The Boulder County Railway Historical Society maintains a small dsiplay site (about an acre) full of railroad equipment near Boulder Colorado. The site is just generally open to anyone who wants to look around, we have a chain across the entrance and a sign with some brochures. The brochures indicate that it is OK to come look at the equipment as long as you abide by the rules, which include not climbing on anything (stay off all the equipment) etc. For the past 10 years this informal system has served us well.

Lately however, we have started to encounter problems with a flood of professional phtographers who bring people out to shoot portaits using our site and equipment as a backdrop. The never ask permission in advance and often walk right past our volunteers without saying a word and proceede to have their clients climb around on the equipment, move our tools etc. They then get all bent out of shape if we ask them to behave. This has become an almost daily occurance as the weather warms up.

In the past, we were pretty accomodating, as long as they asked and followed the rules, as it was a pretty rare occurance. Now we seem to be the photo hot spot, and it is really starting to cause problems.

I guess my first question would be, does anyone else have exprience with this issue?

If so, how have you dealt with it? What policies do other railroad museums, preservation groups, tourist railroads etc. have about professional photographers using their location and equipment as a back drop and or shooting location?

To be clear the problem is not at all with railfans taking pictures of our equipment or parents taking pictures of their kids, but with professional photographers using our site as though it was their own studio.

Thanks

Jason Midyette

We've noticed the same trend out here in Washington State. I'm not sure why either. Most shoots involve children. Perhaps it is a resurgence in public awareness of railroads?

We've started charging a $50 sitting fee. Several photographers have reacted poorly, with comments about how they need to make a living and the publicity really helps our cause. The real professional photographers - who, by the way, charge a lot of money - do not question the fee or the amount, they pay it. It only seems fair as we do not charge to visit the grounds yet spend many thousands in donated labor (yes, it has a monetary value) and funds maintaining the collection and grounds.

We have four signs that say "Permit required for commercial photography." We've caught a few people trying to sneak a shoot in but since the signs went up the "problem" is under control.

Oh, one last thing, we do not allow shoots when the train is running. Unsafe behaviour does occur...

--Richard

I like the idea of the permit for commercial photography. Make them pay, they get the benefit of having wonderful backdrops for their photography. Also state that a prior appointment is needed so that a member of your organization can accompany the photographer. That justifies the fee. You do not want to be allowing people climb on the equipment unescorted, and you do not want to give the impression that your signs, barriers etc. are only there for show. I am sure your insurance company would agree.

Museums might want to consider advertising the availably of their location for photo shoots. For a fee of course. I know of a photographer with a rural studio who has several outdoor props including a complete caboose. Using trains, old cars, old tractors and old farm machinery for back drops and props is very popular.
Some of these photographers actually love junk.

As a photographer (hobby, not a pro) I find that to be rude. It is one thing to stand by the tracks and photograph the train as it is moving past you, or to walk through a rail yard (with permission of the employees) and take photos. But to do a professional level shoot without asking? No wonder photographers today have a bad name.

Were I do to a shoot where I'd earn some money, I'd gladly make a $50 pr $100 donation to any museum or tourist railroad that would work with me....

The behavior of such "professionals" does explain why the B&O Railroad Museum, for one, has a sign politely explaining "personal photography permitted; permit required for commercial photography". The motivation for this is simple: to avoid the stupidity described above with wedding photographers, college photography clubs, free-lance documentary makers, etc. I'm sure that somewhere along the line the next "Michael Moore" wants to get video of, say, rusty locos at Steamtown/Cass/Cumbres & Toltec/Sacramento, then launch an expose of "look at how your tax monies are being WASTED!" Much as I want to protect free speech and "investigative journalism," I despise hatchet jobs.........

Other potential problems:
-ANY pro photo crew making a disturbance, be it draping photo lights/tripods/etc. around an exhibit someone may have come many miles to see (a fellow RyPNer ran into just that problem at a local museum the other day, as I recall) or interfering with the rights of other patrons to walk freely among the exhibits;
-Photographers and their clients breaking safety rules. I remember the story of a photographer so engrossed in her work on working tracks around a major event (I'm thinking the American Freedom Train or Chessie Steam Special) that a commuter train or transit car crept up behind her, and the conductor opened the door of the unit, leaned out, and tapped her on the shoulder!
-Simple data misinformation. Sometimes the museum isn't being a censor or control freak when they demand a review of your work; they just want to prevent a repeat of the stupid postcard that came out featuring a "streamlined Cleveland & Ohio locomotive, built in April 1890 as designated by its number 490 and streamlined in the Art Deco era, on display at Baltimore City's B&O Railroads Museum in Baltimore, Ohio". (Yes, I've seen stuff that bad, though not in rail preservation--yet.....)

I've worked with professional photo and video outlets. As suggested above by Western Star, the real pros won't hesitate to pay a sitting fee and add it into what they're charging. But most people will balk at what looks like an afterthought extortion attempt. Have the policy in writing, and among the writing have the option for the opportunity to waive the fee if deemed appropriate. This allows you the discretion to let in the newspaper photographer to cover the unveiling of your newly-restored Civil War 4-6-0, or even allow that free-lancer to crawl up on top of the other equipment for an alternate view for the "free publicity" the railroad magazines are giving you with a news photo.............

Any person who claims to be a "professional" would never walk in and start shooting without asking permission. It's called "stealing a location" - and it's not cool.

