No Trespassing

[tim810]

Shoot first ask questions later!!!

Up untill now I have been really good about asking to photgraph than shooting. My attitude has recently changed. This change took lots of coaxing though. It first started about 3 years ago when I was shooting an old barn off the side of the road. i was on the side of the road shooting into someone elses pasture at an old barn. I had my 8x10 out and just finished firing off two 4x10s (in this case I didn't ask due to me being on the side of the road and I had no idea who owned the barn(no houses in site)). At this point a truck came up and asked me 1.What I was doing? 2. Why am I pointing that thing at their property? 3. And My mistake, Why is my tripod leg over their fence? Well I went and explained that I was taking a photo of their lovely barn and field. 4. Why would you want to take a photo of that barn? Well, i like the asthetics of where the sun is hitting the barn, and the stubs from last years corn sticking up out of the snow. They continued to say that tey wanted the negs and I wasn't entitled to the photos due to my tresspassing. I said that was not true and just continued packing up. Long story short I have a beautifull photo of a place that One Tripod leg TRESPASSED.

Just recently, I wanted to shoot an old mill that is near where I live. Its beautifull. Most of it is redone, but there is some of the old mill barely standing. I went and talked to the building manager and politely asked if I was allowed to pass through the fenced in area as long as there where no locks or other things keeping me out. The building manager was supprisingly generous and even showed me a map of places I could go and places I could not go. I went on my merry way and took a couple of shots.
A month later I had some people interested in comming up to shoot mills with me. I went on and called the Manager of this mill and let him know I was going to be there.
We showed up and there where locks on all the gates and tape around holes that used to be in the fence. Luckily there was a maitenece man around and he let us in and we where able to shoot. That is where the first shot came from (Mill 3s).

The next mill we went to I had been to many times and just stayed on the boundries. There was plenty to shoot without going past the NO TRESPASSING. No one ever bothered me. This time I saw a hole. It was late in the day (400) and the light was burning away. I figured I would, with two other people pass through the hole. This brought us to the burned down (10ish years ago) part of the mill. I was walking along and noticed that there was a flicker of light bouncing off of somthing inside the mill. The door was open and we went in. This is where we found the last few shots of the day. (Mill 1&2) They where beautifull. Half the building was gone and let all the sunlight in from the side and lit the place up like a kalidescope. BEAUTIFULL. Well the sun started going down and we decided to get back to the cars. When we returned the security guard had just asked the shooters that stayed on this side of the fence to just make sure that they ask before shooting next time.

Everywhere people are trying harder and harder to keep you out of places 9x out of ten the awnser when I ASK is a big "NO". For some things I think it is just polite to ask (someones house, farm, etc..). But for others just "Shoot and ask questions later" .

Sorry about my ramble. It has kinda been eating at me. I would be interested to see others point of view of this matter. Also some images reguarding this matter would be nice.


Cheers Tim

[Frank Petronio]

Nice photos.

I don't go onto private owners land but old factories are fair game and their guards will always say no... I usually act all contrite and polite but I get the shot first... No reasonable cop is going to arrest a middle-aged taxpayer for talking a LF photo, they'll give a warning and be pissed at the whining complainer for wasting their time.

Rent a cops have almost no power, all they can do is intimidate you into leaving.

We should all meet up at Bethlehem Steel sometime and overrun the place ;-)

[Ted Harris]

Tim,

I always ask first when it is possible to do so, just common respect. When I can't ask I leave a business card and a note. I often give folks a print of their building that I have shot. This has resulted in lots of business for me.

Looking at it the other way, as a property owner with some nice wooded acreage and a couple of interesting buildings I would get upset and unpleasant if someone setup a tripod without asking. First, I work hard to keep my land protected and peaceful for the wild creatures that I share the space with and to keep them safe from hunters; letting photographers roam at will without asking could also be construed as an invitation to hunters. Second, you wander on my land and even though you may be trespassing if you fall into a hole or trip over an old stump you might sue me and you could win. Third, not everyone is as careful as you may be and I'd rather not have folks tramping over area that may be sensitive to me but not to others; I know where the turkeys nest, you don't. Ask first and I will almost always welcome you and none of the problems above are encountered.

[Allen Rumme]

The number of photographers who think "No Trespassing" signs do not apply to them absolutely astounds me. I know quite a few photographers who think nothing of entering posted, private property to make pictures. I have yet to figure out what part of "No Trespassing" they don't understand? There is the issue of respect for another's private property, which gets violated every time someone trespasses. Most of us want others to respect our private property, yet some of us don't seem to believe that we are required to behave in a similar fashion when it comes to someone else's property. If a property owner has had to deal with trespassers it is little wonder that photographers who ask for permission quite often get told no.

Sorry, but this business of trespassing is a real hot button for me and, imho, those who trespass make all photographers look bad and make it increasingly difficult to gain access to places we'd like to work.

I'll be quiet now...........

[tim810]

As far as Private land goes I will not walk on anyones property (ie... fields, pastures). If there is something I want to shoot on someones' land and I can't do it from the road I will always ask (even chruches). For the exact reason that Ted pointed out. I don't know the dynamics of a persons property. The case of the barn, it was a tripod leg that was just over their property line. Now, I am just very meticulous about where I put everything.
As far as abandoned property Mills etc... The people that the land owners (city or private) are trying to KEEP OUT seem to be getting in any way (graffiti, etc.). This was the first place I went into without initial permission.

There is one place I am itching to shoot and it is impossible. The CT state hospital in Norwich CT has been closed for quite some time now. I drive by it on my way to work every day. One day I pulled off to the side of the road near a particular scene that is amazing. I can't even describe it. 2 minuets after I pulled over I had 3 security vehicles surrounding me. They said I could not even point my camera at the bldg (I made sure I was not on the property). I kindly went on my way. Later that day i called the dept of public works in CT and emailed the commisioner. He told me that the security has no right to say what I point my camera at as long as I am not tresspassing. Soon after I went and set up, with the email in hand, and started to get ready to shoot. The security pulled their trucks in front of my camera and continued on about my not being allowed to shoot. I proceded to show them the letter, of which they disreguarded and would not move!!! I am trying to get this shot and failing miserably. The security may not be able to physically stop me from pointing my camera at the building, but they can make it difficult to shoot my subject.
I agree that it is best to ask permission. When it comes to abandoned mills and other like subjects, chances are you will be turned down. Thats where IMHO, "Shoot first and ask ?s later."

[Sal Santamaura]

Lack of respect for other people's property, including trespass against real property, is just one manifestation of the lack of respect for other people. It's widespread, continuously worsening and reprehensible. I've no hope things will improve.

I drive no faster than posted speed limits and obey other traffic laws. Guess I'm outside the mainstream on all accounts.

