Reprimanded for Photographing UA Check in Desks at JFK
#62
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Paris
Posts: 577
Total guess, but United will respond with the same form response they did a couple of weeks ago when the woman in Houston went to the press because United made her stop taking pictures
Not saying it's right or wrong, but it's their policy and they enforce it.
It took her two weeks to get a response, so be patient.
Quote:
What you refer to as a law is actually a United policy. We strive to make its customer experience safe and comfortable and accordingly issued the following policy in regard to the use of personal audio and video equipment. This policy is not a contract and does not create any legal rights or obligations.
Unauthorized photography, audio, or video recording of airline personnel, aircraft equipment, or procedures is always prohibited. Any voice, audio, video, or other photography (motion or still), recording, or transmission while on any United Airlines aircraft or in the terminal is strictly prohibited, except to the extent specifically permitted by United Airlines.
Insistence on violating any one of these prohibitions could lead to arrest or being placed on the "no-fly list". Those results are extreme but are possible depending on the environment at the time. I hope this information helps.
What you refer to as a law is actually a United policy. We strive to make its customer experience safe and comfortable and accordingly issued the following policy in regard to the use of personal audio and video equipment. This policy is not a contract and does not create any legal rights or obligations.
Unauthorized photography, audio, or video recording of airline personnel, aircraft equipment, or procedures is always prohibited. Any voice, audio, video, or other photography (motion or still), recording, or transmission while on any United Airlines aircraft or in the terminal is strictly prohibited, except to the extent specifically permitted by United Airlines.
Insistence on violating any one of these prohibitions could lead to arrest or being placed on the "no-fly list". Those results are extreme but are possible depending on the environment at the time. I hope this information helps.
It took her two weeks to get a response, so be patient.
#63
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Durham, NC (RDU/GSO/CLT)
Programs: AA EXP/MM, DL GM, UA Platinum, HH DIA, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Platinum, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 33,857
Could you repeat your question that you would like me, the OP, to clarify?
#64
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
#65
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,228
#66
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
#67
Join Date: May 2003
Location: At This Point, Only G*d Knows!
Posts: 3,467
I have taken pictures at EWR/JFK and at JFK I was stopped by the PANYNJ Police and asked why I was taking pictures of certain aircraft.
When I explained that I am documenting my trip and that the plane I was taking pictures of is the plane that I am going to be flying in a little bit, the officer relaxed and wished me a pleasant journey.
I did ask if I was breaking any rules and his answer was that, no not technically but that the PANYNJ does discourage photography (unless you are with the press/etc.) and that I should not be surprised if other officers notice what I am doing and stop me for questioning.
In the end, nobody else questioned nor stopped me and I did have a great trip, just a little annoyance at the start.
Should it be discouraged? No, it should not, but I was lucky to have dealt with an officer who was honest and realized that I was not a threat.
Dan
When I explained that I am documenting my trip and that the plane I was taking pictures of is the plane that I am going to be flying in a little bit, the officer relaxed and wished me a pleasant journey.
I did ask if I was breaking any rules and his answer was that, no not technically but that the PANYNJ does discourage photography (unless you are with the press/etc.) and that I should not be surprised if other officers notice what I am doing and stop me for questioning.
In the end, nobody else questioned nor stopped me and I did have a great trip, just a little annoyance at the start.
Should it be discouraged? No, it should not, but I was lucky to have dealt with an officer who was honest and realized that I was not a threat.
Dan
#68
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: QFF Gold, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 5,366
S/he was coming up with a whole series of hypotheticals involving the scenario of you taking the pictures, I was suggesting that he didn't know what he was talking about and he got a little heated.
The way the discussion was going I think the next step would have been to suggest that you may have actually been standing on the moon with a version of the Hubble telescope and therefore the airline wouldn't have had any say in whether you could take pictures or not.
#69
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
I am not sure what there is to clarify anyway? It doesn't matter if one likes having their photo taken in a public space or not. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue: you have no expectation of privacy when in public. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how people think that the law is a helpful suggestion and can be mitigated by personal preference.
