On Apr 9, 6:38*pm, wrote:

On Apr 9, 6:07*pm, Mizter T wrote:

[big snip]

I wonder however if this is simply the result of confusion relating to
different meanings being attached to "amateur" and "non-professional"
photography, the latter perhaps embracing various photography projects
that aren't money making but are nonetheless more than a bod with a
camera. Perhaps this is the result of snap-happy art students 'running
wild' on the network filling up their portfolios and causing minor
mayhem whilst they do so?

Looks like confusion and cock-up to me. The page on Permit Rates
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/media/lufilmoffice/permit-request.aspx
only mentions commercial filming / photography (with non-commercial
only mentioned in the student section linked from there),
but they are all under the media section of the site. In other words,
these permits do not seem to be aimed at general passengers, but at
people wanting to undertake photography projects.

The Conditions of Carriage still only mention that flash photography
is banned and don't mention normal photography at all.

I agree, it's a non-story.

On Apr 9, 7:04*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

rail wrote:

[snip]

Last time I checked requirements for a professional video shoot which
was about 5 years ago, I came up with the same categories so I don't
think anything had changed, just it is being made better known.

The fact that this procedure is on the TfL website under "...
/corporate/media" seems to suggest to me it is nothing to do with members of
the public taking 'happy snaps'.

Which of course is the 'non-conclusion' we all came to last time this
subject aired...


Indeed, sorry for airing it again - as I've just said above, it's a
non-story, albeit perhaps another good illustration of how not-very-
good hackery works.

As I've also said above, this fuss could have been avoided - and could
be avoided in the future - if the LU Film Office webpages were a bit
more specific. They are after all the first 5 hits when you search the
TfL site for the term "photography", and casual surfers shouldn't be
expected to deconstruct URLs (though journalists should perhaps
notice!).

Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 9, 6:36 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]
On Apr 9, 3:38 pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Thursday 9th April 2009
Chris Cheesman
[Amateur Photographer article snipped]]

http://tinyurl.com/cn2ttq
or
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...rackdown_on_lo....
My instant reaction to this was 'it's all just a misunderstanding, as
LU have never had any rule against amateur photography, and the LU
spokesperson is just a bit muddled'.
Me too, when I saw this elsewhere.

However, I went to the TfL
website to check up on the purported changes mentioned in the above
article and I found, to my surprise, mention of a "Student or non-
professional permit", something I don't recall ever hearing about
beforehand. (N.B. I'm not much of a photographer so this isn't my area
of expertise.)
Could the intention be to mean film/photography/journalism/etc students,
and very serious/arty amateurs, who might want to do more than just take
a quick snap, but who don't have the financial resources of Steven
Spielberg? It is probably worth TfL trying extract as much cash as
possible from Holywood, but maybe not a bunch of students or a camera club.


[For a moment there I thought you'd made a delicious typo about
extracting money from "Holyrood" - that'd make Tony P pleased, though
of course the ScotNat's would say that's more or less what we've been
doing for the past thirty-odd years if one allows for the artistic
licence of substituting Holyrood for the 'Scottish' North Sea... but I
digress!]

I was, of course, proposing that TfL should borrow 5'3" gauge trains
from a Belfast museum

Basically, re what you say above, that's what I think. This sounds
like a storm in a teacup, not at all helped by the uncertain responses
of the TfL spokesperson - the result of the new cut back, leaner
('amateur' even...) TfL press office under Boris?! I wonder if the
press officer had spoken to the LU Film Office about this - I have my
suspicions that might not have happened (though I suppose the Press
Office should perhaps be capable of standing on their own two feet
with regards to wholly predictable enquiries such as this one).

Even in the past, under Ken, I wanted to find out something about demise
of the West London tram scheme, and got directed to the press office. It
soon became clear the person I spoke to didn't know what a trolleybus
was, which I would have thought was something they would at least be
able to check when asked exactly _what_ was now being proposed.

I therefore think this is a non-issue. The problem with stories such
as this is you end up thinking that the hacks responsible are either
just being scurrilous, knowing full well they weren't in receipt of
the whole story, or otherwise stupid for believing they were on to a
scoop.

If the hacks didn't report something which had been confirmed as true
just because it seemed daft, we'd all be completely unaware of bi-mode
IEP...

