|
|
| I got a comment against a PATH filming (436999) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (437007) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 12:44:40 2007, in response to I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:28:15 2007. Tramrunner,Station agents can not take your camera. Only the police can, and only after they have arrested you. While it is against the regulations of the Port Authority to take photos and movies, any photos and movies that you take are still YOUR PROPERTY and you retain all rights to them. All they can do is tell you to stop taking photos/movies. If you refuse, then they can tell you to leave Port Authority property. If you refuse, then they can charge you with trespassing. So in conclusion, don' listen to that guy on YouTube. Leave your video up. Thanks. |
|
|
| (437010) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 28 12:47:55 2007, in response to I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:28:15 2007. PATH actually has a rule against photography as opposed to New York City Transit which specifically ALLOWS photography. PATH also has video surveillance cameras all over that are monitored from a central location - so you don't necessarily have to see a PATH cop to know you are being watched. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (437012) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 12:50:22 2007, in response to I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:28:15 2007. BTW, your description is awful. You wrote:"path train of the 333rd street JSQ route arrives on its last stop in Journal Square, Jersery City" At the very least, please change it to this: "PATH train of the 33rd street JSQ route arrives on its last stop in Journal Square, Jersey City" |
|
|
| (437015) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:55:58 2007, in response to I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:28:15 2007. I didnt know about that rule! I am psychiatric patinet!!!!!! |
|
|
| (437018) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 13:04:19 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:55:58 2007. How could you not know about that rule!?!?! All the railfans know about that rule. Here, I'll even show it to you in print. I'm sorry it is blurry, but read #11. This is posted at Exchange Place. It is also on the PATH website.
|
|
|
| (437027) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Mon May 28 13:53:42 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 12:44:40 2007. Only the police can, and only after they have arrested you.Well, that's what the law says. But remember, after 9/11 it's a whole new world. Who says the police have to follow the laws anymore? Seriously, though, I believe this is a gray area. PANYNJ does have a restriction against photography in the system. A picture taken in the system is then not technically your property, but the property of someone or something else which you have obtained through illegal means. You'd need to get a lawyer's opinion on this, though. (This is in stark contrast to the situation at NYCT, which, despite the protestations of employees and police, has no prohibition against photography within the limits of 1050.9(c), so any photographs you take are in fact your rightful property. Deletion of said photographs is tantamount to destruction of your property. i.e. big time illegal to do.) |
|
|
| (437069) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 16:52:45 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by JPC on Mon May 28 13:53:42 2007. when I wanted to take pcitures of Brooklyn College Campus (I was there a Grad student in Fall 2004)I got the same answer: "...These pictures you take, are not yours. They belong to Brooklyn College..." I agreee that the photograph of Journal Square is not my own property. Its my photograph, but for at least 50% its an intellectual property of an architect who engineered the station. for more 30% its an intelectual propertyof PATH who keep the place clean, and operating, and served by train. the video of Journal Square would be 100% my property, only in case, I decide to make a computer simulation on AutoDesk Maya. Technically I cant name any photograph 100% property of a photographer. Photograph is a 100% copy of someone's archtectural work. If its a pure nature, the photo is 100% copy of CREATOR's work. |
|
|
| (437071) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 28 16:59:07 2007, in response to I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:28:15 2007. The PA prohibits filming on its property, but your video does not belong to the PA. YouTube might decide, in theory, to take it off the site because you weren't supposed to film there. I don't know if they will or not.I personally think the PA's policy on photography is very stupid; it's a case of emmotional, not logical or rational, decision-making. |
|
|
| (437090) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Mon May 28 17:30:13 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:55:58 2007. When you think about it - taking a picture of something that says you can't take a picture - that's illegal too. |
|
|
| (437092) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 28 17:32:58 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 16:52:45 2007. I think you are worried about this more than you should be. Many great transit pictures were taken during the 1950s through the 1970s while a photo ban was IN EFFECT. Granted photo permits were available but many didn't bother getting one. Regardless the MTA has no claim against the photographers nor can it ask that the pictures be withdrawn...I know of at least one railfan who risked REAL JAIL TIME by taking pictures of trolleys in Eastern Europe during the communist days. He would walk around pretending that the camera was dangling from his neck, compose the shot by facing the target with his body and snap the pic without looking through the viewfinder... I am not saying you should take that kind of risk but it was done and the pictures that came from it are priceless!!! Summing it up - you did it - you did not get hassled - the pictures are yours - enjoy them - share them! Now knowing a ban is in effect - do you want to take that risk and get more pictures - that's up to you... |
|
|
| (437102) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 28 17:51:18 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by BMTLines on Mon May 28 17:32:58 2007. With small cameras available, would it be difficult to have a hidden lens and snap away without anyone realizing it? Even the copy standing next to you? |
|
|
