No Trespassing

[Terence McDonagh]

Many of the places I've tresspassed for pictures I'd tresspass even without a camera. These places include city property, industrial property, commercial space, but not private homes and backyards.

I don't believe that all laws are created equal, and the spirit of greater laws (don't do any harm) is more important to me than the letter of the smaller ones (the park closes at midnight).

Exploration is exciting. Forbidden exploration is more exciting. My friends at urban explorations societies, like jinxmagazine.com, have adventures, learn a ton, share their knowledge and adventures, and in the end, do no harm. And 90% of it is done while tresspassing.

I fully appreciate the benefits of respect for the law. And just as fully respect creative and benevolent dodging dodging of it.

Nothing like the "That law doesn't apply to ME" mindset . . .

Let's say you trespass on my jobsite and fall down an open shaft and die. While you may not have been the litigious type, your family probably will be, and they sue the property owner. Explain to me again exactly how that's harmless?

My jobsites are inherently dangerous even for those trained to work on them. Every worker gets a site safety orientation and weekly "toolbox talks" regarding how to stay safe on the jobsite. You and your friends most likely do not have that training, much less the structural engineering background to evaluate the condition of an abandoned property. You are nothing more than a lawyer's wet dream.

[paulr]

That reasoning may be practical, but it's philosophically backwards. The problem in the case you site is a cultural one (involving interpretations of liability), not one inherent in tresspasing. We should be fighting the system that encourages specious lawsuits, not fighting to forcibly protect people from themselves.

The whole idea of X being illegal because someone who does X might be able to sue someone (or might drive up insurance rates) is the worst systematic assault on freedoms I can imagine.

While I wear a seatbelt, I'm vehemently against seatbelt laws, because the kind of logic behind them represents the complete decay of personal freedom and personal responsibility.

I would like to see a society where someone who dies tresspassing in a mineshaft is considered a suicide, not a victim. Or at least, a victim of misadventure, not of the mining company.

[Ed K.]

I always get permission before knowingly going onto somebody's land. Many of the places I have photographed have extremely dangerous structures and equipment, in some cases, places where my truck could sink into quicksand/muck had I gone there.

The more dangerous places often have all kinds of rules for how employees have to be trained in order to work there without injury, as well as limits to how many creatures can die there each year (birds, foxes, AND humans) before they get shut down. It's a royal pain for some owners to spend the time filling out all the forms and such to deal with some idiot that got hurt on the property.

On a happy note, I have found that researching the ownership and then sending a polite letter, with a good plan as to intent and purpose and hopefully mutual benefit, has given me some experiences of a lifetime and opened many doors. You'd be surprised how well it can work.

If you want to charge for the use of your photos for anything other than news or true bona-fide documentary, you're out of luck without property releases in many cases.

Property owners have to pay good money in taxes, insurance, security and well, fence mending and the like - probably a lot more than your camera gear costs over time.

A little bit of common decency and respect goes a long ways in this world. In rural areas, it goes ten times as far as in the city. Outside of the city, a man is only as good as his words and deeds - starting out by sidestepping a simple hello and / or letter is definitely not the way to get a good relationship going.

On the other hand, when CITY and STATE land gets no tresspassing all the time, it does seem offensive, because we taxpayers own such land. I still respect those signs even though the principle of them annoys me.

I suggest doing one's best to follow the rules, be up front with folks along the way and respect other people's rights. In return, most people are reasonable enough to do the same in return and even be very helpful.

[Terence McDonagh]

Paulr,

I fully agree. But we won't see it in our lifetime. The law schools pump 'em out faster than I can reload . . .

At the same time, I'm still against people trespassing. People should be able to feel secure in their home or property. "Allowing" trespassing makes for a dangerous combination with human nature.

[paulr]

I understand why people don't want others to tresspass.

But it's not quite the same topic as why some might want to tresspass.


And my bigger picture feeling is this: In the cases I'm talking about, the spirit of the law is "don't steal anything, don't break anything, don't interfere with our business, don't sue us." The letter of the law is "keep out." It's possible to respect the spirit while deffying the letter (and vice versa, for what it's worth).

[Terence McDonagh]

If everyone was rational, polite, respectful, etc., we wouldn't need laws in the first place. The problem is that these things are not human nature. Human nature is self-preservation, self interest, greed, malevolence, etc. Just walk into any NYC emergency room and sit there for a while.

[Sal Santamaura]

...While I wear a seatbelt, I'm vehemently against seatbelt laws, because the kind of logic behind them represents the complete decay of personal freedom and personal responsibility...

I always wear a seatbelt and am vehemently in favor of seat belt laws. I don't want the operators of other high-speed projectiles on the road to lose what little control they might have by being thrown around when incidents occur.

[Gene McCluney]

I have had a project for a year and a half now, shooting vintage steel and iron bridges. Most of what I shoot is still in use on public roads. Sometimes surrounding property owners put fencing right up to and attach to the bridges, thus making it difficult to get to the water and shoot side views of the bridge in question. It is my understanding that most streams and rivers are public property and we have a right to access to them. The fences serve to keep livestock contained. I often climb under or over fences to get to a good vantage point to shoot my photo. In the instance where I have found an abandoned bridge not on an existing currently in-use roadway I firstly look for "No Trespassing" signs, or the Purple paint on trees that indicates the same thing. If I don't find any of this, I go thru gates or fences to get to the bridge. If there is a house nearby, I ask. I have never been turned down, and most people are nostalgic about bridges and like to chat about what they know. In rural USA, most "No Trespassing" signs are put up to keep hunters out of private property. Since I am not damaging anything, not hunting wildlife, and not going into any structure, I feel fairly confident about my methods. I work with a buddy, and I don't advise going out into remote rural areas alone, as if you hurt yourself, you might need help.

Sometimes it is difficult to actually determine what "IS" a public road. I use GPS, Satellite imagery with road overlay, and printed state Gazateers. Many times a road in multiple maps is shown to be a county road, and yet when you get to it, it is fenced off. Generally I go thru these fences to get to the bridge. (On foot, not by Jeep). I then rely on the alleged property owner to inform me if I am trespassing, and I have the map imagery to show my understanding that the road is public.

[roteague]

The whole idea of X being illegal because someone who does X might be able to sue someone (or might drive up insurance rates) is the worst systematic assault on freedoms I can imagine.

While I wear a seatbelt, I'm vehemently against seatbelt laws, because the kind of logic behind them represents the complete decay of personal freedom and personal responsibility.

I would like to see a society where someone who dies tresspassing in a mineshaft is considered a suicide, not a victim. Or at least, a victim of misadventure, not of the mining company.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, the idea of personal responsibility, in the US, is a foreign ideal. That was behind my comment about Europe.

I noticed while traveling through southern Germany, for instance, the lack of fences, and openess of the people towards the countryside. I remember standing under someone's apple tree in a field Germany, photographing a village, then waving to the farmer as he drove by - he waved back, and kept going. How refreshing!!!

[BrianShaw]

I agree with you. Unfortunately, the idea of personal responsibility, in the US, is a foreign ideal. That was behind my comment about Europe.

I noticed while traveling through southern Germany, for instance, the lack of fences, and openess of the people towards the countryside. I remember standing under someone's apple tree in a field Germany, photographing a village, then waving to the farmer as he drove by - he waved back, and kept going. How refreshing!!!

Same thing has happened to me (although, it was a citris tree) in the Los Angeles suburbs. It is refreshing!