From Column 8 in today's Sydney Morning Herald

Leaving his home in Paradise (the Adelaide suburb, not the uppermost section
of heaven), train enthusiast David Beres has been checking out Sydney's
infamous CityRail network. A bouquet and a brickbat is his verdict. A bunch
of flowers to Milsons Point staff, who emailed all stations after he lost
his video recorder. It was found at Wynyard within 20 minutes. A brickbat to
Hornsby staff, who stopped him taking happy snaps of trains on their
platforms, explaining that they were on a "heightened media alert

Which brings me to the point - is there any ban on taking pictures of trains
from platforms? When Waverley Council tried to ban cameras and camera
phones on Bondi Beach recently there was an uproar, despite the legitimate
concern over perverts and paedophiles using cameras in an inappropriate way.
Are we following the paranoia exhibited in the USA over the potential for
Dubbya's "terrists" to gain sensitive information about our broken-down
train system? Are we to be "liberated" by the new Minister for Transport
from over-zealous CityRail staff who'd rather pick on hapless gunzels rather
than booting off the fare-evading scum and vandals who make train travel so
unpleasant for the general passenger.

Feel better now after getting that out of my system!

Regards

David Bennetts

From:	The Flying Frog
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:40:39 +1100

It's the same as when that train was cancelled at Mortdale and there was
that scuffle with the guard. People with mobile phone cameras were also
prevented from using them, according to the reports.

"David Bennetts" wrote in message
news:VFVHd.519$K36.9472@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> Which brings me to the point - is there any ban on taking pictures of
> trains from platforms?

From:	Ray Murphy
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:14:18 +1030

----------
In article , "Ronald
Besdansky" wrote:
>
>
>"David Bromage" wrote in message
>news:41f04009$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
>> David Bennetts wrote:
>> > Which brings me to the point - is there any ban on taking pictures of
>trains
>> > from platforms?
>>
>> The only useful thing Costa ever said in Parliament was:
>>
>>
>> NSW Legislative Council Hansard Article No.53 of 24/02/2004
>> Questions Without Notice
>>
>> On 12 November 2003 the Hon. John Tingle asked the Minister for
>> Transport Services a question without notice regarding photography on
>> trains. The Minister provided the following response:
>>
>> I am advised:
>>
>> It is not an offence to take a photograph on a train or at a station.
>>
>> Transit officers are required to detect graffiti and other offences as
>> they occur, as well as protecting StateRail property from vandalism. I
>> am advised taking photographs of graffiti may indicate a connection
>> between the person and the graffiti they are photographing, as
>> graffiti offenders often photograph their work.

>Looks like it might be dependent on a)which station, b)which staff happened
>to be restored at the time and c)whether there's something potentially
>controversial or newsworthy going on.
>

RM: I know what you're getting at, but, like the NSW Minister said, it
it not an offence to take a photograph on a train or at a station; so
if there is no law prohibiting it, there can be no "exceptions" to
non-existent law.

People on railway property or anywhere else in this country, can
however be asked to refrain from taking photographs, but there is no
requirement under the law to accede to anyone's personal request. If
there were, then police would intervene when TV cameramen push cameras
in the faces of irate people leaving court houses :-)

People on railway property or anywhere else can however be
*instructed* by a police officer (and certain other authorised people)
to cease photographic activity, or modify their photographic activity
- based on a reasonable belief that such activity is likely to cause a
"breach of the peace", (a fight or altercation) but the officer or
authorised person needs to be very sure of his/her grounds before
issuing such an instruction because Australian residents have no
obligation to comply with any instruction given by any police officer
or other person if the instruction is not "lawful".

In simple terms - if an authorised officer walks up to you and says
"Stop pointing your camera directly at passengers' faces because they
said they don't like it", or "I can see they don't like it", then it
would be wise to comply with that instruction instantly and politely
unless you wanted a series of other charges added to the first one -
of failing to observe a lawful instruction.

If however you are dealing with railway staff (or others) who use
"urban myths" as their law guide, then basically you can tell them to
get knotted and report them in writing at your earliest convenience.

>I had no trouble using my video camera to record the Bondi Jn spoil train at
>Town Hall recently. I cleared it with the SM, but I don't think it would
>have mattered.

RM: Yes, that's a very good idea, although as you say, it wouldn't
have mattered.
Of course such politeness can also cause rejection if the SM or other
station staff haven't got a clue about your rights under the law.