| (437122) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 28 18:26:03 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 16:52:45 2007. when I wanted to take pcitures of Brooklyn College Campus (I was there a Grad student in Fall 2004)I got the same answer: "...These pictures you take, are not yours. They belong to Brooklyn College..." Conceivably Brooklyn College could demand its share of royalties if you were to publish the pictures and make money. That's a difficult area of law. But until you make any money off the pictures they are 100% YOURS. |
|
|
| (437165) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon May 28 20:13:47 2007, in response to I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:28:15 2007. Reply to that guy to fornicate himself with a stick. |
|
|
| (437178) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Fine, Howard, and Fine on Mon May 28 20:48:12 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by BMTLines on Mon May 28 17:32:58 2007. Cameras without traditional "viewfinders" can be remarkably effective at getting candid shots.Even better than just hoping for the best, TLR's are wonderful because you can have the camera hanging on your chest AND also see the subject through both the viewfinder and straight eye-to-eye without a camera in the way. |
|
|
| (437186) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 20:57:24 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by JPC on Mon May 28 13:53:42 2007. PANYNJ does have a restriction against photography in the system. A picture taken in the system is then not technically your property, but the property of someone or something else which you have obtained through illegal means.I believe you are incorrect on that point. Based on what I read in that "Photographers Rights" pamphlet, your photos are your own, even if taken on private property and then told that photography is not allowed. |
|
|
| (437259) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Mon May 28 23:33:02 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 28 17:51:18 2007. Exactly. And this is yet another reason why photography restrictions are patently absurd: those who have a reason to be stealthy about photography, will. And with modern technology, there's no way in hell a person being stealthy about photography is going to be caught.It's just another example of a "feel safe" step that only compromises our liberties and does little to nothing to improve our safety. |
|
|
| (437262) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by JPC on Mon May 28 23:34:56 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 20:57:24 2007. Based on what I read in that "Photographers Rights" pamphlet, your photos are your own, even if taken on private property and then told that photography is not allowed.You may be correct. I'm not sure about it, which is why I recommended that we really need a lawyer's interpretation. (And not just any old lawyer, but one who specializes in such matters.) |
|
|
| (437264) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 28 23:37:03 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by BMTLines on Mon May 28 17:32:58 2007. Tell that to MARTA, who probably will ask that the pics be withdrawn...although such a policy has yet to be placed through a court challenge. |
|
|
| (437278) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue May 29 00:33:34 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by JPC on Mon May 28 23:33:02 2007. They are coming out with 5 megapixel cellphone cams soon - stopping photography will be virtually impossible. |
|
|
| (437325) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 29 07:12:08 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 28 23:37:03 2007. Why would they do that, Adam? Please explain. |
|
|
| (437372) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by PhotoBT on Tue May 29 09:07:48 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 16:52:45 2007. I got the same answer: "...These pictures you take, are not yours. They belong to Brooklyn College..."I agreee that the photograph of Journal Square is not my own property. Its my photograph, but for at least 50% its an intellectual property of an architect who engineered the station. for more 30% its an intelectual property of PATH who keep the place clean, and operating, and served by train. This is incorrect. To a certain extent I think you’re confusing copyright with usage rights. When you take a photograph, you automatically “own” the copyright to the image you created, unless you are in a “work for hire” situation, which is where your primary job it to create photographs for your employer (i.e. a photojournalist working for a newspaper, which I was for six years) or you have contractually agreed to transfer those rights to someone else. The area you can run into trouble is with usage of the photograph and its potential to infringe on someone else’s copyright. An example is if you were to take a photograph of a painting. You might still own the copyright to the photograph itself, but as your photograph is wholly comprised of the painting, using it – selling it, printing it, etc. – would violate the rights of the painter. There are, however, situations where you can use it, such as with a news story about the painting. That is called “fair use” and is an exemption to the copyright laws. Photographs of buildings, such as the campus of Brooklyn College and the Journal Square PATH station, would not violate the rights of whoever owns the copyright to the building, if anyone. There was a US Supreme Court case a number of years ago involving the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, in which the court ruled that a photographer selling photographs he took of the building did not violate the copyright of the owners of the building. The simple version is that it would only be an infringement to copy the building, as in building a new building, not taking a picture of it, since the copyright only applies to the actual physical building. The only trouble you might get into here is that since there is a rule that you are not allowed to take pictures in the PATH system (which is probably illegal) it could be argued that you were trespassing, as that rule was a condition to your being allowed on the property. Since the photographs would be “the fruit” of your supposed criminal act, you would not be entitled to any profit from the photographs and a court could order you to never distribute the images. The people who clean and operate the station have no copyright rights to the station or anything in it. |
|
|
| (437403) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 29 09:57:32 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by PhotoBT on Tue May 29 09:07:48 2007. Excellent post! Thanks. |
|
|
