Trainspotters "banned" following vandalism at Cheltenham Spa railway station

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From the Gloucestershire Echo (25th July 2013):

A TRAINSPOTTER has complained to the bosses of Cheltenham Spa railway station, claiming he and other enthusiasts have been "banned" from stepping on the platform.

Robert Webb, 36, from Rowanfield, Cheltenham, has written to First Great Western to demand an explanation.

He said he was told by station staff that trainspotters could not enter the premises because "serious vandalism" had been carried out at the station.

First Great Western confirmed the vandalism had been carried out by a man masquerading as a train enthusiast."

But Mr Webb believes he has been "discriminated" against because other non-train users are allowed to access the station without a ticket.

He said: "I politely asked the staff at Cheltenham station if I could have access to the platform to take videos of the trains passing through ... only to be informed that all train spotters are banned.

"This would be fine if it was a complete ban on all members of the public without tickets but it is not. I observed members of the public without tickets being allowed access to the platforms to meet, greet and wave off friends and family.

"Also, I observed the taxi drivers are allowed access to the facilities. I feel that I and other railway enthusiasts are being discriminated against. As an enthusiast, I travel on (the train) services very often and, as a customer, I find this is an embarrassment."

In response, a spokesman for First Great Western said: "We welcome the rail enthusiast community at all our stations, and are grateful for the support they give our industry.

"Unfortunately, following a recent incident of serious vandalism at Cheltenham station, apparently carried out by someone pretending to be a rail enthusiast, we have had to temporarily suspend access to the station for those without a ticket for travel. I know true enthusiasts will completely condemn such actions, and we are grateful for their patience and understanding as we investigate further and put measures in place to avoid this happening again.

"We hope to welcome them back to the station soon."

Forgive the personal comment straight after posting a news item.

Whilst 'discrimination' might be a little too strong a definition for what FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have done, I do think they are unnecessarily tarring all enthusiasts with the same brush. If a passenger vandalises station property would FGW ban all passengers until their investigation is complete?

Also, why is it, according to the FGW spokesman, a case of them investigating further. Surely a serious case of vandalism is a matter for the BTP^▸ (British Transport Police).

On a personal note, unaware of the current issue, I was at Cheltenham Spa station a few days ago and I was shouted at by a member of staff for daring to take pictures from the over-bridge. After putting my camera away (best comply - I wanted to get home!) I passed the vocal member of staff on my way to the platform and was told that what I was doing was illegal without the permission of staff. 

A brief request asking, "Which law?" and I got the response, "You are on private property and can be asked to leave. We don't need a reason."

Now, that's an interesting interpretation. A fare paying passenger can be treated as a trespasser if they get their camera out. 

Under the circumstances, meek compliance was the best course of action, but I was seething inside just a little. 

[thetrout]

A brief request asking, "Which law?" and I got the response, "You are on private property and can be asked to leave. We don't need a reason."

That's particularly vindictive if you ask me. Also that's not the answer to your question. Personally, my response to that would have been "So the answer is no law whatsoever then"

I do know there is a byelaw that states a person on the railway must leave when asked. Very different to illegally taking pictures of staff without permission, which of course in most cases is complete nonsense.

And of course, when you're asked to leave. Nothing to say you can't come back at a later date/time. Being asked to leave vs. Being asked to leave and not return are 2 very different instructions. I have once used a similar concept when I was asked to get off a train at Reading over a ticket irregularity (for the record, there was nothing wrong with my ticket). I was told to get off. Not get off and stay off

A fare paying passenger can be treated as a trespasser if they get their camera out.

Ah now that did make me chuckle. I wonder how many people have been shouted at for getting a smartphone out? Maybe to open 10 minute reservation app for XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))

[Lee]

While "discrimination" is indeed a strong word, I'm not sure I blame Robert Webb for using it in this instance. After all, if he is correct that members of the public without tickets are being allowed access to the platforms to meet, greet & wave off friends & family, and taxi drivers are allowed access to the facilities, then the alleged perpetrator of this alleged serious act of vandalism could have instead chosen to masquerade as any one of the above.