One last thing which is very specific to railways: Some railway staff
take their 1st, 2nd & 3rd "most important duties" very seriously
indeed -- (The safety of passengers; safety of the staff & the safety
of rolling stock). I would strongly recommend compliance with any
order to move if there was any hint of "safety" in the order, because
some railway staff are quite happy to do whatever they think is best
for safety at the time (including a photographer's safety) and sort
out the details in court afterwards if necessary.

Ray

From:	johnboy
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:48:18 +1100

In NSW, the Police have limited powers to move you on under "Move On
Directions" developed in accordance of the Summary Offences Act:
There is arguement that Railcorp property is not public, however, after
speaking to my senior, it is a public place if you comply with Railcorps
subject of entry, that is, payed your ticket, and not enter a non public
area. If the SM gives you the OK, then thats the same as paying your ticket.

Below is a copy of the relevant act, which I assure you most TV Cameraman
now carry with them, or at least know it, which is more than most the
coppers that think they know it!

SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1988 - SECT 28F
Power to give reasonable directions in public places
28F Power to give reasonable directions in public places

(1) A police officer may give a direction to a person in a public place if
the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person's
behaviour or presence in the place (referred to in this section as "relevant
conduct" ):
(a) is obstructing another person or persons or traffic, or
(b) constitutes harassment or intimidation of another person or persons,
or
(c) is causing or likely to cause fear to another person or persons, so
long as the relevant conduct would be such as to cause fear to a person of
reasonable firmness, or
(d) is for the purpose of unlawfully supplying, or intending to
unlawfully supply, or soliciting another person or persons to unlawfully
supply, any prohibited drug, or
(e) is for the purpose of obtaining, procuring or purchasing any
prohibited drug that it would be unlawful for the person to possess.
(2) The other person or persons referred to in subsection (1) need not be
in the public place but must be near that place at the time the relevant
conduct is being engaged in.
(3) Such a direction must be reasonable in the circumstances for the
purpose of:
(a) reducing or eliminating the obstruction, harassment, intimidation or
fear, or
(b) stopping the supply, or soliciting to supply, of the prohibited
drug, or
(c) stopping the obtaining, procuring or purchasing of the prohibited
drug.
(4) A police officer may give a direction under subsection (1) only if
before giving the direction the police officer:
(a) provides evidence to the person that he or she is a police officer
(unless the police officer is in uniform), and
(b) provides his or her name and place of duty, and
(c) informs the person of the reason for the direction, and
(d) warns the person that failure to comply with the direction may be an
offence.
(5) If a police officer has complied with subsection (4) in giving a
direction to a person and the person fails to comply with the direction, the
police officer may again give the direction and, in that case, must again
warn the person that failure to comply with the direction may be an offence.
(6) A person must not, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on
the person), fail to comply with a direction given in accordance with
subsection (5).
Maximum penalty: 2 penalty units.
(7) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (6) unless it is
established that the person persisted, after the direction concerned was
made, to engage in the relevant conduct.
(7A) A police officer may give a direction under this section to persons
comprising a group.
(7B) In the case of a direction that is given to a group of persons under
subsection (1), the police officer is not required to repeat the direction,
or to repeat the information and warning referred to in subsection (4), to
each person in the group.
(7C) In the case of a direction that is given to a group of persons in
accordance with subsection (5), the police officer is not required to repeat
the direction, or to repeat the warning referred to in that subsection, to
each person in the group.
(7D) However, just because the police officer is not required to repeat
any such direction, information or warning does not in itself give rise to
any presumption that each person in the group has received the direction,
information or warning.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (1) (c), no person of reasonable
firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
(8A) For the purposes of this section, a reference to failing to comply
with a direction includes a reference to refusing to comply with the
direction.
"

From:	David Bromage
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:34:33 +1100

David Bennetts wrote:
> Which brings me to the point - is there any ban on taking pictures of trains
> from platforms?

The only useful thing Costa ever said in Parliament was:

NSW Legislative Council Hansard Article No.53 of 24/02/2004
Questions Without Notice

On 12 November 2003 the Hon. John Tingle asked the Minister for
Transport Services a question without notice regarding photography on
trains. The Minister provided the following response:

I am advised:

It is not an offence to take a photograph on a train or at a station.

Transit officers are required to detect graffiti and other offences as
they occur, as well as protecting StateRail property from vandalism. I
am advised taking photographs of graffiti may indicate a connection
between the person and the graffiti they are photographing, as
graffiti offenders often photograph their work.

