I'm in the process of developing a photographic policy for the museum. I was wondering what some of the policies are from other museums or operations.

As both a semi-professional photographer (bylines in Trains, R&R, L&RP, PTJ, Railpace, and others) and a rail preservationist, let me make suggestions that may lead to a more, shall we say, enlightened policy.

First of all, do you even NEED a photographic policy? Why does the question even arise? Have there been incidents that you wish to avoid in the future? Is some bureaucrat or agency/association suggesting or requiring you write one? Is it a prerequisite for museum accredition? The other problem is how to enforce it, and when. You may find that "selective enforcement" creates its own problems, when you go after one amateur but not another. (I remember one crafty moment where I set up a camera on a tripod in the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum, and got surrounded by three guards and two officials all reading me the riot act, while my associate sneaked up behind all of them and bagged the photo we needed in ten seconds and walked out, with me trailing him at a distance and promising the officials I'd get the permit. Page 81 of "Washington D.C. Then & Now"--sans permit.)

Of course, the Libertarian in me advocates as little actual restriction as possible. On the other hand, you may have issues you wish to address that require restrictions, so let's ask some more questions:

Do you have exhibits or artifacts which need to be protected from light to prevent deterioration? Maybe a "no flash" rule may be called for. (One could theoretically make the case for no flash pointed at a locomotive cab, but you're not running a subway.)

The largest "use" of photographic policies seems to be that for saying "no commercial photography without permit". Places like the Smithsonian and B&O Museum have this policy openly posted. Ostensibly this is to prevent, say, the crew of an independent movie/video or a postcard photographer from coming in without permission and blocking access, etc. with tripods, lighting equipment, etc.; the real reason is, of course, to maintain editorial and financial control of any representation of the facility, artifacts, locomotives, etc. In other words, I can't go in and take photos/videos of all the stuff and then start selling postcards or DVDs from my work, or for that matter assemble a fraudelent or libelous "Insider's Guide to the XY&Z Rail Museum" for commercial sale.

Journalists are a different matter that has to be considered and covered. Journalists will likely have a legitimate need to cover your operation--we would hope for positive reasons rather than negative--and any restrictions on the media usually causes more trouble than it prevents. On the other hand, being a journalist does not give a photographer the right to climb on top of a hot steam locomotive, either. Also, consider asking, and casting judgement on, what the "journalist" is representing. Chicago Tribune or Reno Gazette: good. Arizona Highways: good. Trains Magazine: maybe, if they have proof of contact and authorization. Chaski Railfan: No.

Are there areas where safety is a factor? Typically, any area where it might be ("no walking in shop area", "No hanging out windows") may well be covered by pre-existing rules; why make more rules? On the other hand, you could very well get a camera crew from the BBC or Japanese TV doing another "Great Railway Journeys of the World" series. Don't you owe it to both yourselves and them to make sure they know what they're doing, don't disrupt the passengers' trip, etc.? Maybe you just want to make sure the Japanese crew with the helicopter doesn't interfere with the photo charter or dinner train?

Do you run photo charters? (I know you do.) What special situations exist there? Have everyone sign a release? Does the release say "I will faithfully obey all orders of the trip leader"?

The other extreme of this, of course, is Walt Disney World, where on my visit in 1982 I saw way too many signs for "Kodak Photo Location--Stand Here For The Best Photograph In Afternoon" or the like. If you have a terrific photo location, you might just want to make it more available and prominent!

I would strongly recommend (apart from access related safety concerns) having no restrictions whatsoever on photos taken by visiting passengers. Every vacation picture they show back at the water cooler at home is a free advertisement, complete with a word of mouth recommendation. You couldn't afford to buy this good advertising.

Photography done for documentary work or historic preservation - hopefully, these people would approach you for a specific right to enter areas, etc as necessary. In today's environment, it is reasonable to question people found in obscure areas trespassing on the railroads property. A model railroader getting a picture of a building he wants to model is made welcome, a terrorist is reported.

Writers of travel articles - buy them lunch and take them anywhere they want to go. Give them souvenier T shirts. Whatever it takes to make them friends of your railroad.

People wanting images of your railroad to use for their commercial purposes - charge them a licensing fee, and specifically control their access and activities. Accomodating them can be a profitable sideline under conditions that don't compromise the experience of your paying passengers or safety.

dave

It seems reasonable to restrict commercial photo shoots but place no restrictions on private non-commercial photography. Not withstanding other concerns expressed on this board about too many rules, you could be losing out on some great revenue!

Some examples of commercial use include well-paid portrait photographers arriving at your site to shoot pictures of children, commercial photographers shooting product on the side of your coaches when you're not looking, and movie companies filming your moving train for inclusion in a major (or not so major) motion picture.

