CTA VP explains photo policy
Last week I got an email bitching about the CTA's photo-taking policy. This person wrote:
"I've taken like 8123957 pictures in the subway, but coming home tonight some lady told me they aren't allowed and they normally ticket people so: QUIT IT! I said "since when has this been in effect?" and she said "since forever" and then her compadre piped in "since September 11. people will use the photos to figure out where to plant bombs."
So I went straight to the source and asked the CTA VP of marketing and communication what the policy is. Here's how Noelle Gaffney replied:
"The general public is allowed to take snapshots in public areas. Equipment such as lighting, tripods, cables etc. is not allowed – except in instances where a commercial and professional photographer enters into a contractual agreement with CTA.
"Photographers are not allowed to enter or photograph non-public areas of CTA stations.
"Photographers are prohibited from obstructing transit operations, interfering with customers, and blocking doors or stairs.
"In light of heightened security concerns, CTA personnel will evaluate the actions of photographers on a case by case basis to determine if a photographer is in compliance with the above guidelines. Photographers must cooperate with the requests of CTA personnel, which may include ceasing taking pictures.
"We recommend that those members of the general public interested in taking pictures at a certain location contact the CTA prior to their visit."
(Photos by cannotbetrusted at kissnride.)
In further email discussions, Gaffney clarified that "public areas are the areas where you enter the station, pay your fare, and wait for the trains. Non-public areas are any storage rooms, work areas, ends of platforms that are blocked off to public access (such as in subways), tracks, etc."
She added: "Our goal is to try and be flexible and recognize that tourists and others may want to take pictures. But if it appears to us that someone is more interested in the facility itself or the equipment, than in photographing their friends or scenery, then our personnel has the right to ask them to stop. "
I mentioned that enforcement seemed to be very inconsistent. She replied:
"I understand your point about consistent enforcement. Following 9/11, we were very strict for a while. But we have made adjustments to try and have procedures that accommodate people without compromising security or customer safety.
"Instructions given to our personnel make it very clear that they must do their best to distinguish between tourists/people just taking a couple of snapshots compared to someone who is showing an unusual interest or raising suspicion. If someone on your blog feels that they were treated unfairly or that the employee overreacted, the best approach is to provide details, including location, date, time and employee id # (if possible) to CTA Customer Service so that we can investigate specific complaints."
I suggested that the CTA might try further educating its employees, rather than relying us rider to "tattle" on employees who aren't letting us take simple snapshots. As I wrote her: "But really, how does that [tattling] help us riders when we don't want to turn in employees; no, what we WANT to do is take a picture of our friends and family."
(Photos by cannotbetrusted at kissnride.)
i love taking pictures on the el, of the el, on the bus, of all things cta. i love it, especially because 1. i'm obsessed with the cta, and 2. because i DO feel like i'm sort of getting away with something.
Posted by: jocelyn | October 26, 2005 at 09:26 AM
I hope they're including those rail attendants who are contracted out as employees. To me it seems like those are the ones who aren't getting the memos.
Posted by: cmama | October 26, 2005 at 10:03 AM
That doesn't sound like a very concrete policy if you ask me. It seems like they're basically saying you can take pictures unless the big, bad CA tells you otherwise. In most cases the CA or security guard will assume all photography is banned and force you to stop taking pictures regardless of what defense you may have.
I've actually seen a security guard tell someone to stop taking photos or their camera will be taking away, and then proceed to walk by a group of young men soliciting money for their basketball team without saying a word.
Reporting a CA who wrongly enforces no-photography rule is of little satisfaction to me. Odds are next time I'd run into a different CA who will again say photography is not permitted.
Also, many people who enjoy take photos on the system are interested in the facility itself, but this is from an architectural standpoint. These fears people have about photography are completely unwarranted. There's been no case in which a terrorist has used photography to document a facility before attacking it. Regardless, what's to stop a terrorist from simply sketching certain parts of a facility? Perhaps we should ban pen and paper on the L as well?
Posted by: Kevin | October 26, 2005 at 10:03 AM
So, does this mean I'm off the hook for doing what I do, or is it still morally questionable?
I'd like to poll your readers thoughts on the matter.
Feel free to email me.
Posted by: Cannot Be Trusted | October 26, 2005 at 12:23 PM
Reminds me of the flap over the Bean. Maybe we should organise a massive picture-taking day.
Posted by: Jacques | October 26, 2005 at 06:43 PM
as an amateur photographer and photoblogger, i support the idea of free photography and respect rules. The CA need to be consistent in their approach, however, need to allow for public interest.
Posted by: W | October 27, 2005 at 12:35 AM
http://img473.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ligue8ei.jpg
Posted by: Mr. Cub | October 27, 2005 at 03:01 AM
Mr. Cub -
Yes, because the very definition of a cultured individual is to make broad, ill conceived attacks on a group of diverse people who just had something excellent happen for them. You're surely a prince among men...
Posted by: jk1 | October 27, 2005 at 10:53 AM
jk1, I considered deleting Mr. Cub's comment, but decided to keep it here so folks like you could let him have it!
Go White Sox!
Posted by: Kevin | October 27, 2005 at 12:12 PM
So, now Cub fans have resorted to attacking the White Sox on COMPLETELY unrelated boards? What did a post about photo taking on CTA grounds have to do with the World Series last night?
Who's the real trash in this case?
Posted by: Flynn | October 27, 2005 at 12:49 PM
I'm sorry, but the "white trash" thing is played out, and not so funny anymore. Pack away the mullet jokes already, it's nearly 2006.
I mean, look at the Sox, ethnically the team is a representation of the whole city of Chicago. And the fans are far more mixed racially than the fans I've seen at Wrigley Field. Meaning, Cubs fans are whiter, and just as drunk.
Posted by: we're_all_trash | October 27, 2005 at 01:47 PM
I was waiting for the el once while a group of tourists were snapping photos. At the train was plulling up, the train driver came over the loud speakers telling them they are not allowed to take photos, and repeated it several times.
Posted by: John | October 27, 2005 at 03:31 PM
First of all, that moron was a Cubs fan who got drunk up on the North Side before causing trouble.
As for taking pictures, I have only been told to stop once, and I'll admit I was taking pictures at the Kimball Yards. Otherwise, I try to be quick/subtle and haven't been hassled while riding.
Posted by: Matt | October 27, 2005 at 11:43 PM
The difference between the drunks at Sox Park and the drunks at Wrigley is the ones at Sox Park know how to fill out a scorecard.
Posted by: Cheryl | October 30, 2005 at 04:25 PM
Cheryl, let me add to your comment. At least Sox fans don't use yards and alleys in Bridgeport as a public toilet before, during, and after the games.
Posted by: Tim H | September 21, 2006 at 07:27 AM
"...someone who is showing an unusual interest or raising suspicion."
Thank you for making perception of people's activities and hobbies, a crime. I think I'll call the CTA and advise them of my itinerary for the next month of all the public areas I intend to take an unusual interest to.
Posted by: Joseph | September 26, 2006 at 09:45 PM
I have a comment that's going to top all of yours. Apparently it's now illegal to photograph other passengers on the CTA. I was arrested over the incident about a month ago and charged with assault. I didn't even take a cell phone picture..I was using my web browser but because the complainant THOUGHT I was taking a picture, she signed a complaint and had me arrested. How can taking a picture be assault? Can someone explain that to me? I like taking nature pictures and occasionally of attractive women but I have never threatened anyone in any way. In this particular incident I did not take any pictures. What's your take on this?
Posted by: Nature Fan | July 29, 2007 at 11:08 PM