As noted earlier - those are only the rules for commercial filming and photography - the problem is that the rules that do allow private photography are not accessible from the website...
>As noted earlier - those are only the rules for commercial filming and >photography - the problem is that the rules that do allow private >photography are not accessible from the website...
I don't think so - there's very obvious provisions for student filming, which isn't considered commercial. Futhermore the first two rules state:
Do you need to obtain permission to film or photograph on London Underground?
Yes. Anybody wanting to film or take pictures must seek prior permission from the London Underground Film Office.
How do you apply for a permit to film on the London Underground?
For all individuals and film production companies applying for a permit, you you can email the London Underground Film Office to apply for a filming or photography permit.
Note the references to "anybody" and "all individuals" - not just commercial photographers...
>>As noted earlier - those are only the rules for commercial filming and >>photography - the problem is that the rules that do allow private >>photography are not accessible from the website...
> I don't think so - there's very obvious provisions for student filming, > which > isn't considered commercial. Futhermore the first two rules state:
Please see earlier posts - especially the one by Steve Fitzgerald on 10/3 containing the extract from the LU staff manual:
>10. Photography on stations >10.1 Passengers can take photographs with small cameras for private >purposes, provided > flashlights and/or tripods are not used > no obstruction or inconvenience is caused to staff and/or passengers. >10.2 Representatives of the media, press or photographic agencies and >film companies, and other persons taking photographs for commercial >purposes must first get permission from the Press Officer. See section >13 of this document
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:06:46 +0000, Ian Jelf wrote:
>>>> I found the quote:
>>>> "It's not all underground either. Apart from the Circle line, all >>>> other lines thread their way through the City and go above ground >>>> into the countryside."
>>>> Where, pray, are the Victoria Line and Waterloo & City "go above >>>> ground into the countryside"?! >>> The Vic (along with several others) doesn't go through the City, >>> either. >> City of Westminster? > Which city does the ELL go through?
Didn't it used to go under Spitalfields City Farm? Does that count?
> >>As noted earlier - those are only the rules for commercial filming and > >>photography - the problem is that the rules that do allow private > >>photography are not accessible from the website...
> > I don't think so - there's very obvious provisions for student filming, > > which > > isn't considered commercial. Futhermore the first two rules state:
> Please see earlier posts - especially the one by Steve Fitzgerald on 10/3 > containing the extract from the LU staff manual:
> >10. Photography on stations
> >10.1 Passengers can take photographs with small cameras for private > >purposes, provided > > flashlights and/or tripods are not used > > no obstruction or inconvenience is caused to staff and/or passengers.
> >10.2 Representatives of the media, press or photographic agencies and > >film companies, and other persons taking photographs for commercial > >purposes must first get permission from the Press Officer. See section > >13 of this document
> Paul
In the current Conditions of Carriage (Jan 007), there's the clear implication that it's permissible to take non-flash photographs and use a hand-held camera on London Underground stations and trains. Otherwise presumably, all unlicensed photography would have been banned outright.
< quote >
4.5. For safety reasons, on our buses, in our bus stations and on London Underground stations and trains you must not:
• smoke
• use bicycles, roller skates, roller blades, scooters or skateboards
• take flash photographs and/or use a tripod or other camera support equipment ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^
• use emergency exits except in an emergency or when instructed to do so by our staff
> Were they > "real" police or "plastic" community support officers?
What do you mean by "plastic"? IMHO they had usual police hats and clothes, then again - I'm ignorant immigrant who had never have any contact with the police before...
> The main issue is to check with the station supervisor so they know you > are there and can provide any requisite local knowledge.
Seems a bit unreasonable - if all anoraks will start contacting station supervisors, when would they do their work?
alex_t wrote: >> Were they >> "real" police or "plastic" community support officers?
> What do you mean by "plastic"? IMHO they had usual police hats and > clothes, then again - I'm ignorant immigrant who had never have any > contact with the police before...
Thank you for the link, now I can see that they were (most likely) PCSOs... at least colours were as described in the article + high visibility clothing... :-/
> Thank you for the link, now I can see that they were (most likely) > PCSOs... at least colours were as described in the article + high > visibility clothing... :-/
But constables also wear high-vis clothing and similar colors. You can tell a PCSO because their clothing will be labeled COMMUNITY SUPPORT OFFICER in addition or instead of POLICE. -- Michael Hoffman
On 12 Mar 2007 09:49:59 -0700, "alex_t" <atereshche...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Were they >> "real" police or "plastic" community support officers?
>What do you mean by "plastic"? IMHO they had usual police hats and >clothes, then again - I'm ignorant immigrant who had never have any >contact with the police before...