[Michael Graves]

We should all meet up at Bethlehem Steel sometime and overrun the place ;-)

When are we meeting? Can you give me directions from Vermont?

[davidb]

To me, I think there is a difference between privately owned "no trespassing" and city owned.

If I see something from the side of the road that I want to photograph, I probably would but I will never cross a fence line here in NM that is marked no trespassing.

But if it is a city or state owned property, I will take my chances. Many of us New Mexicans (even the old ones :)) have "walked" through the huge hole in the fence at the Albuquerque rail yard. This is an amazing structure that is being featured in the new TV series "Sarah Connor Terminator Thing" as well as many movies including the Transformers. The first time I got in was via a security guard who told me to make sure I go onto the roof to see the view of the city. The next time I went in, I walked through the hole in the fence only to find the gate wide open 10 feet away from the hole. I spend an hour or so making the pictures, and then I leave.

Here in ABQ, we also have a shopping mall that is barely open. I have no idea why they don't just lock the doors already. Anyway, I went in with my Hasselblad and a 40mm lens. Set the tripod up, took my picture and then got yelled at and chased out by a 70 year old "guard". Told me that I better burn my negs and that he was recording my license plate. Oh well.

I got a nice photo out of it.

[Sal Santamaura]

To me, I think there is a difference between privately owned "no trespassing" and city owned...What is the difference? Why is there a difference? How can this be rationalized? If you injure yourself while trespassing on city-owned property, will you bring no legal action against the city?

[Henry Ambrose]

So when do we get the thread titled:

"I wanted some film but it cost too much so I shoplifted it"?

[Jim Galli]

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?" Rodney King

It seems America has become the nastiest most litigious place on earth. A week ago I was acosted twice for no reason at all. Parked on the highway with plenty of room for safety a Nevada Highway Patrol stopped and told me no one can stop on the highway. What the hell was I doing anyway? An hour later I was parked just off the highway in Schurtz NV. when a pickup truck full of indians honked nastily at me.

I don't get it. It's not about protecting anything, it's just about being as nasty to your fellow man as you possibly can. What's up with that. Rural Nevada used to be a place where you couldn't pass another pickup truck without the driver waving hello.

Makes me sad :( :confused: :mad:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/SchurzS.jpg

The photo at Schurz

[roteague]

Welcome to the USA.

[Michael Graves]

I don't think anybody here is disputing the rights of an individual property owner to control who enters their property. A key issue is, do you have the right to photograph private property from a public access point. The property owner who asks you to remove your tripod leg from his side of the fence has every right to do so, and you have both a legal and a moral obligation to honor his or her request. Shopping malls are included in this. Even when not completed, they are privately owned property. If the security guard asks you to stop photographing, then you better stop photographing.

They cannot ask you not to photograph the exterior of the mall from across the street. There are exceptions to every rule, however. Photographing government installations from anywhere can get you in trouble you can't even imagine. If you are photographing a public utility or part of the national transportation system, you might find yourself in an uncomfortable interview or even have your equipment confiscated.

As far as Bubba ordering you off the public highway to prevent you from photographing his firetrap of a barn....that's a different issue.

[Jordan]

This is an issue that is very near to me. I take many neighborhood landscape pictures and also pictures I like to call "house portraits". I seldom ask to take these pictures as I am never on people's actual property and beyond that they most likely, no matter harmless your photograph may be, will probably be met with resistance. It is something that we as photographers of things other than trees and nature are facing a lot of these days. I also don't have the time to walk up to every door of every house in my photographs and ask for permission before the light changes. I will however if approached chat with the people, give them my business card, and be the overall sweet boy that I am.

[paulr]

Some of my best work was done while tresspassing, while my few attempts at asking permission ended with slammed doors and hung up phones.

I've been caught a couple of times. One plot was foiled when I tried to blend in with a group of window washers in a freight elevator headed to the roof of an industrial building. Almost made it ... then near the top someone pointed and said "who the hell is THAT guy?"

But most less audacious attempts ended with no one the wiser. Do no harm, leave no trace, get in, get out. And don't f'ing sue anyone.

[Daniel_Buck]

personally, if it's marked no trespassing then i won't go. If they don't want anyone on their land, then that means me too. Just because my intentions might be better than some (some may want to vandalize or steal instead of just photographing) I don't think that gives me any more right to bypass their wishes of no trespassing, whatever their reasons for wanting no trespassing are. It's their land, and I suppose they can do what they want with it. There are plenty of other places and things to shoot with out the risk of getting rock salt (or worse!) shot at you from a shot gun.

Maybe I'm just not as bold as some of yall :-)

[SamReeves]

personally, if it's marked no trespassing then i won't go. If they don't want anyone on their land, then that means me too. Just because my intentions might be better than some (some may want to vandelize or steal instead of just photographing) I don't think that gives me any more right to bypass their wishes of no trespassing. There are plenty of other places and things to shoot with out the risk of getting rock salt (or worse!) shot at you from a shot gun.

Maybe I'm just not as bold as some of yall :-)

Sage advice. Always pay attention to fence lines and signs. If there's one tripod leg over the fence, then you are asking for it. :o

[Jim Jirka]

I grew up in a different time, when people, places and things were respected. When getting the image took a back seat to respecting the surroundings, both private and public. There has been quite a bit of people now a days, bushwacking in natural areas, crossing fence lines in the name of getting the shot.

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

[tim810]

I agree, The instance of the tripod leg is one I will never forget. I pay attention to this religiously.



Sage advice. Always pay attention to fence lines and signs. If there's one tripod leg over the fence, then you are asking for it. :o

[Kevin Crisp]

I won't shoot on private land marked "no trespassing" without permission. I used to not ask if whatever I wanted to shoot was not posted, since posting is a requirement for prosecution in many places. Maybe 5 years ago I spoke with a landowner in WA state and my mind has changed on this second situation. He explained that people come and break into his unoccupied house and steal things. His anger over that unsolved crime will get transferred to the next person he sees around the property without permission. ('Maybe they came back for more' will be his first thought.) If I had asked him in the first place, then he wouldn't have had to answer a call from a neighbor, drop something else productive he was doing and storm out to see me in his truck. Pretty good points, he made. Things a city slicker wouldn't necessarily appreciate. I asked why he didn't post the house and he said people tear the signs down. These rural people live in justifiable fear that some idiot will burn down their old structures. It happens all the time, just for kicks. And since the structure burning down is the last thing I want to have happen, I don't begrudge them for being watchful. I make it a habit of setting up the tripod the second I park and position it so that somebody driving by wondering "what in the hell is that guy doing?" can answer their question without bothering me.

Since this long conversation with a landowner, even when the land/house/whatever is not posted, I try to ask someone for permission. This may cost me a half hour or more, but I do it now. When I'm done I will usually stop by again and tell them I'm done and thank them for permission.

