No Trespassing

[Andrew Farkas]

"Photographing government installations from anywhere can get you in trouble you can't even imagine."

I may be wrong, but I believe that the same rules apply: if you can see it from public land, it's OK to shoot. To wit, there is a photographer, I can't remember his name, who shot lots 'o pics of area 51. He had an exhibit at Mass MoCA about a year ago. As far as I know, he's not in jail, but maybe I don't remember his name because the gov't "erased" him.

As far as abandoned properties, often times the sign is there for a reason, and not just to ward off lawsuits: an open gate with a "no trespassing" sign can be construed as an "attractive nuisance" in a court of law, making the landowner more responsible. That said, the Northampton asylum is a great example of a complete death trap. There's no way people are dumping bodies in there (NoHo's not that kinda town), but there's certainly asbestos in the air, and I've seen people get their feet stuck in holes in the floor [um, from the other side of the fence, of course]. Lawsuits notwithstanding, it's just bad form to not warn people about that kind of stuff.

Does anyone know where to find the actual laws on photographers' rights?

[tim atherton]

The only restrictions that can be placed on photographing government buildings or facilities in the US which are visible from a public place, are certain DoD/Military facilities (and in many cases it's down to the local commander) and certain designated nuclear facilities (and I think they have to be specifically designated by the Department of Energy or one of the Nuclear Commissions or such).

Apart from that, I don't think there really any other restrictions.

[Capocheny]

Why was "shake down" the first thought that came into my head? AFAIK, "the government" can exercize their rights without payment. Perhaps I should start asking USPS for "a small quartery payment" to allow the mail carrier to walk up my driveway.

Hi Brian,

LOL... here in Canada, if we said something like that to a Postee (or to be politically correct, a Letter Carrier )... they'd simply stop delivering the mail!

I don't trespass, period. For some people having a camera, or their pursuit of a photograph, think it gives them permission to trespass. I don't agree with this, and it's people that do trespass that make it far harder for photographers who try to do the right thing and ask permission or even shoot private property from public land.

There are millions of photos out there for the taking, why trespass? why does photography have to come at the expense of other people's rights?

Brian,

I fully agree with you... but, unfortunately, we seem to live in a world where people think only of "entitlement" or, "it's their God-given right to do whatever they want!"

We don't hear as often (in the news) about photographers trespassing as we do about people who deliberately ski out of bounds. They get themselves into a precarious situation and the next thing that happens is... the public purse picks up the tab on their rescue and medical treatment, if required!

Cheers

[Turner Reich]

When I was a kid there was a creek and many houses had their back yards down to it. One home owner didn't like to hear the children talking as they drifted down the creek in inner tubes on a Summer day. He told them they were trespassing but they said they weren't on his land.

He strung a wire across the creek and connected it to the house power. Three kids went down the creek for the last time. Three children were electrocuted to death. The home owner got life in prison.

[claudiocambon]

-snip-

I've made a habit of carrying a digital camera whenever I backpack with my 4x5. Mainly because I might see and 'action shot" - IE birds lifting off from the water or the like, or I just don't want to waste a sheet of film. Sometimes I take a few digitals, go home, and come back a few days later knowing better what I want to shoot.

However I found recently while photographing an old, abandoned bridge in a State Park, the Rangers came out to check me out. I have my Tachi setup on a tripod, but my Nikon was also around my shoulder. seeing the Nikon seem to put them at ease instantly, and one of the rangers remarked about my 4x5 that "Oh, that's one of those high resolution cameras!".

What drives me nuts about this that, just because they don't know what you're doing, that means that it's suspect for them.

I was once accosted by a police cruiser on a semi-rural road in CT while I had my head under the dark cloth. The officer said someone had reported suspicious activity, and he looked like he wanted further explanations. He then said that there had been a lot of theft in the area as some sort of prelude for (I think, possibly) teling me to move on, ie trying to deny me my constitutional right to "assemble" in public space. I asked him if he thought I was inconspicuous enough to be a thief, given that the true sneaks do everything to make themselves invisible, and that seemed to assuage his concerns.

[Turner Reich]

These cops are in a vacuum, they know exactly what's going on, they are just being assholes and looking for someone to hassle. You should have ask who complained. Produce a name of the person, then tell the cops you are going down to the police department to write a complaint.

[claudiocambon]

These cops are in a vacuum, they know exactly what's going on, they are just being assholes and looking for someone to hassle. You should have ask who complained. Produce a name of the person, then tell the cops you are going down to the police department to write a complaint.

Technically the problem with that is that in most situations complaints to the police are kept anonymous, but in spirit I see what you're saying. It's the suspicion a priori that bugs me to no end.

[claudiocambon]

The only restrictions that can be placed on photographing government buildings or facilities in the US which are visible from a public place, are certain DoD/Military facilities (and in many cases it's down to the local commander) and certain designated nuclear facilities (and I think they have to be specifically designated by the Department of Energy or one of the Nuclear Commissions or such).

Apart from that, I don't think there really any other restrictions.

Schools in session and now also certain Federal Buildings, I believe, also fall under this category.

[tim atherton]

Schools in session and now also certain Federal Buildings, I believe, also fall under this category.

I was talking particularly about Federal Government Buildings and facilities, so I don't know about the first one (I'd be interested to see where it's laid out).

But as for the second, I'm not so sure - as far as I've read and understood it, there isn't any such legislation? (anyone know of any?)

[Dave Brown]

Sometimes private property isn't private property. In the western U.S., where there is a lot of public land, it isn't uncommon for private land owners whose land borders public land to put their "no trespassing" signs and even their fences well into public land. An acquaintance of mine told me how his neighbor moved his "private property" sign 100 feet further into the National Forest each year. The ruse was eventually discovered, but the Forest Service, lacking the resources for a proper survey, ceded the land without protest.