derailment


William Pearce

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 1:27:06 AM12/6/05
to
Sounds o.k. for New South, but what about the other States?
Regards,
Bill.

"David Bromage" <dbro...@omni.com.NOSPAMTHANKYOU.au> wrote in message

news:43937614$1...@clarion.carno.net.au...

David Bennetts

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 1:28:57 AM12/6/05
to

"Nathan Cox" <natha...@optusnet.nospam.com.au> wrote in message
news:43952910$0$25854$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

>
> "C. Dewick" <cra...@lios.apana.org.au> wrote in message
> news:dmvn15$rbq$3...@yoda.apana.org.au...
>
> Back in the days when A.N ran the Indian pacific the CLP's derailed the
> car
> unloading wagon in the back dock platform at Sydney terminal and there was
> on old AN inspector who got most upset when I took photographs and of
> derailed wagon, and wanted me to empty my camera and said I had no right
> to
> photograph their derailment
>
A bit like when the poor old ferry Karrabee sank at the Quay, and some
bumptious official tried to stop the TV news crew filming it acting as a
submarine. Trying to pretend it wasn't happening..

Regards

David Bennetts


David Bromage

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 1:54:13 AM12/6/05
to
C. Dewick wrote:
> Actually in any 'public' area on railway property that's not quite true,
> since you are, at least here in NSW, allowed to take photos for private use
> of anything you can see from a public area of a station, etc.

Correct. You can take photos from railway property (i.e. stations)
provided you do not trespass into areas not available to passengers or
the public.

> and providing
> you get permission of any staff that will be in the picture, you're
> fully-covered from a legal angle.

A bit of common sense is required here too, i.e. if the staff are far
enough away that it's impossible to identify individuals in the photo.
The same applies to passengers.

> However the new federal anti-terrorism laws probably extend the powers of
> police to approach and question you if they think you're looking suspicious.

Police, transit police, private security guards and other employees
could do that before the new laws anyway. It's not unreasonable for them
to check what you're doing to make sure you're not up to something (e.g.
taking photos of graffiti) but so long as you're not breaking any law
you are entitled to carry on.

> What makes it interesting is if you are in a public area (say concourse at
> Sydney Terminal) and you are taking pictures of something, then you get
> asked to not take pictures of that particular subject... That's a grey area
> and there is no clear rule or law saying who or what has more 'weight'.

It's not a grey area. Absent any specific legal prohibition, you are
entitled to take photos. There is no law banning photography anywhere in
Australia other than defence installations. However it's a good idea not
to take specific photos of security-related equipment such as CCTV cameras.

If you are confronted, in most cases it can be defused by being
courteous. Just say you're a railfan and you're taking photos for
non-commercial use. (The term "non-commercial use" is more flexible than
"personal use". "Non-commercial" allows you to submit photos to
magazines where you don't receive payment for contributions.)

If they tell you photography is not allowed, ask for somebody in
authority to provide proof of a law banning it.

If they get pushy, combative or hostile, again ask for a supervisor. If
they threaten to detain you or confiscate your camera/film, calmly and
politely ask:

1) Ask for the person's name, employer and position.
2) Ask if you are free to leave. If not, ask how do they intend to stop
you and what legal basis they assert for detaining you.
3) If they demand your camera/film or demand you delete photos, again
ask what legal basis they asset for doing so.
4) If it gets to that stage, it's best to just leave and make a written
complaint. If they do attempt to detain you or confiscate your
camera/film, ask for police to attend.

Persistent and unwanted questioning is harassment. It is illegal for
anybody to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage or take your
property or falsely accuse you of a crime. Civilian staff also have very
limited powers to question you and they cannot demand proof of identity
if you are not committing a crime.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is does not constitute legal advice.

Cheers
David

David Bromage

unread,
Dec 6, 2005, 1:55:03 AM12/6/05
to
William Pearce wrote:
> Sounds o.k. for New South, but what about the other States?

See my other post. There is no law banning photography anywhere in

Australia other than defence installations.