Often in these days of corporate farms and ranches the nearest house has no connection to the property but they will usually say 'I know so and so it's OK' and that is good enough for me. If there is a confrontation with a sheriff or guard and you can honestly say you ran it past Mrs. X over there in that house, you're going to be OK. It is hard to prosecute a permission seeker since the "intent" part of the crime is pretty shaky. Knowing the name of the person you talked to helps. (And on a second visit, remembering the name of the people you talked to really helps.) The majority of the time the people I ask are surprised at the courtesy of a request. Most people would just do it. 'Oh nobody minds, if you are just taking pictures," is pretty much the stock answer. I have NEVER been refused when I ask nicely, and I always ask nicely. I park on the highway and walk up the driveway and knock, which I think is the respectful, non-threatening way to do it. (As opposed to driving an SUV into their yard in a cloud of dust.) I often learn interesting information about the land or the house or whatever from people I talk to. (Tell them what kind of subjects you are looking for and get travel tips, they know the area better than you ever will.) If some day somebody tells me "no," then that means "no." It's their land and their right to refuse.

A couple times people have asked surprisingly detailed questions about who I am and what I will use the photos for, but I have no problem with that and I give them honest answers. I figure they have had a bad experience in the past that has put them on their guard. If there is nobody around suitable for permission seeking I take the picture. If there is nobody around and nobody to ask and it isn't posted then nobody is going to care.

I do find I do better work when I'm not worried about somebody confronting me over my presence on the land. This is another good reason to ask. As to sides of highways, or other situations where your authority to stop and photograph is a bit murkier, the Crown Graphic certainly comes in handy and I usually take it along with a tripod camera. I'm gone in less than 60 seconds and I have my picture.

All of the above being said, I have little patience with private security officers, especially the unarmed ones. When they tell me I can't do something I obviously have every right to do, I don't back down. I have a number of techniques for dealing with them that work for me. "So you really don't know who I am, do you?" (This one is delivered with just a hint of amusement.) This one puzzles them, usually for long enough to finish what I'm doing. Might I be connected with their company? The client? Am I a famous person that they would recognize if they weren't generally so clueless? You can see the wheels turning if you look, which I usually don't do. If I look it gives them the impression that I'm interested. I ask them to call the sheriff or police if they want to (the thing they are often threatening, and the last thing they expect me to request) then add "I can use the money." When they tell me they will take down my license I go get the registration and VIN number for them and ask them to write those down too. Sometimes I write their license number down in my book. They hate that. I sometimes ask: "What part of 'observe and report' didn't you understand?" This is a phrase drummed into their heads during training. 'Why does the guy with the tripod know that?' they wonder. 'If he does, it means he knows I'm not supposed to do anything physical.') They generally back down. Again, the Crown Graphic gets me on my way pretty quickly.

[Dave Parker]

Where I live, we run into a similar situation, albeit, not photographers, but hunters and ATV riders, I live on a road in a remote part of Montana, that is butted up to semi/private land that the land owner gives blanket access to, unfortunately, in order to get to this land, you must cross 4 other owners land, in addition, the portion of the road, I live on is private, well beyond the county road..invariably, during the summer and fall, peak times for ATV riders as well as hunters, we get our fair share of trespassers, which if asked, normally all of us will give access to get to the other land, but we also have our share of belligerent, people that think we have no right to block access, which is when the problems begin, we all then, get real hard to get along with, we all have our land posted, no trespassing without permission..which by law here in Montana, we don't have to do, it is the person accessing the lands responsibility to know where the boundaries are, not the land owners responsibility to post it..in the last couple of years, it has been getting more difficult to want to allow access, because of the disrespectful people who just push on through, be damned the land owner..

Respect posted property, gain access to the owners, at least around here, most of us, are more that willing to let people use our lands, unless they just want to trash the area, but no trespassing means no trespassing, period. Around here, you shoot and ask questions later, you might just find yourself on the wrong end of a shotgun, or a jail cell door....One other thing, if you ask and are denied, then politely thank the land owner and search for another place to shoot, often times they have just got plain fed up with what has happened in the past..There are plenty of places in the the US, with interesting subject matter, that you can just move on. One key, is even if you are denied, don't hesitate to go back and talk with the owners again, take a few shots with you of other areas, to show them what you are doing, this will often times soften even the most hard nose person, who may eventually give you access.

Dave

[walter23]

I don't think anybody here is disputing the rights of an individual property owner to control who enters their property. A key issue is, do you have the right to photograph private property from a public access point.


If everything eventually becomes private property, and if private property owners have a right to restrict the activities of people on their property (or in relation to their property from a distance, as with photographing it), then freedom (upon which our democracies are supposed to be based) will cease to exist.

Trespassing on private property, other than someone's dwelling or a location needed for some sensitive business purpose, should be a constitutionally protected freedom.

There is absolutely no scenario in which total private ownership of all land is good. If everybody was equally rich and split it up evenly, then we'd all have one XXX millionth of a chunk of land and XXX million minus 1 places where we couldn't go. If one person owned everything, well, worse. If the rich owned more and the poor owned less - maybe okay if you're one of the few lucky ultra rich (I'm not). The boring old millionaire variety of rich people would again have freedom on only one teensie fraction of all the land.

Private property is theft of liberty.

I'm not saying people should have a right to traipse through other's houses - but I distinguish between your dwelling and 'property' write large. The mall is property. The street is property. An abandoned field is property. Your house and backyard is your dwelling. A factory or a laboratory or office is a private business location and its protection from physical intrusion is clearly justified. A mall, however, is effectively a public space as it is open to the public.

[gbogatko]

Here's another point of view. I was in Delaware Water Gap National Rec Area recently. DWGNRA was created by the abandoned Tock's Island flood-the-valley project of a decade or so ago. The result of this project was that a lot of farms and houses were taken over by the govt. and left as is.

The NPS only bothers you if you actually go into the abandoned houses (liability issues etc.) but otherwise one is allowed to photograph anything that you can get next to.

However,

Lately some of these abandoned properties have been leased from the govt. That's when things get interesting. Suddenly what was once NPS public roads get closed off and signs go up saying PRIVATE PROPERTY. Suddenly, that old barn or house you were making photographic studies of is no longer on public land. It's been leased out from under you!!!

It's this re-privatization of public land that has me worried. Just how far can a leasee go in preventing you from coming on what was once public land?

gb

[Eric Woodbury]

I respect no trespassing. I don't like folks on my property, if they don't want me on theirs, that's ok. There are plenty of photographs to be made in this world and getting hassled really spoils my day. But it does chap my hide, after respecting a sign for so many years, to see the property sell, the building destroyed, and condos smeared over the land like so much peanut butter. Can't count how many times that has happened.

[Dave Parker]

Interesting take Walter, not that I agree, because when I pay for and maintain, as well as paid the required taxes on a parcel of land, I expect to be able to protect it as I see fit, and allow access as I see fit, your ideal sounds a bit socialistic to me...