I dare say it's possibly a muddled mixture of both, which is
encouraged by editors and further boosted in this brave new online-era
by the desperate need for website hits

"TfL says permits are needed to take NUDE PICTURES OF BRITNEY SPEARS at
Aldwych."

(I certainly visited a website
that I wouldn't have done otherwise this afternoon - though I didn't
click on any adverts, not least because they're blocked with Firefox's
ABP!).

All that said it's not helped by the uncertain words of the TfL
spokesperson, and nor is it helped by the lack of precision on the
webpages of the LU Film Office section of the TfL website (which are
the only obvious hits on the first page of results when you use the
TfL's website search facility with the term "photography"). Going by
past posts on newsgroups and I think elsewhere these LU Film Office
webpages have certainly tripped people up beforehand. So maybe it's
time for a quiet word from the Press Office to the Film Office to get
them to clarify the information on their pages and so stop confusion
(and daft media stories) from arising in the future.

That would be a good idea.

Then maybe they can do something with the DLR, where some staff believe
all photography is illegal. A member of staff with anger management
issues blatantly trying to kick-off a violent incident can be handled by
keeping an eye on the nearest escape routes, but try keeping a straight
face when someone says "I know it is illegal, because my brother is a
PCSO"...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"jim" wrote:

So what would happen if lots of photographers sent letters / emails seeking
permission. What about events, such as steam on the met...

A new form of 'flash mob' anyone (pun intened)


Try that approach just once, and a blanket ban on photography will not
be long in coming.

In message , Arthur
Figgis writes
Then maybe they can do something with the DLR, where some staff believe
all photography is illegal. A member of staff with anger management
issues blatantly trying to kick-off a violent incident can be handled
by keeping an eye on the nearest escape routes, but try keeping a
straight face when someone says "I know it is illegal, because my
brother is a PCSO"...

LOL!

Horlicks on keyboard moment!

The problem often with this subject, though, isn't what the rules *are*,
it's what individual staff often *think* they are, which is a different
thing altogether and often the cause of problems.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Apr 9, 7:18*pm, Mizter T wrote:
Basically, re what you say above, that's what I think. This sounds
like a storm in a teacup, not at all helped by the uncertain responses
of the TfL spokesperson - the result of the new cut back, leaner
('amateur' even...) TfL press office under Boris?! I wonder if the
press officer had spoken to the LU Film Office about this - I have my
suspicions that might not have happened (though I suppose the Press
Office should perhaps be capable of standing on their own two feet
with regards to wholly predictable enquiries such as this one).

From my contact with them, the TfL press office exists to sugar coat
press releases handed to it by the operational departments, and is not
set up to answer questions.

U

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
et...

This is just going the wrong way.

There used to be a "permit" requirement in Spain, but it's been dropped
recently:

http://www.adif.es/en_US/ocio_y_cult...fotografia.htm
shows the English wording (I printed out this and the one in Castellano
and carried both when in Spain recently). I do like being thought of as
an "aficionado".

I was in Spain a few weeks ago, and had no problems whatsoever taking
pictures (without a permit).

I had no hassle - just had the wording with me in case.

OTOH, buying ticket is hassle - few useful machines (though lots of ticket
on departure collection machines), and a lack of through ticketing between
long distance and local/regional trains.

Of course there's a lack of through ticketing - they're different train
types. The joys of rail travel in .es and .pt in one.

The complexities of ticketing are a joy to behold. Especially when you find
out that, in addition to every flavour of IC service having its own pricing
structure, there are two kinds of advance purchase ticket as well (that's
Tarifa Web and Tarifa Estrella).

--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
Spain's new railway http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/c1674969.html
Madrid trams + metros http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/c1674968.html
Madrid city tour http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/c1674966.html

Photos taken on London's Tube network - even tourist snapshots - may
require a £34.50 permit, say Underground bosses who insist that the
rules haven't changed.

Well, on my last but one trip to London I witnessed flash photography
being used and I'm fairly certain that none of the individuals
concerned had a permit.

The fact that the group involved were three or four Spanish teenagers
taking a group photo by one of the signs at Piccadilly Circus
presumably doesn't change the fact that they owe TfL some cash.