For awhile I’ve been thinking about engaging in a project documenting the men and women of railroading photographically. I think too often the foamer crowd forgets the fact that railroading is the product of many, many people. I get as excited as the next guy when I find a rare piece of equipment, but I also try to be cognizant of the human element that is behind that GP9 or whatever.
Of course, I also know that we live in a litigious society and pointing cameras at random people (especially with lenses like my 300mm f2.8) might raise some eyebrows. Because of that, I have some questions before I get into the project too deeply. Specifically:
What are the laws regarding taking photos of railroaders? Do I need any kind of consent to take their pictures if I’m on public property?
Do I need to have signed photographic releases if I intend to publish the photos in a documentary/editorial manner? E.g. I don’t plan to use any photos as advertising, but might put them on my website and/or print them for display at an exhibition or something along those lines. As an extreme extension of the matter, would photo releases be necessary for publication in a book/magazine?
Is there a way to get in touch with individual railroads and get access to jobs that would not be visible from public property? It wouldn’t be too hard to catch train crews, maintenance workers, etc. from public property, but many jobs simply wouldn’t be visible from public land.
To the railroaders: What would your reactions be to such a project? Would you be interested, or would you be worried about the FRN taking your photo?
Below are a couple samples of what I would like to do. These were taken on a tourist route (the San Luis and Rio Grande to be specific), so I wasn’t quite as worried about shooting them as it kind of seems like part of the “show.”
A tourism group shot video of our railroad in which I appeared. I was asked to sign a release (which I did - now if I can just see the video!) The crowds that also appear in that video generally were not asked to sign a release, unless they got a “close-up”.
I would certainly have a fistful of releases available.
There is probably some form of cutoff, too, regarding “crowd scenes.” It would be unrealistic to have to get a release from each of the hundred people streaming off a train on a tourist line. The shot of the engineer in the cab, on the other hand, is a definite.
You might see if you can locate a photographer’s forum - they’ll probably know. Or for that matter, look for a commercial photographer near you. He or she may have the answer, and if you aren’t competing with them, will likely even share their release form for you to use as a basis for creating your own.
I agree with tree68. Technically every time you take a picture of an individual with even the potential for publication (which can be digital, too, of course), you should get a release from him or her. The exceptions are posterior shots or profile shots that do not give away that person’s identity. It shouldn’t be hard to go online and see a standard “model release” form, perhaps even a downloadable one.
There is also an exception for “public figures,” so if you see Lindsay Lohan, snap away. But there are lots of ordinary people who want to keep their private lives private, and the courts have said time and again we have to respect that.
As a former professional photographer you do need a model release for each and every idenifiable person , you will probably need a liability release from the rail roads plus a release publish photos of their equipment and logos .
Getting the railroads to cooperate will be the hardest part . I would suggest that you practice with the help of a railroad musem , they are generally more open to this kind of activity . Then once you develope a good portfolio of images to show that you are serious about what you are doing it will be easier to get your foot in the door . I would try next to go to a short line that would be open to meeting with you as the management is generally local .
Also get letter of recommendation from each group you work with to preseant to the larger regional and class 1 railroads .
According to the knowledgeable people at the photo-site I help administer, you would need a signed release… Also, contacting the RR’s and letting them what you are up to might smooth the way too… just a thought.
Thanks, all, for the responses. I guess I had better set about the business of getting a model release form and start building a portfolio for the project.
Another question for the railroaders: Would you be more or less inclined to participate if I used my large format camera for the project? It’s the type of camera set-up on a tripod where I compose the shot under a dark cloth, put in a film holder, take the shot, etc. It’s a lot slower process, so the shots wouldn’t be as serendipitous as shots taken of workers working. However, it would require interaction with the subject(s) beforehand and would also give me an opportunity to get a signed release.
Check your local book store for the current copy of “The Photographers Bible”…it contains a standard release form, and a copy of the current applicable laws, plus has a few thousand listings of firms that purchase photos.
Kinda related - my daughter just got an invite to show some of her photos at a local gallery. Now she’ll have to start paying attention to all this legal stuff, too. It’s something she’s really excited about, as she loves photography and it fits right into the life she wants to lead.