[paulr]

Interesting take Walter, not that I agree, because when I pay for and maintain, as well as paid the required taxes on a parcel of land, I expect to be able to protect it as I see fit, and allow access as I see fit, your ideal sounds a bit socialistic to me...

it's interesting ... there's always been tension between the rights of the property owner and the rights of others.

some examples off the top of my head: You can own a piece of property, but:

-you don't necessarily own the minerals in your soil
-you don't necessarily have rights to the water that flows on or under your property
-you don't have the right to pollute your land any way you wish
-you don't have the right to impede or disturb certain varieties of wildlife on your property
-laws might restrict what you can build and what you can do there
-local laws might regulate what kinds of fences you can have, what kinds of lawn upkeep you're expected to do, what kinds of decorations can be visible

[big_ben_blue]

Well, have a look over here for another tell-tale insight into the matter: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26447127 , appropriatly titled "No Trespassing, USA":rolleyes:
But be warned, there's more venom spewed there than all rattlers of Texas combined together ever could.

Oh, and then we got this little piece of ubersocialist liberal commie sh*t, the devilish concept of "Freedom_to_roam" ;) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Can you IMAGINE freely walking through forrests and alongside fields and pastures? What a novel concept (blame all those pot smoking euro hippies:D ), although I just can't see it catching on in the US of A, land of the free.

[domenico Foschi]

Tim,

I always ask first when it is possible to do so, just common respect. When I can't ask I leave a business card and a note. I often give folks a print of their building that I have shot. This has resulted in lots of business for me.

Looking at it the other way, as a property owner with some nice wooded acreage and a couple of interesting buildings I would get upset and unpleasant if someone setup a tripod without asking. First, I work hard to keep my land protected and peaceful for the wild creatures that I share the space with and to keep them safe from hunters; letting photographers roam at will without asking could also be construed as an invitation to hunters. Second, you wander on my land and even though you may be trespassing if you fall into a hole or trip over an old stump you might sue me and you could win. Third, not everyone is as careful as you may be and I'd rather not have folks tramping over area that may be sensitive to me but not to others; I know where the turkeys nest, you don't. Ask first and I will almost always welcome you and none of the problems above are encountered.

I agree, and the idea of the business card and a note followed by a print is a great one.
I have had no negative experiences after asking, to the contrary, I have been invited to the people's home for coffee or wine(the latter in Italy), right after I had done taking pictures.
It is a wonderful way to actually make contact with people and savor their hospitality.
Of course, you will encounter the person who doesn't want anything to do with you and your camera, and I choose to respect their will.

Picture taking isn't only about you and the camera, it offers situations where you can sharpen other personal tools, like social skills, patience, accepting failures, and respect for your fellow humans and environment.

[Sylvester Graham]

There is one place I am itching to shoot and it is impossible. The CT state hospital in Norwich CT has been closed for quite some time now. I drive by it on my way to work every day. One day I pulled off to the side of the road near a particular scene that is amazing. I can't even describe it. 2 minuets after I pulled over I had 3 security vehicles surrounding me.

There's a HUGE state mental hospital in Northampton, MA. Part of the movie "Cider House Rules" was filmed there I believe. Well, someone bought it and it's in the process of being demolished.

When it was still up on any given weekend you could slip past the chain link (COULD, not saying I have) and spend hours in there without seeing the same corridor twice. It was extremely creepy, and in addition to being creepy you would also invariably run into several, sometimes dozens of other people up to the same mischief, and sometimes more than just mischief. I wonder how many corpses they found when they demolished it... I never quite got why the police never enforced it strictly, but I can understand why the CT police (or government) wanted to keep people out, even photographers.

Those interested in violating more property rights should check this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_exploration
A big part of urban exploring seems to be bringing back pictures in order to prove you actually did it.

[Terence McDonagh]

Unfortunately in America, someone can trespass, injure themselves, and sue you. Assinine, but true.

Second, many of the places discussed above are INHERENTLY dangerous. I've renovated and demolished many buildings. Floors that look solid from above are potentially rotten below. I have put my foot through such floors more times than I can count.

Put the two of those together and I can perfectly understand why people get upset about trespassers. And unfortunately, even legal waivers of liability have often been thrown out in court. At the end of the day, the property owners is responsible for anyone on their property, no matter how stupid the trespasser may be.

If you don't like it, talk to your politicans and donate more money than the lawyer lobbyists. Keep in mind, your politican is probably a lawyer as well, and probably hopes to become a lobbyist when he/she leaves office. As one of our lawyers told me, "Laws and common sense are two totally unrelated fields."

[Terence McDonagh]

As for public land and abandoned property I have a different view.

Why would "abandoned" property be fair game? Often, abandoned properties are in the process of being redeveloped or are vacant for legal reasons. In any event, they're still private property and have all the same protections as any other private property. If you have to squeeze through a break in a fence, you are obviously trespassing on property someone doesn't want trespassers on. How old does the hole in the fence have to be before it is "okay" to trespass? If it was cut this morning is it fair game? Yesterday? Last week? If you're on vacation for a week, and accidently left your door unlocked, can I walk in? What if you're gone for a two month tour of South America? What if it's a vacation house you've been too busy to get to for several months? Or a ski/beach house that you only visit in season?

Assuming you live in an apartment in the city, see what happens when a delivery man slips in your hallway and sues. Much less a trespasser.

[walter23]

Interesting take Walter, not that I agree, because when I pay for and maintain, as well as paid the required taxes on a parcel of land, I expect to be able to protect it as I see fit, and allow access as I see fit, your ideal sounds a bit socialistic to me...


I have no real problem with the way things are at the moment - there are plenty of crown lands, public parks, etc. But increasingly malls and suburbs are becoming our landscape, and these things are all private. If all formerly public space becomes privately owned, we only have access to our own limited little bit, and on all other lands our behaviour will be dictated by the owners. Imagine if all the sidewalks in your town were sold to Walmart. Walmart would then be, under law, allowed to tell you what you could or could not do in the sidewalks of your town. That could include whether or not you walk your dog, whether or not you take photographs, what you talk about, whether you can chew gum, or even scratch your ass. It's arbitrary and completely restrictive. That's what I'm going on about here - the future possibility if the trend I see continues. I have no beef with you wanting me to stay the hell out of your backyard. You have that right. But we have to protect public space, or else we'll all have absolutely nothing.

[walter23]

Oh, and then we got this little piece of ubersocialist liberal commie sh*t, the devilish concept of "Freedom_to_roam" ;) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Can you IMAGINE freely walking through forrests and alongside fields and pastures? What a novel concept (blame all those pot smoking euro hippies:D ), although I just can't see it catching on in the US of A, land of the free.