As nobody involved appears to be suggesting that the alleged perpetrator was an actual rail enthusiast, then I would be interested to hear members thoughts on what word other than "discrimination" is appropriate for the resulting ban on "all train spotters" ?

I hope I'm wrong, but I cant help thinking that this may be an unfortunate case of an official FGW^▸ (First Great Western) response from the top that is rightly mindful of the PR^▸ (Public Relations) disaster that could befall them by alienating the rail enthusiast community, clashing against a rather less tactful "bloody trainspotters" attitude on the ground.

Now, this may be a partly understandable reaction to being spooked by the alleged incident of vandalism, which is why I would be interested to know if bignosemac's brush with staff at Cheltenham Spa station came before or after the alleged incident of vandalism took place.

[ChrisB]

Or even on the same day?

Regardless, I feel you ought to complain to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) management, as that staff reaction is totally OOO. (Out of Order)

[Brucey]

Someone has asked FGW^▸ (First Great Western) on Facebook if there is a compulsory ticket area at Cheltenham Spa: https://www.facebook.com/FirstGreatWestern/posts/10151524115246806

[Chris from Nailsea]

For the record, the national guidance is available at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx

See also http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10673.msg110591#msg110591

[Red Squirrel]

For the record, the national guidance is available at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx

See also http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=10673.msg110591#msg110591

Looking at the rules:

When you arrive at a station, please let the staff at the Network Rail Reception Desk know that you are on the station. This will help keep station staff informed so that they can go about their duties without concern as to your reasons for being there.

Are NR^» (Network Rail - home page) reception staff primed for this? What do they do; send out an APB?

Please DO NOT: ...

...    Wear anything which is similar in colour to safety clothing, such as high-visibility jackets, as this could cause confusion to drivers and other railway employees

...Like the ones most cyclists wear? So are cyclists who aren't rail enthusiasts allowed to keep theirs on?

If possible, please try to avoid peak hours which are Monday ^ Friday 6:00am ^ 10:30am and 3:30pm ^ 7:30pm.

So no train-spotting when there are actually trains about then?

You can take photographs at stations provided you do not sell them.

Really? What's the legal basis for this?

[ChrisB]

Copyright.

[Red Squirrel]

I can't see anything in uk copyright law that would gererally apply to a railway station.

Following a bit of googling I am now clear that the answer is not 'copyright' but 'because we say so'. A landowner can set whatever conditions they wish on photographs taken on their property. As an example, you cannot take photos of Trafalgar Square for commercial purposes without getting permission from BoJo. The landowner cannot however make any stipulations about photos taken from a public place, unless the subject is considered to be an original artistic work - in France, this means you are not allowed to sell photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night because the lighting is copyrighted.

As an aside: As an occasional Wikipedia editor I get very nervous when people quote complete newspaper articles on this forum - such an action would get very short shrift indeed on Wikipedia, because they work hard to stay squeaky-clean on copyright issues. Much better IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) to quote the introductory paragraph (fair use), and link to the source for those who want to read the whole thing.

[ChrisB]

It is to do with copyright. That is how private landlords can refuse permission to take photos from private land. The landlord owns the copyright of anything taken from their land, not the photographer. Hence the snapper can be prevented from making profit from work carried out without permission.

Ditto your point about quoting full extracts from websites - the owner of the website generally owns the copyright and legally you need a licence to quote (except for fair use for review purposes)

[JayMac]

As an aside: As an occasional Wikipedia editor I get very nervous when people quote complete newspaper articles on this forum - such an action would get very short shrift indeed on Wikipedia, because they work hard to stay squeaky-clean on copyright issues. Much better IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) to quote the introductory paragraph (fair use), and link to the source for those who want to read the whole thing.

Is there something in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that makes what has been done for years on this, and other forums, illegal?

Chapter III, Section 30 of that Act says:

Chapter III. Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

30 Criticism, review and news reporting.

(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public.

For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public if it has been made available by any means, including^
(a)the issue of copies to the public;
(b)making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
(c)the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d)the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public;
(e)the communication to the public of the work,but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.