Stephen

Never underestimate the capacity of people to be stupid. I still run into people several pay grades above a lot/most on this list who have to be forcefully dissuaded from the idea that the B&O Railroad Museum is a city-owned enterprise, and thus "public" property.

So far, here at the Trolley Museum of New York, we haven't had a problem with professionals who just show up trying to shoot something. Anyone who calls asking to use the site for a shoot, we refer them to our media contract, which is based off the one Illinois Railway Museum uses. Among other requirements, if they use any equipment in any way, it requires them to purchase an insurance rider. This alone weeds out a lot of chaff.

It seems to me that the main issues are caused by wedding photographers - the trend today is to take some wedding pictures at a location on the limo ride between the church and the reception hall. For example, at my wedding we stopped at a local park with a covered bridge and shot photos, and my sister was at a wedding in Green Bay where they got shots with Lambeau Field in the background.

I recall a few years ago when I was driving by the large CP yard in Calgary and I saw a photographer and a bride and groom jump out of the car, and the photographer had the bride and groom climb up on the grabirons of some cars on a live track for pictures. And this is in a major yard where trains are constantly moving on all tracks. They got very lucky the train didn't start moving and that their clothes didn't get caugut on anything.

I think pro wedding photographers seek out such locations for these quickie shots, and while they are correct that RR locations are good for photos, they don't understand how dangerous it can be to climb on live equipment or stand on live track.

Chris.

During my 10+ years at the Museum of Tranportation in St. Louis we always had a sign at the entrance stating that personal photography was allowed but that commercial photographers needed a permit, or words to that effect. The place was popular enough for the pros that there was a standard fee for wedding photos taken on the front deck of the Big Boy. On the other hand there were a few borderline "pros" who took their "artistic" shots by themselves and were "shocked, shocked I tell you" when folks from the museum community of volunteers and staff saw them selling these in their studios or at train shows where the source of the shots was obvious and they were asked to at least make a contribution to the museum. They also usually refused. I think the county lawyers had to contact one or two to get them to stop. In my earlier years as a fan on the east coast I saw TV crews who were invited to be on fan trips act in ways that enraged the paying customers. Things like a photo run where there was a guy with his large video camera on the running board on the side where the photo line was established. TV crews have to be watched by someone at all times and ground rules have to be established in advance. If your trips are only being run on one weekend and are sold out you don't need more publicity. Especially at the cost of turning off the folks who are paying.

A couple of thoughts...

Our site is complicated (owned by the City, operated by the County, with 4 "partner" groups including the railroad)

So far, it hasn't been a safety problem for the railroad. The equipment is fenced off, so we can limit access when volunteers are not present.

The county has a "private photography ok, professional needs permit policy," with a fee schedule and proof of insurance requirements. There is a separate permit and fee policy for photography inside the Victorian house museum. So far the railroad has suggested (an recieved) a modest donation when asked.

The County allows the Railroad and other partners to bring in professional photographers on to the site to photograph our activities without permit.

We do weddings on site, and the weddings contract includes a photo permit for the site.

Big photo shoots (for glossy magazine ads, catalogs or such) come with steep fees, up to several thousand dollars, and include staff to oversee the activities.

We are seeing lots of what appear to be professional photographers walking onto the site, to do portraits, mostly of children. Most claim they are not professionals, only advanced amateurs or photo students doing a project...

The county gives free permission for student photographers and groups who ask in advance. The house hosts photography groups occasionally as part of our regular tour program.

Finally be careful if any of your equipment is owned by a local government. If so you may need to follow their policies. The City is specifically not trying to control images of the house, but is trying to control liability, protect the building and contents and recover costs related to making the house available. The fee schedule has been adopted by the City Council, and changes must be approved by them.

Two years ago while driving the Natches Trace Parkway from Missisippi to Tennesee, I stopped and hiked a trail in TN into a gully to visit a popular waterfall. There were multiple signs saying to keep on the trail. At the bottom at the waterfall there was a professional photographer with a group of young ladies in formal gowns. He had them posing on wet and slippery rocks and blocking any photography of the waterfall or gulley for everyone else. I was expecting one of them to slip and break a bone. I think I managed to squeeze a photograph in beside them and left grumbling. I can't imagine the National Park Service granting permission to do what they were doing. I suppose Pro photographers are like anyone else. There are decent folks and jerks and you have to prepare for the jerks.

On the other hand I fancy myself as a slowly improving amateur. Someday I would like to sell some of my better prints. It would only be as a side gig to make some money for upgraded photo equipment. However I cant see selling enough of any one print to justify paying a professional photography fee. It certainly does not make sense to charge a "pretty picture" photographer the same and one dragging an entire wedding party onto some of your equipment. In my opinion, if the photographer does not require any special handling and looks to all the world like an ordinary visitor there is no call to be charging them a fee. To force it would likely result, as often as not, in them ceasing to sell the photos and still no income for you. Requiring a note of the location and the organization responsible is another matter. It costs the photographer next to nothing and give you free advertizing.

And with the other hand, we rabidly defend our Constitutional right to do railfan photography from public places. Interesting.

I think that "Gorilla Photography" is the term in the motion picture business to describe shooting on location without advance permission. The practice goes back before the invention of "talkies", when the audience couldn't hear what the irate policeman or owner in the shot was complaining about. Some transit authorities consider a tripod or light to be the dividing line between free personal photography and "permit required" professional shoots.
If you do charge, consider overtime charges as well. Commercial movies require many "takes" to get a good finished product "in the can", and it takes a lot longer than your watchman may imagine!