| (437436) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue May 29 11:37:06 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by PhotoBT on Tue May 29 09:07:48 2007. However, I have read that (I'm not sure if it has been done in the US, but it has been done in Europe) where buildings might be TRADEMARKED for purposes of collecting royalties for commercial use. How does trademarking fit in? |
|
|
| (437560) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Tue May 29 15:16:17 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue May 29 11:37:06 2007. Trademarks are used for things like names and logos and things. If a building could be trademarked, it would mean that only the trademark holder could use a picture of the building as a logo. It doesn't affect other pictures. |
|
|
| (437570) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue May 29 15:53:02 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 13:04:19 2007. Other than that, you can do anything you want. |
|
|
| (437619) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 17:05:22 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 28 13:04:19 2007. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!!!!NO iPODS, WALKMAN, TAPE PLAYERS?!!!!!! WOW WHAT A BUNCH OF DUMBASSES!!!! I am never taking this bullshit "PATH" if I can't even bring my tape player on it, not to mention my camera. |
|
|
| (437628) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 17:12:06 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 17:05:22 2007. Read it again, and read #7 entirely. Its hard to see after getting to the end, but there is something very specific and clear that you missed. |
|
|
| (437630) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 17:13:28 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 17:05:22 2007. Oh, and if you want a real ride on a train better than the subway in this Metropolitan area, take PATH. |
|
|
| (437633) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 17:15:10 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 17:13:28 2007. Oh yes, MUCH faster! |
|
|
| (437635) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 17:18:05 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 17:05:22 2007. You might want to reread that again. |
|
|
| (437651) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by SOUTH FERRY on Tue May 29 17:54:50 2007, in response to I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 28 12:28:15 2007. just gave the video a 5 star rating.. WQQT! |
|
|
| (437727) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 20:41:17 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 17:13:28 2007. Not if their not gonna let me bring my camera. |
|
|
| (437729) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 20:42:16 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 20:41:17 2007. Why? You dont always need your camera. |
|
|
| (437734) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 20:47:52 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 20:42:16 2007. But if the PATH trains are as fast as you say I would want a video |
|
|
| (437739) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Tue May 29 20:51:18 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 17:13:28 2007. Best advice ever. |
|
|
| (437740) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 20:52:37 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 20:47:52 2007. If you stand at the RFW, then you can sneak a video, but that's taking a chance, and they don't have regular cops there, they have special law enforcement. |
|
|
| (437744) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue May 29 20:57:12 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 20:42:16 2007. Actually they do have a provision for getting permission to photograph. It might be worth it someday for us to apply as a group and make a field trip... |
|
|
| (437746) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 20:58:38 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by BMTLines on Tue May 29 20:57:12 2007. Then i'm up for it then! |
|
|
| (437748) | |||
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|||
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 21:00:09 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 20:52:37 2007. you mean like
|
|||
|
| (437750) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 29 21:00:27 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by BMTLines on Tue May 29 20:57:12 2007. I agree. We should do it soon, before the PA1/2/3/4 are retired. But we'd need to keep the group small so they don't deny our permit. Maybe we should all apply individually at our own leisure. |
|
|
| (437752) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue May 29 21:00:56 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 20:52:37 2007. If you stand at the RFW...From what he's posted I don't think that he would consider standing anywhere else. |
|
|
| (437753) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 29 21:01:06 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 20:41:17 2007. You can bring it. You're just not permitted to use it. However there was word of people trying to get that regulation removed. |
|
|
| (437754) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 21:01:20 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by Easy on Tue May 29 21:00:56 2007. Or sitting anywhere else. |
|
|
| (437756) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 29 21:02:25 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by PATHman on Tue May 29 20:51:18 2007. I wouldn't say better. I'd say faster above ground and bouncier underground, and with a great railfan window. |
|
|
| (437758) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 29 21:03:43 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 21:00:09 2007. Port Authority Police |
|
|
| (437760) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 21:04:21 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 29 21:03:43 2007. The PAP. |
|
|
| (437769) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 21:17:22 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 21:04:21 2007. PAPD |
|
|
| (437770) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Tue May 29 21:17:54 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 21:17:22 2007. That's if you want to add the department, I'm just talking about, like one officer. |
|
|
| (437772) | |
Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming |
|
|
Posted by P-rad M on Tue May 29 21:20:55 2007, in response to Re: I got a comment against a PATH filming, posted by error46146 on Tue May 29 20:41:17 2007. You can bring it, you can't use it, but you don't need it. Try to sneak a video then, make sure your not obvious about it. I got a RFW view video on PATH. Its short, but its not bad, I wish I was better and recorded it better, and wish I had more battery power.... |
|
|
