InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by uggboy, May 9, 2015.
| Print Topic
Yes, Airlines Can Legally Ban Photography, And Some Are Doing Just That
Except that none actually are and these rules are not new.
I take a lot of pictures, and it is not a good idea to snap a bunch of people,
Respect goes a long way.
Most of us do not want our life's open to the public.
Your pictures should not be focused on the person, but the surroundings,
You need to get a release, if it is that important, to use later...
I'm not an expert in this area of the law, but I would think a case could be made that even though the airplanes themselves are private property, when they are being used as a common carrier they may take on the trappings of a public area for some purposes. For instance, if you are taking pictures in a non-disruptive manner and the airline attempts to refuse you carriage for that reason, would it hold up? As common carriers, they may have constraints on their right to refuse carriage except in certain circumstances
I generally ASK (not tell) people on the train not to take large-area photographs in areas such as the dining car when passengers are present out of respect for the traveling public. Some people may not wish to be photographed, and in some cases if the photo gets immediately added to social media could represent a security risk. I've met more than a few people on the train escaping abusive relationships, etc who boarded the train in the middle of the night with a trash bag full of their belongings. A photo posted to the wrong instagram account could immediately divulge the whereabouts of these individuals.
You can take as many pictures as you want of me, the train, the food, the crew, and I will gladly take pictures of you and your party together, but I try to gently discourage people from taking photos where many others are present and would be in the picture. If they resist, I won't force the issue, but if they ask why I usually cite reasons such as above. That usually puts things in a different perspective and most respectful people will stop. So much of this is in asking - demanding people do *anything* seldom results in a good outcome, although when the train has been involved in a trespasser strike or other serious situation it's a different story.
Our policy is publicly available online, and is broadly written, but probably similar to what most airlines have:
Rail photography is a separate issue and there are some safety/trespassing issues that come into play and since 9/11 there's been some parnoia that's a bit better now and I know the editor of one nation wide magazine that was arrested for taking pictures at the wrong place at the wrong time, but later got off.
Also, the first message in this thread didn't include the link to the Post article, but it's at
Not really; mostly the same rules/policies/laws apply.
....and no one questions them.
Who are you going to challenge? The FAs??
They don't make the policies; they just enforce them. And getting in a fight with a flight attendant means you lose, even when you win.
As far as on the ground... yes, they are moderately separate issues. Although all railroad right-of-ways are private property, very few sections are fenced or patrolled, unlike airports, and trespassers are very seldom cited or apprehended. If you jumped the fence onto an airport, your day is pretty much ruined if you're caught.
On board a train vs. on board a plane... same exact issues. A semi-public place, but no one must waive their individual rights to privacy and if activity is deemed a security risk, it is well within the right of the owner of said space to restrict or prohibit certain activities.
Photography - particularly recreational photography - is not necessarily a protected First-Amendment right. Most of the issues seem to stem from when the flight attendant or gate agent is immediately indignant about it, which is hardly fair to the citizen.
I simply questioned the overall policies which speak against photography on planes for example, especially with the proliferation of camera phones and other means to take images today, plus the cameras themselves. There's a trend that companies want us to make images while we travel whatever we do and wherever we are in the world, it's odd that mostly these same companies restricting photography, even simple "memory" and "personal" photos. It's all about a balance, many companies, attractions, cities and other places where people take images on a daily basis end up "advertising" the company, the attraction, the hotel or whatever we photograph, should be win win and no, photographers aren't terrorists, as blunt as it sounds, it's about common sense, I know this concept may confuses / sadly / too many people.
That's not the overall policy. If you've drawn that conclusion then that's the problem with the situation. :-:
I'm glad about this, common sense should prevail in the longer term.