[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
(erielack) Re: Erielack Digest V2 #829
- Subject: (erielack) Re: Erielack Digest V2 #829
- From: "BPRutter_@_aol.com"
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:38:45 EDT
In a message dated 09/15/2000 6:00:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
"erielack-owner_@_internexus.net" writes:
<< Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:15:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: AL TILLOTSON <"CPLNAJT_@_NJTRANSIT.COM">
Subject: Re: (erielack) Dunellen Railroad Days - Safety Commentary
The assumption here is that if the magazines don't publish the photos, the
trespassers will stop taking them. I don't think this is a reasonable
assumption. First, I suspect that a lot of these photos are taken for the
trespasser's private collection, and that publication is not the primary
intent. Second, I think that the incurable optimism inherent in the nature
of freelance photographers (not to mention people who stand on the track in
front of an on-coming train) would lead the trespasser to conclude that THEIR
photo would manage to get by the restriction, somehow.
While I share the concern about stupid people putting themselves and others
in danger just to get a "cool" photo, I don't think coming down on the
magazines is going to be effective in addressing that concern.
<As long as Trains and other magazines will publish photos taken by
<trespassers, there will be trespassers. The magazines and calendar
<publishers should refuse to publish photos taken on railroad property
<unless the photographer has evidence of authority to be on the property.
>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
------------------------------