You are entitled to a reasonable license fee for all these activities - it's your property! Some examples of fees I've heard of: $50 flat fee for the portraits, $1,000/day for still photos of product for a Nordstrom's catalog shot during an 8 hour session, and $5,000/day for a major motion picture. Charging an hourly fee for a staff member to baby sit is also common - it's reasonable to charge at least twice the hourly "value" or cost of that staff member whether paid or volunteer. Fees chould vary with the level of disruption to your facility and the size of the expected audience. Don't forget to include policy language requiring payment in advance - many movies are shot by an independent company that is dissolved shortly after the shooting is complete.

This, unfortunately, brings to mind another possibility I should have raised in my first spiel had I thought about it:

I have, in my days and with what limited exposure (ha-ha) I have had to the field, encountered at least three photo portfolios, in print or online, of semi-nude or nude females posing on rail equipment. In all three cases, I was able to identify the locations/railroads used for photography. (In total honesty, that is really a tribute to my apparently encyclopedic knowledge of American railroading rather than, say, a railroad name showing in the photos, but still.....)

Frankly, I had more problem with the fact that the females in question were violating certain safety rules ("Wrong footwear! Walking on rail tops! Walking in the gauge!") than with any dishonor that might have been cast upon the operation in question. But it was somewhat apparent to me, based on the poses, equipment, etc. that these sessions were unauthorized, perhaps done only under the eye of (or even BY) a single volunteer or employee of the operation, without official sanction.

So, yeah. Think THAT far ahead. What if someone wants to make an XXX-rated film aboard your rail equipment? What if Playboy wants to pose its latest Playmate "tastefully" upon your equipment, or charter the railroad for a shoot in the remote wilds? What happens if you say yes to National Geographic but not Playboy, or yes to Playboy but not Hustler? Are there shareholders or public officials in a position to condemn you if you say yes to a "disreputable" company?

If you say yes to whatever party , Playboy or the college film class project, can you still see to it that they don't portray something you would rather not promote, like the cliche of a couple folks walking down the track in the gauge as the credits roll? (See "The Station Agent" for scenes we'd just as well not replicate on our railroads.)

A lot of good commentary on commercial photography and moe than fair that a museum should protect and PROFIT from their good name. I trust that NN does not have an over inflated view of itself to dictate fan photography, as trekking to Ely is an escape from day to day reality to see that operation. I sure don't need to escape to the solitude of Nevada to bask in grief and silly restrictions.

Here in Germany, within the bounds of common sense, its open season for photography around tourist railroads and even mainline steam excursions. [like the big PLANDAMPF in Karlsruhe back in October] Are we that special in America?

Someone locally read my earlier spiel on "what if an X-rated film wants to shoot on your property?".

He handed off to me a commercial porno tape (which he says he found left behind in a crawl space of the house he bought) which includes a sequence shot within the confines of an Amtrak Superliner sleeping compartment, apparently aboard the "Coast Starlight" in 1997 or thereabouts.

Don't think it can't happen to you. Someone filming on your property without your knowledge, that is, not the escapades depicted on the tape.

(Frankly, I'm amazed that they were able to maneuver enough within the confines of the compartment to even film the cut..... We're talking three people here.........)

Is the purpose to subject the tourist road patrons to the same restrictive experience they might endure on some large railroad or transit agency? Or, are you just trying to keep things reasonably sane with simple guidelines?

I have been following this for a bit; I suspect that Mr. Bassett is looking for policies that deal with commercial filming/photography on the property, rather than railfan or general public visitors.

At the 1993 ARM convention, Nick Kallas of IRM gave a great seminar about this sort of thing. IRM had just hosted a number of major films on-site, and had participated in the still-born "Pullman-Movie-with-Harrison-Ford" project. Nick's opening (and closing) comments were simple and unforgettable: "Three things you need to know: GET THE MONEY, GET THE MONEY, GET THE MONEY!"

He covered all the horror stories and narow escapes (lighting grips about to decksaw a hole in the side of the Nebraska Zeph to run cables, etc.), and distributed a copy of IRM's "standard form" covering film shoots. I think Kevin McCabe drafted that agreement. Copies might be available from IRM.

RMNE has hosted close to a dozen film crews in the last 8 years, everything from The History Channel (The Caboose segment of the Trains Unlimited series) to Japanese TV (wherein our engineer is speaking in dubbed Japanese!!) to WGBH-PBS.

A word to the wise-- EVERY film shoot will tell you they're an "independent" or "low budget" film. Well, so are WE. Establish a rate schedule, and stick to it (don't go nuts on the rates unless it really IS a Hollywood film). The "indie" shoot is just as much work for you as anything else-- a crew, fuel, use of track, wear on equipment, etc. So, get some money. Promises of "credits" or "publicity" do not pay the fuel bills.

Work with your local or state film office-- they are great for steering inquiries your way if you have a good relationship with them.

While I don't have the extensive experience that some others here do, if anyone wants some more info about NAUG-RMNE's experience in this area, PM me.

Howard P.