While the PA may try to circumvent that ruling by giving the impression that they have the power to ignore the SCOTUS, we now have two reports that the PA, when directly asked, admits they have no authority to stop people from taking photos in the terminals, but would prefer people didn't.
And, for that, I was accused of creating "hypotheticals."
C'est la vie, I guess.
#70
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
I have taken pictures at EWR/JFK and at JFK I was stopped by the PANYNJ Police and asked why I was taking pictures of certain aircraft.
When I explained that I am documenting my trip and that the plane I was taking pictures of is the plane that I am going to be flying in a little bit, the officer relaxed and wished me a pleasant journey.
I did ask if I was breaking any rules and his answer was that, no not technically but that the PANYNJ does discourage photography (unless you are with the press/etc.) and that I should not be surprised if other officers notice what I am doing and stop me for questioning.
When I explained that I am documenting my trip and that the plane I was taking pictures of is the plane that I am going to be flying in a little bit, the officer relaxed and wished me a pleasant journey.
I did ask if I was breaking any rules and his answer was that, no not technically but that the PANYNJ does discourage photography (unless you are with the press/etc.) and that I should not be surprised if other officers notice what I am doing and stop me for questioning.
I was told, technically we can't stop you from taking photos, but we train our officers, guards, etc. to stop and confront those taking pictures. PA went on to say we want to know who these people are.
#71
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1
I guess the picture of myself in the co-pilot's seat (still same gate) taken by one of the crew is OK, unless that particular crewmember is not authorised under the United Airlines Criminal Code to waive the no-photography policy.
#72
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I have some pictures just like that, at the same gate!
I guess the picture of myself in the co-pilot's seat (still same gate) taken by one of the crew is OK, unless that particular crewmember is not authorised under the United Airlines Criminal Code to waive the no-photography policy.
I guess the picture of myself in the co-pilot's seat (still same gate) taken by one of the crew is OK, unless that particular crewmember is not authorised under the United Airlines Criminal Code to waive the no-photography policy.
United Airlines Criminal Code enforcer has warned some passengers that joking about UA behaving like a shared taxi is a violation too.
#73
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Yes, for tresspassing. If a private property owner puts conditions on your using their property and you don't adhere to those conditions, tresspassing is a possibility (though the situation is quite complex in a quasi-public space like a privately-owned airport).
#74
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
I think the time has come -- perhaps it's long overdue -- to distinguish the interests of the airline itself (United, in this case) from those of its employees. Sure, employees don't really enjoy being photographed. We all get that. And they'll pull out all kinds of excuses to stop passengers (and even non-passengers) from taking photographs of them. In this case, the airline has even written a rule that conveniently serves the interests of its employees, though it does little or nothing that I can discern to serve the airline's own interests. In this case, the Port Authority also wants to discourage photography, so all the interests are neatly aligned -- except those of the photographers, of course.
Having said all that, does anyone really believe that the airline would cite a photographer for trespassing because he or she failed to follow a meaningless and likely illegal rule? And endure all the attendant bad publicity? Personally, I find that very hard to believe. If pushed to the wall on this, any sensible airline -- and United is in that category -- will back down. So will the Port Authority, as experience has shown. And the employees will be peeved, but that's just too bad for them.
Bruce
Having said all that, does anyone really believe that the airline would cite a photographer for trespassing because he or she failed to follow a meaningless and likely illegal rule? And endure all the attendant bad publicity? Personally, I find that very hard to believe. If pushed to the wall on this, any sensible airline -- and United is in that category -- will back down. So will the Port Authority, as experience has shown. And the employees will be peeved, but that's just too bad for them.
Bruce
#75
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I mean, c'mon. Even with my limited intelligence, if I wanted to do photo surveillance of JFK, it'd be easy to do. All I need to do is get several other members of my
I'm sure it'd work. After all, it worked on Hogan's Heroes.