From:	Rodney James
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:21:32 +1000

"David Bromage" wrote in message
news:41f04009$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> David Bennetts wrote:
>> Which brings me to the point - is there any ban on taking pictures of
>> trains from platforms?
>
> The only useful thing Costa ever said in Parliament was:
>
>
> NSW Legislative Council Hansard Article No.53 of 24/02/2004
> Questions Without Notice
>
> On 12 November 2003 the Hon. John Tingle asked the Minister for
> Transport Services a question without notice regarding photography on
> trains. The Minister provided the following response:
>
> I am advised:
>
> It is not an offence to take a photograph on a train or at a station.
>
> Transit officers are required to detect graffiti and other offences as
> they occur, as well as protecting StateRail property from vandalism. I
> am advised taking photographs of graffiti may indicate a connection
> between the person and the graffiti they are photographing, as
> graffiti offenders often photograph their work.

And here's your Hansard to print out and carry with you:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/HansArt.nsf/0/abed47078d127f5aca256e5000231ab6?OpenDocument

or

http://tinyurl.com/3tgqf

Note: page will automatically print in "printer friendly" format.

From:	Ian S.....
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:14 +1100

"David Bromage" wrote in message
news:41f04009$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
| David Bennetts wrote:

| The only useful thing Costa ever said in Parliament was:

8<-----------------8<--------------------8<-----------------

Bit of a long bow you draw.
You have to be a little cruel to be kind and be given time to do it
in..............................

Ian S................

From:	Ian S.....
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:37 +1100

From:	Ronald Besdansky
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:04:59 GMT

Looks like it might be dependent on a)which station, b)which staff happened
to be restored at the time and c)whether there's something potentially
controversial or newsworthy going on.

I had no trouble using my video camera to record the Bondi Jn spoil train at
Town Hall recently. I cleared it with the SM, but I don't think it would
have mattered.

"David Bromage" wrote in message
news:41f04009$1@clarion.carno.net.au...
> David Bennetts wrote:
> > Which brings me to the point - is there any ban on taking pictures of
trains
> > from platforms?
>
> The only useful thing Costa ever said in Parliament was:
>
>
> NSW Legislative Council Hansard Article No.53 of 24/02/2004
> Questions Without Notice
>
> On 12 November 2003 the Hon. John Tingle asked the Minister for
> Transport Services a question without notice regarding photography on
> trains. The Minister provided the following response:
>
> I am advised:
>
> It is not an offence to take a photograph on a train or at a station.
>
> Transit officers are required to detect graffiti and other offences as
> they occur, as well as protecting StateRail property from vandalism. I
> am advised taking photographs of graffiti may indicate a connection
> between the person and the graffiti they are photographing, as
> graffiti offenders often photograph their work.

From:	Albert Alcoceba
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:36:32 +1100

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:04:59 GMT, "Ronald Besdansky"
wrote:

>I had no trouble using my video camera to record the Bondi Jn spoil train at
>Town Hall recently. I cleared it with the SM, but I don't think it would
>have mattered.

On the otherhand I just witnessed someone being very thoroughly told
off at Richmond (NSW) for taking one photo of an S-Set that waso n the
platform. He was told that photography of trains was not allowed full
stop and that that is part of the NSW Transport Act.

Albert Alcoceba
<><
alberta@REMOVE.ihug.com.au
http://aussietrains.fotopic.net/
Remove REMOVE

From:	Eddie Oliver
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:53:15 +1100

Albert Alcoceba wrote:

n
> On the otherhand I just witnessed someone being very thoroughly told
> off at Richmond (NSW) for taking one photo of an S-Set that waso n the
> platform. He was told that photography of trains was not allowed full
> stop and that that is part of the NSW Transport Act.

Which is a blatant untruth. Anyone who makes such statements should not
only be challenged but also reported.

From:	johnboy
Subject:	Re: CityRail's Photography Ban?
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:46:05 +1100

"Albert Alcoceba" wrote in message > On the
otherhand I just witnessed someone being very thoroughly told
> off at Richmond (NSW) for taking one photo of an S-Set that waso n the
> platform. He was told that photography of trains was not allowed full
> stop and that that is part of the NSW Transport Act.

Typical cityrail response. Ask them to quote the act, ask them to call the
Police and have you charged with that breach.