Yes they look like policemen and we're supposed to believe that they are policemen but they aren't. In my experience they are probably well meaning people trying to do their bit for society but some are a bit too stupid or arrogant for their own good. They therefore like to believe they have "power" over individuals going about their business and the stupid ones then believe they are doing their job by making treating the public, who they are to serve, like morons. My own encounter with such an idiot has soured my view of community support officers. Stories from a range of other people simply confirm my worst suspicions. I say this despite being fully aware of the current security issues and concerns.
Almost all properly trained policemen and women are capable of exercising appropriate discretion, judgement and civility in their dealings with the public. This way they get the respect they deserve in return.
If I had the choice of 1,000 properly trained policemen vs 2,500 community support officers I'd go for the 1,000 policemen every time.
>> The main issue is to check with the station supervisor so they know you >> are there and can provide any requisite local knowledge.
>Seems a bit unreasonable - if all anoraks will start contacting >station supervisors, when would they do their work?
It is not at all unreasonable - it is the minimum sensible thing to do. Most supervisors will be perfectly amenable and will be pleased that someone has taken the trouble to identify themselves and to ask the right questions/ obtain permission. It saves a lot of work and hassle compared to having to deal with someone wandering around but obviously not catching a train. Some of our better supervisors would probably point out the best things to take a picture of if they are at one of our more photogenic stations. -- Paul C
> But constables also wear high-vis clothing and similar colors. You can > tell a PCSO because their clothing will be labeled COMMUNITY SUPPORT > OFFICER in addition or instead of POLICE.
Well, then I have no idea - unfortunately I did not read the labels :(
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 06:20:56PM +0000, Paul Corfield wrote: > Almost all properly trained policemen and women are capable of > exercising appropriate discretion, judgement and civility in their > dealings with the public.
They are? Coulda fooled me. The impression I've got from dealing with the filth a few times is that people only join the police because they're too stupid to do anything productive and too nasty to be allowed to join the army.
It comes as a pleasant surprise when the occasional officer turns out to not fit that, but they are few and far between.
> This way they get the respect they deserve in > return.
Oh they certainly get the respect from me that they deserve.
> If I had the choice of 1,000 properly trained policemen vs 2,500 > community support officers I'd go for the 1,000 policemen every time.
Indeed. 1500 fewer arseholes in uniform has to be a good thing.
-- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire
Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla.
> If I had the choice of 1,000 properly trained policemen vs 2,500 > community support officers I'd go for the 1,000 policemen every time.
Oh, well...
> It is not at all unreasonable - it is the minimum sensible thing to do.
Well, I'll try next time :-) I'm not sure where to search for station supervisors though - I suppose they are not the people, who stand at the platforms and try to control the passenger flow... oops, I mean... the *customer* flow.
alex_t wrote: >> If I had the choice of 1,000 properly trained policemen vs 2,500 >> community support officers I'd go for the 1,000 policemen every time.
> Oh, well...
>> It is not at all unreasonable - it is the minimum sensible thing to do.
> Well, I'll try next time :-) > I'm not sure where to search for station supervisors though - I > suppose they are not the people, who stand at the platforms and try to > control the passenger flow... oops, I mean... the *customer* flow.
I'm sure any staff member in the station will know, though ;) -- Michael Hoffman
>• take flash photographs and/or use a tripod or other camera support >equipment >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ >^^
Last year for a non-commercial photo project I was doing I asked if I could use a tripod at East Putney Station because I wanted to take long exposure photo as a train came into the station.
They said yes - provided It was not at rush-hour. I did not obstruct anybody I did not use flash I kept all equipment behind the yellow line.
I was quite happy to comply with these conditions and had a good chat with the station manager who was keen on photography himself.
The most common problem I've found is that staff tend to shout "no photographs" etc and refuse to believe that non-commercial photography is allowed. If you then refer them to "Standard Sa109" of the LU Working Manual, they then seem to take offence at being proved wrong, or exposed as liars, and then change tack by saying that you must now leave the station because you're creating a nuisance, when of course it is them who are doing the hassling! Also I've found that by refering to official entries both in the Working Manual and Traffic Crcular, this often brings the response "Are you staff? You should know better! Why haven't you signed in?". "Because I'm not on duty and have no more rights than an ordinary passenger" I reply, to which they they counter with "Well then you've no right to take photographs" and so it goes around in circles... I was prepared to take a concilitory approach immediately after 7/7 because many Londoners, including LU staff, were traumatised to a greater or lesser degree but enough is enough! Network Rail's website welcomes enthuisasts at its stations, New York lifted its post 9/11 ban on Subway photography. Maybe I'll stop photographing LU when they stop filming me in every ticket hall, on every platform, in increasing number of cars, and tracking me 24/7 by Oyster!!!
bowroa...@yahoo.com wrote: > New York lifted its post 9/11 ban on Subway photography.
New York never implemented a post 9/11 ban on subway photography.
One was proposed several years ago. It did not pass.
There used to be a permit requirement for personal photography, but it was eliminated in the 1990's (1994, I think). -- David of Broadway New York, NY, USA
|