Cheers
David

C. Dewick

unread,
Dec 9, 2005, 4:37:44 AM12/9/05
to
David Bromage <dbro...@omni.com.NOSPAMTHANKYOU.au> writes:

Which is not something that can be backed up by evidence, but I'm guessing
Connex management tries to enforce a ban in the hope that it will persuade
some people not to take photographs and influence people who are prone to
believing everything they're told at face value. 8-)

C. Dewick

unread,
Dec 9, 2005, 4:38:51 AM12/9/05
to
David Bromage <dbro...@omni.com.NOSPAMTHANKYOU.au> writes:

Time for a trip to Melbourne so we can test this theory. 8-)

C. Dewick

unread,
Dec 9, 2005, 4:39:54 AM12/9/05
to
"Nathan Cox" <natha...@optusnet.nospam.com.au> writes:

>Back in the days when A.N ran the Indian pacific the CLP's derailed the car
>unloading wagon in the back dock platform at Sydney terminal and there was
>on old AN inspector who got most upset when I took photographs and of
>derailed wagon, and wanted me to empty my camera and said I had no right to
>photograph their derailment

If you were taking the pictures from an area normally accessible to the
public, the inspector had no grounds to make that request.

C. Dewick

unread,
Dec 9, 2005, 4:41:38 AM12/9/05
to
"David Bennetts" <davibenn...@yahoo.com.au> writes:

>A bit like when the poor old ferry Karrabee sank at the Quay, and some
>bumptious official tried to stop the TV news crew filming it acting as a
>submarine. Trying to pretend it wasn't happening..

I remember driving a train through the Quay the morning after it sank, and I
was greeted with a view of about 1 metre of the top of the radio antenna
array sticking out of the water! Pity we didn't have compact digital cameras
back then!

David Johnson

unread,
Dec 9, 2005, 8:08:40 PM12/9/05
to
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:57:59 +1030, "stationmaster"
<statio...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>I do not have a camera phone, but I should think you would have to actually
>look though the thing to take a shot instead of using your ear.

The image is shown on the screen, so the user would look like they are
typing an SMS.

---
The Milkman: "Do you want it in front or in back?"
---

David Johnson
usenet.at.trainman.id.au
http://www.trainman.id.au
------------------------------------
These comments are made in a private
capacity and do not represent the
official view of RailCorp.

David Johnson

unread,
Dec 9, 2005, 8:11:02 PM12/9/05
to
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:58:22 +1100, "Nathan Cox"
<natha...@optusnet.nospam.com.au> wrote:

>Back in the days when A.N ran the Indian pacific the CLP's derailed the car
>unloading wagon in the back dock platform at Sydney terminal and there was
>on old AN inspector who got most upset when I took photographs and of
>derailed wagon, and wanted me to empty my camera and said I had no right to
>photograph their derailment

Exactly like the Telechubbies who tried to stop me taking these
photos: http://www.trainman.id.au/sydney.htm

Keith Holley

unread,
Dec 10, 2005, 12:56:25 AM12/10/05
to
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:58:22 +1100, "Nathan Cox"
<natha...@optusnet.nospam.com.au> wrote:

Most railway station these are unmaned and the ones that are maned the
staff do not care.

>> If you are in a non-public area then it's the other way around as you'd
>> expect - you have to justify what you're doing.
>>
>> Craig.
>> --
>
>Back in the days when A.N ran the Indian pacific the CLP's derailed the car
>unloading wagon in the back dock platform at Sydney terminal and there was
>on old AN inspector who got most upset when I took photographs and of
>derailed wagon, and wanted me to empty my camera and said I had no right to
>photograph their derailment
>

Wait until R766 arrives at Sydney terminal what happen then Hmmmm


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0549-3, 07/12/2005
Tested on: 10/12/2005 4:56:59 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

William Pearce

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 3:14:59 AM12/11/05
to
It'll probably run through the buffers, and you still won't be allowed
to take a shot.
Regards,
Bill.

"Keith Holley" <mai...@castlemaine.net> wrote in message
news:3frkp1l2rhc7l083g...@4ax.com...

glenfield_signaller

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 5:48:44 AM12/11/05
to

"Keith Holley" <mai...@castlemaine.net> wrote in message
news:3frkp1l2rhc7l083g...@4ax.com...
I won't hold my breath waiting to see R766 up here

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages