What laws do you break to get the shots you want?

[Robert Brummitt]

Wasn't there a rule that states, "The more expensive a camera or lens is. The harder the law of gravity pulls it down to the ground."

[Jehu]

Wasn't there a rule that states, "The more expensive a camera or lens is. The harder the law of gravity pulls it down to the ground."

You mean like the one at the bottom of Lake Tahoe?

[Sean Galbraith]

My worst crime – it must be common around here – is trespassing, mainly on closed public lands, but sometimes on private lands too. I’ve never been caught, but I feel it’s only a matter of time. Some day, I’ll get my come-uppance.

— What laws have you broken, and why? When is it justifiable?

— Does the “sense of risk” improve – or interfere – w/ your photography?

— Do good results help alleviate any subsequent remorse?

I would say that a good 80% of photos I've taken since 2005 have been while trespassing on private lands. Hell, I filmed a television series about trespassing and photography. :-)

The sense of risk isn't important or relevant for making my photos. I'd make the same shots if I had legal access.

I have no remorse whatsoever. And I've been caught a few times. Good times.

[dsphotog]

I would say that a good 80% of photos I've taken since 2005 have been while trespassing on private lands. Hell, I filmed a television series about trespassing and photography. :-)

The sense of risk isn't important or relevant for making my photos. I'd make the same shots if I had legal access.

I have no remorse whatsoever. And I've been caught a few times. Good times.

During a workshop, Jerry Uelsmann told us, "The camera is a license to explore."
I've been exploring ever since.

[Steve Smith]

In this area I prefer the English philosophy of access and hiking trails: once a trail always a trail.

We do have quite a lot of access rights which have increased recently with the Right to Roam Act.


http://www.realbuzz.com/articles/rig...-walking-laws/



Steve.

[rdenney]

We should make a distinction between a farmer's back field that is not in view of his house and is accessible without driving a car on his land, and what might be the backyard of someone with a smaller piece of land. We have five acres and I get very protective when I see people walking on our land without permission. The first issue is that we are secluded by trees and the shape of the land, and don't always take steps to be presentable to strangers, which makes trespassing a question of politeness. The second issue is liability. If someone gets hurt in my bits of wild woods--and there are hazards aplenty there--they or their heirs and insurance companies can (and are likely to) sue. Finally, one reason we bought where we did was to avoid being under the watchful eyes of busybody neighbors who had an opinion on everything we did, from when we mowed our grass to how we trimmed our trees. Thus, trespassers are met with (polite) suspicion and challenge.

A little common sense should prevent issues, but the problem with common sense is that it's so uncommon. That's especially true for city dwellers who do not appreciate the rural sense of property. (In cities, country folk are the ones who don't appreciate the value of personal space, so it goes both ways.)

Rick "who can do without neighborhood nazis" Denney

[Struan Gray]

The 'Right to roam' in England and Wales is a pretty sickly, weak thing. Even the stronger Scottish and Nordic versions make an explicit distinction between gardens and unenclosed countryside or wilderness. They also specifically legislate against irresponsible behaviour, which gives many landowners a legal regress they would otherwise lack.

US law has the concept of an 'attractive nuisance', which makes a landowner liable if a hazard on their land is attractive to children who cannot appreciate the danger it poses. A quarry with a playpark on the brink would count. Given the well-known American love of litigation, I am surprised a confederacy of camera clubs hasn't instituted a class action suit against past and future owners of red barns, purling brooks and sandstone arches.


PS: I once shot a red light while gawping at the scenery.

[Richard Mahoney]

Given the well-known American love of litigation, I am surprised a confederacy of camera clubs hasn't instituted a class action suit against past and future owners of red barns, purling brooks and sandstone arches.

Let alone against God Himself, for threatening so many with blindness, trying to master The Supreme Splendor of His Variegated Sunsets. Or at least against His Handmaid Velvia, for encouraging Their Vanity.

Best, Richard

[Richard Mahoney]

The second issue is liability. If someone gets hurt in my bits of wild woods--and there are hazards aplenty there--they or their heirs and insurance companies can (and are likely to) sue.

A few posters have mentioned their potential liability for the injury of trespassers. This seems perverse. Where along the line did you lose the right to quietly slip the hounds?

Kind regards,

Richard

[rdenney]

US law has the concept of an 'attractive nuisance', which makes a landowner liable if a hazard on their land is attractive to children who cannot appreciate the danger it poses. A quarry with a playpark on the brink would count. Given the well-known American love of litigation, I am surprised a confederacy of camera clubs hasn't instituted a class action suit against past and future owners of red barns, purling brooks and sandstone arches.

The attractive nuisance thing really grew up around swimming pools. There is a balance between what a pool owner should be expected to do to prevent accidents and what parents of small children should be expected to do regarding supervision. We've gone bonkers in both directions. Parents are reported to the authorities if their kid wanders three houses down a suburban street with their parent frantically searching in the wrong direction, and once they are reported, the legal hassles are completely disproportionate. But those same parents with whom I might sympathize in that situation then are the first to blame a neighbor who has a swimming pool with a fence that is scalable by children of age ___(fill in the blank with the age of the unfortunate drowning victim). An unfenced pool became the poster child for the attractive nuisance concept. I would add basketball nets that are pulled up to the edge of a public road so the kids have pavement on which to dribble their basketballs are at least as attractive to danger but those often go unremarked by those same parents.

Our woods are full of such hazards. We have trees with dangling broken "widowmaker" branches, standing dead trees that are waiting for the next vigorous thunderstorm to come down, poison ivy (in enough quantity to make me rich if it had cash value), the occasional boulder protruding from the ground to act as a tripping hazard, thorns of every possible description, and fauna of the sharp-teethed variety. In our rural area, such woods abound and nobody has fences unless they keep horses or cattle. It is unlikely that we would be held accountable for these hazards even if somebody did come to harm, but we carry the necessary insurance nevertheless.

And it's been a long time, probably in the UK as well as in the US, since "slipping the hounds" would leave no probability of being sued by the trespasser. We have seen cases where burglars have sued their victims because they were injured as a result of some negligence. Booby traps, for example, seem to be fully actionable.

This is part of a long decline in individual property rights in the United States. These rights were probably stronger here than anywhere originally, given the position of the founders and their belief in the primacy of property owners over their private holdings. And the U.S. was one of the first to completely eschew any heritage of sovereign land ownership (as in, all the land is owned by the king and leased indefinitely to wealthy peers). As time has passed, the countries that started with no private ownership have migrated in that direction, while the U.S. has migrated in the direction of providing some public responsibility on the part of landowners. There is no relationship between this trend and the Patriot Act that I can perceive, but the reaction to perceived invasions of privacy by that legislation are probably part of a larger reaction to the degradation in the control landowners have over their own property. Americans, especially those in rural areas, define that control as very much a part of the freedoms established at America's founding.

Rick "whose 'trespassing' is mostly done using long lenses" Denney