The problem with that dangerous "freedom to roam" concept is that there's no way Joe Industrialist or Money Corp. can buy up all the land and make money by selling access to Joe Citizen. Naturally, as a proud North American, I like to fantasize that one day I will be Joe Industrialist (rather than continuing to be Joe Citizen), so I side with the billionaire on this one.

[paulr]

you could always be a billionaire like the rockefellers, and buy up huge amounts of private land to donate to the public (teton national park).

[walter23]

you could always be a billionaire like the rockefellers, and buy up huge amounts of private land to donate to the public (teton national park).

Yeah, I've been planning to be a philanthropist like that for most of my life. I always wanted to grow up to be one. Unfortunately I haven't quite made it yet. I'm just not generous enough :)

[CG]

I'm with the camp of get permission first - most of the time - when one senses one's in a place where people might get upset about trespass. I'm very uncomfortable with being "in your face" with people on their own property.

Post 911, I'm wary of photographing some infrastructure items, and will pre-notify the various authorities to avoid the claim that one is sneaking about.

On "public" lands it just kills me that individual (rather than film productions and the like) photographers are frequenly hasseled.

One has every right to shoot from public roads. What's visible by a casual glance is in general fair game.

C

[Robert Brummitt]

OK, this isn't so much about trespassing but their somewhat related.
First, a photographer friend of mine was out in the back-roads in the Eastern Farmlands of Oregon. He sees a wonderful old barn on top of the hill, pulls over and sets up his 8x10 camera to photograph it from the road side.
As he doing this a truck pulls up and the farmer comes out and asks what the photographer is doing? "Well, I want to photograph that barn with the light of the field, the grass and sky." the photographer explained. "Is the barn yours?"
"yep, it is and I get so darn tire of you photographers taking pictures of it." The farmer expressed. "Some of you comin' on my property. Sometimes, I think I'll stick a match to the damn thing and burn it to the ground!"
With that my friend pulled out his Fire Marshal badge and said.
"I wish you hadn't said that, friend"

Second story.
When I was a younger photographer I had the pleasure of photographing young models. I was living at the time in Silicon Valley and many of the buildings there offer a great back drop for my photos. Many have those cool blacken windows and great arches. I always worked on the street ( the sidewalk), the model posing in front of these buildings.
Once, I had just finished a session and out comes a guard for the building I had just used as a back drop. He had asked me what we were doing? I thought the camera, the tripod, the flash and the model would have been self evident but I explained, "Doing some portraits."
Anyways, the guard tells me the building is private property and demands the film from my camera. I explained that yes the building is private but the sidewalk is not and that the building happens to be in plain view from said sidewalk and can be photographed.
The guard got more and more intense and demanded the film or he would detain me, the model and call the police. I wasn't going to relent. Just then a patrol car came cruising by and the Guard dashed out, arms waving and pulled the police officer over.

Let me described the scene for you. The guard: 5 foot 5 inches, a little over weight wearing a standard rent a cop uniform. The police officer was 6 feet 4, young and
trim. The guard was a waving his arms explaining the situation to the officer about private property and wanting to press for my film and a ticket for me.
The officer looked at him then said. "Where were they standing when they were taking the picture?"
"Right here!" says the guard pointing to the sidewalk. The officer then looked at me and said. "you can go." Then, he explained public verses private property to the guard. This of course was pre Sept 11 days. I don't know if I would get off now?

Final dilemma:
I travel from one retail store and pass the front of another. Now, this second retailer has the most interesting foliage in front and sides. Fan palms, Pompous grass and the like. I'm a big fan of these and you don't see many in Oregon. I have always wanted to stop and photograph there. But, and here is the rub (if you will). The business is an adults only retailer. Open 24 hours and never slow.
One day, I screwed up my courage and ventured in to speak to the owner to get permission to photograph his plants. Showing him my large format camera, bringing some of my prints and my intentions.
"Love to help you out, fellow" He said with a grin. "But, my clientel would get REAL spooked by seeing a photographer by my front door. Sorry."
I've been beaten. What would you do?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JoeV]

...As far as Bubba ordering you off the public highway to prevent you from photographing his firetrap of a barn....that's a different issue.


Maybe so, but Bubba's brother-in-law is the sheriff or State Trooper, and if you're parked on any highway right-of-way, you can be ticketted. So you have to get completely off the shoulder of the highway, off the right-of-way, and maybe you'll be safe to be hassled only by Bubba hisse'f.

You could, however, protest that the light reflecting off of Bubba's barn, onto the public roadway, is offensive or distractive to you, and therefore if you can't capture that light in a camera then you would request that he remove that reflected light from being seen by the public. Perhaps a giant wall. Or some of that Area 51 Black Body paint. :)

~Joe

[Kevin Crisp]

Since the barns in Oregon aren't on top of hills, I think you'll be pretty safe. And the residents don't speak like that either.

[roteague]

I'll bet the people in Europe are laughing at us right now.

[walter23]

I'll bet the people in Europe are laughing at us right now.

Bit of a side topic here, just so I can alienate myself from pretty much everybody, American and European alike ;)

A few europeans I've worked with have painted an image for me that they can get pretty smug and condescending about American (and more generally North American) culture. Especially the Germans and the Dutch. How many times I have heard "And what I anyway am finding so strange about North Americans is this ...." <Billboards by the side of the road. Takeout coffee. Fast food. Conservatism. Bad music. Pants>.

Obviously not all are like this. I just find it kind of funny. Like hell there are no roadside billboards or fast food in Germany... and a conservative Dutchman? No way :)

[Ted Harris]

Two things.

First all this about your right to photograph a private residence or a privately owned run down barn without asking any permissions as long as you do so from public land is correct. Take it a bit farther though. You then sell the picture to a magazine. The magazine publishes the picture. The farmer sees the picture of his barn in the magazine and your byline. He sends both you and the magazine a bill for the use of the picture of his barn. The magazine probably asked you if you had the full rights to the image. If you said you did then there is a high likelihood you will be writing a check to the farmer. Another good reason to ask.

Walter, you might want to read The Tragedy of the Commons. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243

[walter23]

Thanks for the link, Ted. Will check it out.

[BrianShaw]

The magazine probably asked you if you had the full rights to the image. If you said you did then there is a high likelihood you will be writing a check to the farmer.

Even if it is taken from public property and the building can be seen without any extraordinary effort? Or are you talking about "settling" to avoid the possibility of a court action?

[tim atherton]

Two things.

First all this about your right to photograph a private residence or a privately owned run down barn without asking any permissions as long as you do so from public land is correct. Take it a bit farther though. You then sell the picture to a magazine. The magazine publishes the picture. The farmer sees the picture of his barn in the magazine and your byline. He sends both you and the magazine a bill for the use of the picture of his barn. The magazine probably asked you if you had the full rights to the image. If you said you did then there is a high likelihood you will be writing a check to the farmer. Another good reason to ask.