(2)Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

(3)No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film or broadcast where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise.

So there's fair dealing exemption for reporting of current events by quoting online articles, provided they have been made public and an acknowledgment is given. Providing a link to and naming the source is, I'd contend, sufficient acknowledgment.

[Red Squirrel]

It is to do with copyright. That is how private landlords can refuse permission to take photos from private land. The landlord owns the copyright of anything taken from their land, not the photographer.

My understanding is that this right to determine what people do when they are on your property has nothing to do with copyright - it is simply the right of the landowner to make reasonable rules as to what you may and may not do on their land. But IANL.

As an aside: As an occasional Wikipedia editor I get very nervous when people quote complete newspaper articles on this forum - such an action would get very short shrift indeed on Wikipedia, because they work hard to stay squeaky-clean on copyright issues. Much better IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) to quote the introductory paragraph (fair use), and link to the source for those who want to read the whole thing.

Is there something in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that makes what has been done for years on this, and other forums, illegal?

Chapter III, Section 30 of that Act says:

Chapter III. Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works

30 Criticism, review and news reporting.

(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work has been made available to the public.

For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public if it has been made available by any means, including^
(a)the issue of copies to the public;
(b)making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
(c)the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d)the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public;
(e)the communication to the public of the work,but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.

(2)Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

(3)No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film or broadcast where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise.

So there's fair dealing exemption for reporting of current events by quoting online articles, provided they have been made public and an acknowledgment is given. Providing a link to and naming the source is, I'd contend, sufficient acknowledgment.

'Fair dealing' has a meaning in law:

News reporting

Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:

    The work is not a photograph.
    The source of the material is acknowledged.
    The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.


Source: UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Copyright Service

The fact that other people break the law is not a defence!

[grahame]

As you may imagine, I keep a fairly close eye on various copyright issues including photographs, current event text, text about things other than current events.   And I also note the differences where things are merely quoted, quoted and acknowledged, quoted to allow others to review and comment on them, and quoted for the person quoting to review and comment.  I do ... prefer ... shorter quotes rather than longer ones to be pasted in, but in many ways you can't win on this one;  a shorter quote can lead to suggestions of selective editing to make a point not intended by the original article - something that occurred as recently as yesterday on another thread on this forum.

It's not only about strict copyright law, though.  There are times that articles (and even pictures) are acceptable without being our copyright, and without individual permission in each case.  The ones that particularly come to mind are the British Transport Police (BTP^▸ (British Transport Police)) reports, where the whole purpose of sending the pictures around is to get them out as widely as possible.

A lot of this, ultimately, would fall on my shoulders if something went wrong and I didn't act on that in a reasonable time. And if you look back over the years this board has been running, you'll find some occasions where I have asked posters to pull material, or (on very rare occasions) pulled material myself.  The admin and moderator team tends to err on the side of safety here - if we're unsure I would rather material was removed, and therefore any such removals cannot be seeing as an admission that anything was actually out of order.   There was a classic example of that a few months back, when we were asked to pull a newspaper quotation about parking disputes and how the council handled the complainant  in Bedwyn from public view.   There was nothing wrong with the original post at all, but parish council proceedings are a long way away from our main purpose, and sometimes it's better to simply give way without admission in the interests of harmony, and to save an awful lot of hassle.

I am - very - interested in the "photography on stations" issues, and of the request for enthusiasts to sign in.  I remember looking at a picture taken within recent years of a steam engined train leaving King's Cross, platforms awash with photographers, and wondering how long they had all queued to speak to the Network Rail reception desk. Some of it's about what the law specifies.  And some of it's about applying it sensibly.

[Red Squirrel]

My antenna are perhaps on a hair-trigger here (if that's not too appaling a mixed metaphor!). I was once hauled over the coals for publishing my own photograph on Wikipedia, because I had previously published it on another website. Wikipedia, or its bots, picked it up within 12 hours of publication and marked it for speedy deletion.

[ChrisB]

Chiltern are quite hot on snappers on their stations. Once they've signed in, they're happy - but don't try it until they are aware of you.