"That same museum several years earlier had a night-time film shot inside a streetcar. only then it was found out to be a "sex" film."

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8P-ksDCBls


Seriously if they are paying good money for the location who cares? Again I am going to get in trouble for this, but if it wasn't for sex none of us would be here to comment on RYPN!


Time, Tide and Trolley wait for no man...........

More thoughts on selling images.... Using the UP trademark as an example: The law provides that you can shoot to your hearts content any images in which a trademark appears, UP, Toyota, Coca Cola, whatever, as long as you're on public property. Your liability lies in what you do with the images.

Editorial use - selling the image for use in a news or magazine story usually requires no release from the trademark owner.

The term "commercial use" usually applies to any activity used as promotions for a product or service that generates profit. That requires a photographic property release.

The fuzzy part is if you're selling copies of your own images in which UP's trademark appears. That may be considered commercial use since you are profiting but I'm not aware of any infringement cases that have been brought and won against the photographer/seller. Most suits are brought against the end user if used for commercial purposes. If there is any way that someone could think that your image was sponsored by the trademark owner, that could be a problem. Maybe putting your credit/copyright in a corner may cover that but I don't know for sure. I don't sell images to the general public so I'm not fully versed on all the possible pitfalls of that aspect. I only publish images for editorial use.

We would normally give photographers permission; fee depending on what they want to do, and when. Sure big bucks for people like Disney, who want a special train run for them on a day we aren't open to the public (some footage for "Saving Mr. Banks" a few years ago). Very minimal for someone shooting something that would promote our museum (A kids video 25 years ago called "There Goes a Train"). But then, a couple of years ago I was running a speeder 15 minutes ahead of the train, inspecting the track for boulders between the rails, mud slides, etc. Came around a curve, and here's a photographer with stuff all over the tracks, big cameras, lights, reflectors, models, etc. Me, "You'd better get you and your stuff out of here NOW! There will be a train here in about 10 minutes!" "But we thought this line was abandoned." They left pretty quickly!

Reminds me of a story I heard from a another Amtrak attendant when I was an LSA over 20 years ago. Seems an "Adult" video crew booked a double bedroom on the Capitol Ltd. to surreptitiously tape a porn video on a train. They were discovered and stopped. Then there was the CSX freight crew passing the Dorsey, MD station on a Saturday who saw a woman and a man standing on the platform as they approached. The woman suddenly dropped her coat to reveal her nakedness as the man took pictures with the approaching train as the background. Certainly CSX would not have approved of that photo shoot! (But the crewmen probably would have!)

Something that has not been mentioned much in this thread is the fact that a professional photographer making photos at your museum could be making money from all of your hard efforts, and your museum could be making no such income. Your staff of volunteers worked hard to make your museum an outstanding attraction for people to pay their admission fee for a visit. They take home with them happy memories and some personal snapshots.

But, a professional photographer is seeking to make creative images of your hard work that can be sold and turned into income for that photographer. After all, that's what the word "professional" means--someone who is getting paid or is receiving some sort of compensation for the personal or commercial use of that photographer's images (e.g. weddings or advertising). More than likely, without a formal written contract listing all of the legal details, the pro photog makes a living and your museum makes nothing.

Granted, the pro photog brings a lot to the table, and should be compensated for the expertise and effort expended to make great photos in a commercial manner. But your museum deserves a piece of the action, and to be compensated as well for your expertise and efforts. For without them, the pro photog would not have been able to make such wonderful, commercial images of your facility and equipment that will be sold by the pro photog. Museums need to pay their electric bills, too.

You don't see the Louvre in Paris allowing just anybody to make photos of the Mona Lisa and then allowing that person to sell prints at an art show, on the Internet or to a magazine without some sort of royalty being paid by the pro photog to the museum.

Why should your railroad museum be any different?

John B.

John B. Corns
A retired professional photographer (a.k.a. "A retired professional hack)

Lots of good thoughts (and some very entertaining stories!). Thanks everyone to the replies.

To John's post up above... while I get the point you are trying to make I highly doubt anyone is making a living with rail photography. By the time you pay to get out to Durango, pay for the photo charters, pay for a hotel... that's quite a few prints you have to sell just to break even on your one little outing.

The mona lisa is also a work of art in itself, so that's sort of a different situation. (Even though I personally think steam locomotives are works of art, legally I don't think they are! ha).

Don't forget that every visitor who takes pictures then shares them with friends is an uncompensated advertising agency fo your operation. Be careful to craft policies that don't shoot yourself in your own feet.

Selling your own prints as art is a labor of love, not usually dollars, unless you've got enough fantastic prints to show at a gallery and people are dying to buy them. Where some money is made is selling images to a publisher or self publishing for mass publication/distribution or selling via image services such as Getty. That's when it's wise to negotiate a deal with the photographer. John B does have a leg to stand on as AoSR is private property and a known restriction in place may help in defending copyrights or trademarks of likeness. On a side note, I usually have a few blank copies of model & property releases in my gig bag for just-in-case though I haven't shot anything as a professional (hack) in years. Oddly, I was never one to go out and do much railroad photography.

It is not a ban. Rather, it is a Photography Licensing Agreement, posted on the railroad's website.

This licensing agreement is probably a great thing for real professional photographers since it eliminates the need to obtain model releases from any passengers that happen to be identifiable in photographs of D&SNG trains.

The licensing agreement also helps the D&SNG to protect its trademarks. Buying a ticket on one of their photo trains does not grant the purchaser a license to start selling calendars and other products branded with the D&SNG name and other trademarks.

Chris, that's actually a different wording than Durango had up earlier. That actually makes alot of sense. I don't remember what the wording was, but it was along the lines of "photos taken are for individual use and not for any commercial purposes."

It actually may be that enough people questioned the wording that they changed it.

The more I’ve looked into this on photography sites the more confused I get. I’m talking about taking a photo at a railroad or museum, even at an official photography event, and then selling prints of those photos. It sounds like it should be simple, but it’s not.

I very much agree with you - it should be simple. I do, however, think the link and text on the Durango and Silverton's page is easy enough to understand.

I wonder if other railroads or museums even have rules/agreements like that, hidden on their webpages somewhere...or even if they have them and just don't publish them. Have we broken similar agreements that we don't even know about?

Cutting to the chase:

If the place has an official commercial photography policy, most likely they're only going after wedding/yearbook photographers, movie studios, fashion magazines posing models, etc.

If you sell prints of a photo taken at such a museum for profit, you are technically breaking their policies. You are also technically breaking the law by driving 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. Unless you are egregiously misrepresenting the museum/RR in question in your illustration, it's typically not worth the trouble to bother going after you.

The grey area that HAS happened in the past is when someone takes such a photo, turns around to sell it to a poster maker, and the poster then shows up for sale in every Michael's, Hobby Lobby, WalMart, or the like nationwide. We'll have that discussion the next time that comes up.

You want the model to follow? O. Winston Link. He undertook to form a positive relationship with the N&W early on in his years documenting N&W steam with night photos. He ended up with keys to the phone boxes to check for train info. Have that kind of relationship with your local museum, and maybe donate a few prints/posters to their annual auction or gift shop. The issue will probably never arise.

Probably so, but the little fish aren't worth going after. No one is getting rich selling a few prints or a few dvds. You'll spend well more in legal costs than you'll get back--and I know a few video producers who would have only been too happy to try the system if Virginia Museum of Transportation had tried to enforce the restrictions on 611.

By and large, it's more for commercial (ie wedding) photography, films, tv, etc. In other words, if you are walking around their property on possibly active tracks filming stuff, they want someone with you and have you sign forms so that they are protected legally.