Walter, you might want to read The Tragedy of the Commons. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243

the whole issue of property releases is a pretty grey area, but on the whole, as I understand it, you don't need permission for such usage in such a situtation (though you may end up having to defend it in court...:-) if the farmer really wants to take it that far)

[tim810]

To start: my practices on any property public, private, even my own are always safe and done with a polite manner. I do not put myself or others in danger. I examine my surroundings and evaluate that first. I also leave the property as I originally saw it.
As far as "abandoned" property being fair game. Meaning this being the only property I would ever consider trespassing on. It depends on the situation. If the property looks like it has trespassed on before and little to nothing has been done to stop it, than I might consider it. There would have to be some really nice things on the other side of that fence. If it looks at all like someone is regulating the trespassing I will be the first to ask permission. If granted, I will follow their rules. If denied I will move on, and not come back. If there is something I really want to photograph beond that fence and was denied access, I will than call the appropriate people who might be able to grant me access. If still "no" I will than move on. I am working on this with the state commisioner and the Norwich State hospital property (the commisioner is actually very helpfull and pleasant to deal with).
As far as length of time things are left open, this has nothing to do with any decitions I make reguarding this.
If I left my door unlocked my apt would be over run in days. This is why I lock my door. I have had a backpack stollen out of my locked car in the middle of the day, it had some contact prints and negatives in it and probably was in the trash 10 blocks away. The police could do nothing. Now I keep a close eye on everything of value that I own.
As far as the mailman slipping through my hall in my apt bldg and sueing, unfortunatly my really nice landlord would probably be in more trouble than I would. Also, this is why post men, fedex and UPS People are not allowed in residences, even apt bldgs.

Finally, I am not someone who goes out looking for subject matter that is off limits. Even if I see someones land I want to shoot from the road I will go out of my way to let them know about it, and introduce myself. It is always nice to get to know new people. This also lets them know that I am not doing anything mischevous.

I am just frustrated with the fact that everything is fenced off now. 10 years ago that was not the case. I just would like thoes days back (I didn't get to see much of them).

Anyway this is my own opinion. I will make my judgments as they come.


Why would "abandoned" property be fair game? Often, abandoned properties are in the process of being redeveloped or are vacant for legal reasons. In any event, they're still private property and have all the same protections as any other private property. If you have to squeeze through a break in a fence, you are obviously trespassing on property someone doesn't want trespassers on. How old does the hole in the fence have to be before it is "okay" to trespass? If it was cut this morning is it fair game? Yesterday? Last week? If you're on vacation for a week, and accidently left your door unlocked, can I walk in? What if you're gone for a two month tour of South America? What if it's a vacation house you've been too busy to get to for several months? Or a ski/beach house that you only visit in season?

Assuming you live in an apartment in the city, see what happens when a delivery man slips in your hallway and sues. Much less a trespasser.

[Kirk Gittings]

The magazine probably asked you if you had the full rights to the image.

Virtually never happens. Once in 30 years did a magazine ask only because the structure was a Penitente morada, whose members are notoriously secretive.

[QT Luong]

Two things.
The farmer sees the picture of his barn in the magazine and your byline. He sends both you and the magazine a bill for the use of the picture of his barn.


Under which laws are you obligated to pay him, assuming you didn't enter into a contract with him ?

[Shen45]

I'll bet the people in Europe are laughing at us right now.

:) Only Europe??

[BrianShaw]

Jordan's "Home portraits" quote somehow disappeared while I edited the message.

I've been photographing homes with minor (very minor) local historical interest in my area off-and-on for the past couple of years. Always from the street and never asking permission. Sure, I've had a few odd looks from the residents but only confronted once - only to have the homeowner invite me on his property for better views. My pics probably aren't good enough to consider "house portraits" but this project has been the source of enjoyment to me and a certain amount of amusement to those who's homes I've photographed. I smile a lot and I think that helps!

[Bill Kumpf]

As a landowner, 160 acres in middle Tennessee with several more under lease, my position is you ask! I will work with you depending on your request and your understanding of my expectations. If you don’t ask, expect to see the Sheriff.

This is not became I am a hard ass (or maybe I am) but because the potential damage a cow protecting her calf can do to your body. You need to know what, where and when for your own safety.

So if you are in middle Tennessee, ASK!

[Terence McDonagh]

Always from the street and never asking permission.

If you're shooting from public property, there shouldn't be a problem (unless you're blocking traffic), as it's not trespassing.

[Scott Knowles]

Since I'm only starting my second year in LF photography, it's an interesting thread. Thanks.

I can only relate my experience from the USGS doing field work, and while we, meaning federal government folks, have the right to enter land, but not buildings, for the purpose of work, we also have to respect the owner's right to say "Get off.", especially if it's said in the presence of a nearby firearm (yes, been there too). But for routine or frequent visits we get the landowner, not necessarily the resident, to agree with an exchange of letters to allow us enter for our work, such as checking wells, access to creeks or rivers, access to field installations, etc. Sometimes this required a small quarterly payment to offset any reluctance. And yes, we were always mindful of livestock and other potential hazards to us. The last thing you want is a herd of cows or cattle thinking you're there to feed them. They'll follow you anywhere, and they can run too (yes, been there too).

This taught me in photography is always ask and avoid property with no trepassing signs. And try to find a location off the road and their property to get the photograph if I really want one.

[paulr]

Unless it's for commercial use (meaning advertising), forget about property releases. I don't think there's any case law anywhere supporting the need for property releases in art or editorial pictures.

The famous DiCorcia case showed that you don't even need a model release (at least in New York) for art, even if the person is easily recognizeable, and even if you're making megabux on prints and book sales.

[BrianShaw]

... Sometimes this required a small quarterly payment to offset any reluctance...

Why was "shake down" the first thought that came into my head? :eek: 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. :D

[Brian K]

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.

I was recently in Napa and asked the owner of a vineyard if I could photograph on her land, while she was willing to allow me, she told me to steer clear of her neighbor's land because they were sick of photographers trespassing and trampling their crops. She said that it wouldn't even be worth talking to them because they are so pissed off at photographers.

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?

[Marko]

Why was "shake down" the first thought that came into my head? :eek: 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. :D

Hey, if your mail is anything like mine, that would spare you a lot of junk! :D

[paulr]

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&#37; 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.



Mick Jagger (at rock 'n roll camp, on the Simpsons):
"The first rule is, there are no rules!" (crowd cheers)
"The second rule is, no outside food or beverages." (crowd cheers)

[Richard M. Coda]

I usually go down into Phoenix early on Sunday mornings... before the girls get up and before everyone in Phoenix is up. I don't go to unsafe places, but they are either pretty run down, or I don't speak the language. Usually don't have a problem.