I would definatly do that. It could be a great “ice breaker”. If you happen to strike up conversation with one crewman, it could help pave the way for you. I dont think you would have to use it all the time. But if you plan on working an area that sees regular assignements and crews, wont take long before you are known and might catch a break
I can’t answer for professional railroaders, but as a National Park Service volunteer at Golden Spike, I have been photographed hundreds of times. The key is that the photography cannot interfere with either my duties or safety. Other than those limitations, the staff is generally happy to participate.
As I mentioned in another thread - I’m in the same situation on our tourist line. I would suppose that it puts us in the realm of “public figures,” thus not necessarily subject to the need for releases. Granted, most of the pictures are snapshots, but I am in at least one (or my back is) on a rail photo site, so it’s conceivable that a shot like that could be sold.
I see you are getting a good load of well-intentioned Internet misinformation and misguided opinion on this topic. Regarding the necessity of a release, there are far too many factors involved to give a simple answer because there is none.
Many things come into play here. Such as whether a person has an expectation of privacy. The train crews on a tourist line do not as people are encouraged to bring their cameras along – those train crews are part actors. The people in the stands at a professional baseball game do not. The crowds on a public street do not. It also has to do whether the person is the focal point of the photo – and only use (which includes how it is cropped) can truly determine it. To CYA, when in doubt get everyone to sign a release and word it broadly so that you can use it for either art or commercial purposes (advertising, selling prints) because ya never know.
You also have to consider if you do get someone mad whether the person is willing to spend the enormous amount of money needed to hire a lawyer and file a civil lawsuit. In the rare event you were to lose and they could prove actual damages and there would be a court award, it would be very, very small – not enough to cover the prosecution’s legal fees. They’d only be advised by a lawyer to sue if you had money or property worth going after and they could prove a substantial loss.
I take no credit for this and I totally disclaim that I am acting as your attorney or legal counsel. I grabbed it off the internet and made a few common sense changes.
Dave Nelson
I, (please print your name) _______________________________________________ , give _____________________________________ [name of photographer] the absolute right and permission to use my photograph for his personal use and for any professional publication by him, including publication for his profit. I understand that the photograph may be used in a book, magazine, newspaper, or other print publication, print ad, electronic media (e.g. video, CD-ROM, Internet/WWW), or any other form of publication. I release the photographer, publishers, distributors, and their officers, employees, agents, and designees from liability for any violation of any personal or proprietary right I may have in connection with such use. I am 18 years of age or older.
So, employing a release prepared by a duly-licensed attorney from “the” jurisdiction involved guarantees nothing and should not be regarded as “absolute” protection from any civil liabilities that may arise.
True, the plaintiff wouldn’t have to prove any damages in a defamation case. Fine. But how does publishing a photo with a person at his work in it evoke defamation – which would be either libel or slander (knowingly making false statements) as long as any caption information is true? Can you direct me to case law on this as I can find nothing.
The best hedge against invasion of privacy suits is knowledge of the law in the jurisdiction in which the photograph or videotape is shot and published or broadcast. However, the line between journalism that is protected by the First Amendment and state law, and journalism that creates liability for invasion of privacy, is rarely clear.
Before taking or publishing a questionable picture, a photojournalist might want to consider several factors:
Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent.
Even if people are photographed in public, beware of the context in which the picture is placed (such as an innocuous photo of recognizable teen-agers in a story about the rise of teen violence). Use caution when utilizing file footage or photographs to illustrate negative stories. Special effects can be used to render the subjects unidentifiable.
If consent is required, it must be obtained from someone who can validly give it. For example, permission from a child or mentally handicapped person may not be valid, and a tenant may not be authorized to permit photographs of parts of the building not rented by the tenant.
Consent to enter a home may not be consent to photograph it. Consent exceeded can be the same as no consent at all.
Although oral consent may protect the press from liability for invasion of privacy, written consent is more likely to foreclose the possibility of a lawsuit. However, a subjects subsequent withdrawal of consent does not bar the publication of the photograph. It simply means that the journalist may not assert consent as a defense if the subject later files suit. In some states the commercial use of a photograph requires prior written consent.