Who has been on both sides of the camera from time to time.
www.rmne.org

I do not think anyone wants to limit visitor or fan photos. We do however have a prominent notice to the effect that photos are welcome for private and non commercial use. And that commercial use of images taken (on our private property and premises) should obtain a release before commercial use. We have had several responsible modelers and manufacturers work within this policy with no problems but can also recount when images taken of our Museum equipment were used to promote sales of commercial products, hobby and non hobby related. Often poorly or inappropriately captioned, or just plain wrong. So a customer could rightly conclude we furnished the image as well as the bogus caption.

Fees involved are not outrageous and in the overall scheme of things not a great revenue producer, at this scale.

And as others have said, the rate scale goes up with exposure, as in a national ad, or for movie work, etc where your work in the setup and preparation also is more.

Start with something as simple as possible and have a draft ready in the desk drawer if you are approached on a major project.


Bob Kutella

About 25-30 years ago I worked for a scaffold supply company on the west side of Los Angeles. Every few months we would supply scaffolding or falsework shoring to a production company. We had several rules.

1. As Nick Kallas said, get the money FIRST!!

2. We would charge several times the regular construction rate for the rental. And they would pay.

3. Bill in advance only.

4. Consider every production company as a credit unworthy company and get the money first. Even if they give the name of a major studio, that may be only where they are renting space or have a conditional distribution agreement.

I recall a studio prop man telling us horror stories about cables being dragged around and gouging fancy wooden staircases, etc. The location and the prop people may respect your property -- but that may not apply to the various trades and the director.

The reasons why for wanting information on photographic policies is that as we are growing we are experiencing some conflict.

I have had a couple of commercial photographers go onto the property and start shooting. Sometimes with models or I’ve had a commercial portrait photographer start having his group climb on equipment for a family photo. I was surprised both times. If I had published one of their photos without asking permission there would have been hell to pay.

Our winter photo shoots do quite well. I applaud the photographers who come here and pay for the rights to photograph our trains and equipment. Their financial commitment allows us to keep the doors open during February. Though last year, I had a person actually push into the photo line to snap a picture and ruin the shot for everyone else. This person was a freeloader and hints did not work. This year we will be closing the museum during photo shoots. If a person wants to shoot from public property, then there is nothing I can do about that.

But then this raises another question. I have a person who shoots from public property and then uses that image for commercial purposes. I feel that is wrong and that the museum has a right to either receive a licensing fee or we can say you can not use the images of the museum’s property for commercial purposes. Is this off base?

And not to sound facetious, what are commercial purposes? Obviously I understand a movie production. But what about a photographer who comes and shoots a series of photos of the property and then hangs the photos in a gallery for sale? Is this a commercial use?

I’m not trying to start a war. But it is incredibly expense to maintain a complex like this. And the reason why people want to photograph it is because it is so unique. And if they want to make money from the complex then they need to financially support the complex.

I want to stress that at no time is the museum considering any limits on personal photography except when we have a private event. You are welcome to come and click away and burn up as much film as you would like. Look me up and I will walk the property with you and open the outlaying buildings for you. The Nevada Northern Complex is truly a unique national resource.

Exactly the proper mindset and approach to take. Without a doubt this is "use of the facilities for commercial enterprise". It's up to you to decide what to charge. But, as you know, the policy has to be in place in writing first.



No different from someone crashing, say, a wedding reception in a hotel. Private event, not a paying participant? Heave-ho.



It may not be off base. But there certainly comes the question of how far to carry enforcement. It may take more effort/expense to enforce it against, say, your hypothetical art gallery photographer than you'll collect. But one could go further. Say someone takes a photo, someone else does a painting from said photo, and that painting ends up, just to make up an example, on the next Leanin' Tree railroad christmas card series? Then what?

Again, you don't want to get a reputation akin to Disney, where every photograph of your property ends up carrying a trademark, service mark, and copyright with it. But the impetus is to close up the loopholes that could let, for example, the next trashy TV "reality" series exploiting your property, while still allowing a photograph in Railfan & Railroad or the next "$60 slide show" railfan book.

Once even a simple policy is in effect and noted fairly and clearly, the organization has a lot of freedom in how it enforces it. There are many cases where a newspaper or magazine contacts us for rights to use images, and we generally waive any fee, but document the permission to use them, as we are getting a favorable publicity product in return. This waiver can be so stated for a single use, assuming the image will remain in the newspaper file drawers and you may not want to grant unlimited use in perpetuity.

The policy does not even have to quote a fee - this can be quoted upon request and would differ for a movie shoot, compared to a basement manufacturer of model kits wanting to include a picture for painting and lettering illustrations.

I think 'commercial use' can be interpreted fairly broadly as any use of an image promoting, aiding, ar abbetting sales of that image or use of that image in facilitating any commercial (money making) enterprise. One case involved a retailer using one of our images to advertise a product they were selling. That is COMMERCIAL USE although the image itself was not part of the sale.

Bob Kutella