On the way back home one Sunday (I live about 45 miles northeast of PHX) I saw this bank/office building that is architecturally different between front/back and left/right. The sun was still rising and I was shooting right at the corner with my 8x10 so one half was brightly lit and the other was in shade. I was in the parking lot. Got my first shot with the 300mm and was switching to the 450mm for a closer look (which would have been a better shot). This building, I guess, is technically part of the Scottsdale Fashion Mall complex. All of the sudden the old lady comes by in her security guard golf cart and tells me I have to take the camera down. I asked her what the law was. She didn't know, but came back with the private property thing.

I'm going to go to the Mall offices with my print and ask them if I can get permission to do a series on the building, offering them a set of prints. I really want to 8x10 contact prints, but if I have to I can go onto the sidewalk and shoot 4x5 with the 450.

A photographer friend of mine sent me the attached PDF. Interesting reading.

[Louie Powell]

This is a very interesting and timely discussion.

Obviously, there is no question that one has the right to make photographs from public property. Of course, there is no assurance that you won't be hassled - rent-a-cops and belligerent citizens exercising their right to be jerks don't understand that photographers also have rights. But basically, you can photograph anything you can see while on public property.

The issue seems to be with situations in which you want to move onto private property to make a photograph. I know that the RIGHT ANSWER (intentionally in caps, to emphasize the moral superiority of the position) is to find the owner and request permission. But there some practical issues there. One is how to find the owner. Another is that easier to say "No" to that request than to think about what you are asking, evaluate what it really means, and make a reasonable decision either grant or deny permission.

Let me cite two examples. The main street of our town features a number of restaurants, and in the summer the City allows those restaurants to put tables on the sidewalk so that customers can dine al fresco. Several years ago, I was downtown photographing early in the morning - hours before any of the restaurants opened. I had set up my camera on the sidewalk in front of one of those restaurants, when the owner came out to hassle me about photographing on "his sidewalk". Who was in the right - was I trespassing, or was he just being a jerk?

My wife and I visited a pottery several months ago. It was a Saturday, and while the showroom was open for business, the shop out back was not in operation. However, the shop had been set up to allow customers to come in on self-guided tours (and in fact, to access the public restrooms, one had to pass through the shop). So I went in to make some photographs. After a few minutes, a solitary employee came by, asked what I was doing, and when I said that I was making photographs for my own use, she said that it was OK as long as I wasn't working for one of the pottery's Japanese competitors. Several minutes later, however, a group of employees came by. This time, group-think prevailed and concluded that I really needed to ask for permission, and since no one from management was around, I really should stop. Was I wrong to take the approach that because the pottery was open to the public, and set up for a self-guided public tour, then it was acceptable for me to go in to make photographs? Was I wrong in taking the approach that it was better to make pictures until such time as I was told to stop, than to request permission from a low-level employee who was almost guaranteed to take the CYA position of saying "No"?

[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!

[John Powers]

I spent a year with limited permission, shooting twenty large greenhouses, six acres under glass, a quarter of a mile from Lake Erie. The owners have not grown crops in the buildings since the early 1990s because of heating costs. The new growth, the deterioration, the angles, shapes and textures make wonderful images. This is a paradise for large format lover of entropy.

The land has been in the family since 1860. The farm community is now a lake front retirement community. Builders want to build retirement condos with a view. The town wants to expand. There have been several court battles in Ohio over eminent domain for development, especially where existing property presents risks. The insurance company has stated they will drop the customer if anyone is caught inside the buildings. As the buildings degrade and the storms come in off Lake Erie, glass falls out of the roofs. Flying glass in sixty knot winds is lethal. It is not hard to see why the owners have much to lose and nothing to gain from a stray photographer sneaking in, paying all his attention to images and little to personal safety.

John

[Terence McDonagh]

Such stupidity isn't limited to any continent:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/afternoon-adventure-that-ended-in-disaster/2008/01/20/1200764081353.html

[Hollis]

Permission is nice. Great photos are better. Pick your battles as far as where you want to shoot. I have had virtually no problems back West. I find the further East you move the trickier it is. Always ask when possible but for me, if there is some abandoned govt. property in the middle of no where, you can find me there. Ah taxes.


For example, this nuclear missile complex in wyoming - good times.

[Renato Tonelli]

"... I saw a sign, and on that sign it said 'NO TRESPASSING', but on the other side it didn't say nothing. That side was meant for you and me."

Well, not anymore. I ask for permission unless I am shooting scenery from just off the road. Asking for permission is a crapshoot: sometimes the owner says yes, sometimes no. If s/he says no, I say "thank you, anyway" without rancor and move on. Some people have real concerns about letting strangers on their property.

But here is an observation or two from recent experience: last year (as in previous years) when I would be photographing is some small town in Italy, people would come up to me and start a conversation about my subject matter, etc.; sometimes suggesting other spots (usually on their property). Last year, while photographing an old municipal doorway, the municipal police asked me what I was photographing and what for. "Amateur photographer and I really like the old doorway". Within minutes they rattled off a list of nearby doorways that I might be interested in photographing. About an hour later I was setting up the tripod in front of one of the recommended doorways. Above the doorway, an elderly lady was looking out from her window. I asked if it was her house and could I photograph it. "Yes, of course". When I started packing my gear she came down and insisted on inviting me in for tea and cookies. Her husband gave me some background history on their house, etc. I didn't know how to repay them for their kindness, so I asked if I could photograph them in front of their doorway - they were flattered. What a beautiful afternoon. I sent them three 8x10 copies for them and for their children. I received a thank you note.
By early evening I was photographing a view of the hill-town. My tripod was set up on a public sidewalk but one leg was about one inch (not more!) on someone's private property. Within minutes I hear a loud voice in American English shouting: "This is private property Mr.!" I looked down at the tripod and moved it back the one inch. So my question was: why the pugnacious arrogance? Was it necessary? To what end? I meet many people who marvel at how friendly the locals are and decide to buy their retirement home there but never change their attitude/mindset to fit local custom. I make my home in the USA and it really irks and embarrasses me when I run into the occasional "ugly American" in my old country.

[Jim Galli]

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Bokeh/HallBensonWaterbury/ScovillWaterbury_2.jpg

Sometimes the signs are just there so if you actually are stupid enough to fall down a mine shaft you can't sue the property owner because he had it properly posted.

[Vaughn]

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.

Yes, people forget that it is a safety issue that protect others, not just the driver. Hard to maintain any control of the vehicle if the driver is tossed to the passenger side, bangs his head hard on the roof, or is otherwise not where he/she is suppose to be. It is a matter of personal responcibility to maintain control over one's mass of steel...by driving responcibly. That unfortunately has to be enforced with a seatbelt law.

Vaughn

PS...I tend to respect the signs.

[tim810]

I have found myself photographing "No Trespassing" signs. I have been looking through my negs and figuring out which ones to print, and have found about 5 containing such signs, some with barbed wire etc..

Thats a great shot Jim!!

[CG]

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'll leave the part about complete decay alone, but I have to note that when anyone gets in an accident, it's possible, insurance or not, costs will be incurred by society at large. If an insuror bargains "sucessfully" with a hospital over costs of treatments, the hospital may get only partially reimbursed. Eventually I suspect society pays for the excess costs. So, even if you are responsible and have insurance, a seatbelt may save a large cost to others that possibly you won't volunteer to pay. Maybe I'm messed up on this - no expert on medical costs and insurance, but I'm guessing we are in a "dance" with society whether we wish it or not. I don't think it has much to do with freedom - more just accepting realities.

C

[Hollis]

I too have had many an incident where people came up to me to ask what I was doing with 'that old fashioned camera' and were genuinely intrigued. When I explain to them what I am shooting and why (its a good subject and Im here are my usual answers) they are even more curious and usually a little bewildered. A door? That old thing? Who wants to see that they say. Well, a quick peek under the darkcloth or a quick polaroid for the inept (and something for them to keep) usually assuages any hesitation or animosity they have. Sometimes I even keep a mini (4x6) copy of my 'portfolio' that is just images stapled together in my bag to show people and convince them I am not a threat.

I was once shooting in an abandoned home for troubled boys outside denver and a cop came up and 'caught' me by surprise (at gunpoint too - fun). There was a lot of gang activity there so he grilled me for a bit and looked at my gear and when he realized I was telling the truth, he insisted that he show me around the property and give me history of the place. He actually let me take his baton to a plate glass window (why? I don't know. again, he insisted) for the hell of it. I think he was bored but a good fellow.

[Randy H]

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.

This is also the reason for pumping out half-assed lawyers faster than a Mickey-D happy meal.
In the late 90's, I was living in mid-town Manhattan, and the city had actually had to hire a "Sidewalk Surveyor Crew" or some such nonsense, that did nothing but walk the city looking for offsets(within certain dimensional criteria)
in sidewalks and crossings. Seems the city had been sued by so many people for their klutziness and inability to walk and chew gum at the same time, that it was cheaper for them to hire a full crew to look out for Joe "sue-the-socks-off them / get rich quick".
Now, if you got some ass doing that because they can't walk down a city sidewalk without acting stupid, Do I want them walking through my pasture full of slippery cow-shit and gopher holes? Or on my construction site, or my abandoned building?
Duh... O.K. It is, after all, their "constitutional right" to sue me for everything I own, because they were walking around with their head up their backside, and got hurt while tespassing w/o permission.

[Renato Tonelli]

Randy - I think you will appreciate this one: some Summers ago a family traveling through Italy stopped by my house there to ask for directions. They had asked elsewhere and were directed to my house because "there is an American there". (Funny how that works - in New York I'm referred to as Italian). Anyway, they had kids of the same age as mine and we all decided to have a picnic together. They didn't want to go far, so I suggested a field with a large shady tree near my house. "Will anyone chase us out?" "No, the field belongs to me." We walk across the field and the kids' mother asks "what is that black stuff" on the field. I explain that the pellett looking stuff is sheep shit and the pie-shaped stuff is cow shit while the piled big-caliber stuff is horse shit. The kids are having a grand time identifying the different types. Their mother orders them not to poke at the stuff and starts complaining and whining about all the misc. shit, the flies, the crickets, you name it. Picnic is over and the kids want to play hide-and-seek. The mother asks if it's safe. "Yes, but be aware of your surroundings", I tell them. "What could be out there besides those filthy sheep?(or something like that)" "Wild boar and vipers but they all run away as soon as they hear you, see you or smell you." Her kids were forbidden to leave her sight. When we left, it was to the complaints of the cow and sheep shit and why doesn't someone clean it up.

[Michael Graves]

Randy - I think you will appreciate this one: some Summers ago a family traveling through Italy stopped by my house there to ask for directions. They had asked elsewhere and were directed to my house because "there is an American there". (Funny how that works - in New York I'm referred to as Italian). Anyway, they had kids of the same age as mine and we all decided to have a picnic together. They didn't want to go far, so I suggested a field with a large shady tree near my house. "Will anyone chase us out?" "No, the field belongs to me." We walk across the field and the kids' mother asks "what is that black stuff" on the field. I explain that the pellett looking stuff is sheep shit and the pie-shaped stuff is cow shit while the piled big-caliber stuff is horse shit. The kids are having a grand time identifying the different types. Their mother orders them not to poke at the stuff and starts complaining and whining about all the misc. shit, the flies, the crickets, you name it. Picnic is over and the kids want to play hide-and-seek. The mother asks if it's safe. "Yes, but be aware of your surroundings", I tell them. "What could be out there besides those filthy sheep?(or something like that)" "Wild boar and vipers but they all run away as soon as they hear you, see you or smell you." Her kids were forbidden to leave her sight. When we left, it was to the complaints of the cow and sheep shit and why doesn't someone clean it up.


Some people just can't keep their shit together. What can you say?

[Randy H]

"Wild boar and vipers but they all run away as soon as they hear you, see you or smell you." Her kids were forbidden to leave her sight. When we left, it was to the complaints of the cow and sheep shit and why doesn't someone clean it up.

That's good!!
Is that a case of don't know shit from shinola?

[Matt Blaze]

My favorite attempt at a no trespassing sign:

http://www.crypto.com/photos/misc/tresspass-sfo-2-s.jpg

[Terence McDonagh]

This is also the reason for pumping out half-assed lawyers faster than a Mickey-D happy meal.
In the late 90's, I was living in mid-town Manhattan, and the city had actually had to hire a "Sidewalk Surveyor Crew" or some such nonsense, that did nothing but walk the city looking for offsets(within certain dimensional criteria)
in sidewalks and crossings. Seems the city had been sued by so many people for their klutziness and inability to walk and chew gum at the same time, that it was cheaper for them to hire a full crew to look out for Joe "sue-the-socks-off them / get rich quick".
Now, if you got some ass doing that because they can't walk down a city sidewalk without acting stupid, Do I want them walking through my pasture full of slippery cow-shit and gopher holes? Or on my construction site, or my abandoned building?
Duh... O.K. It is, after all, their "constitutional right" to sue me for everything I own, because they were walking around with their head up their backside, and got hurt while tespassing w/o permission.

You're close. It was actually a lawyers' association that ran the operation. They surveyed every sidewalk in the city, noting cracks, broken pavement, etc. with an extensive index f types of damage and provided the report to the city. This allowed people suing to say, "Hey, the city KNEW about that crack in the sidewalk BEFORE I tripped on it, and they did NOTHING about it, so obviously they were NEGLIGENT." The NY Times had a series of articles on it.

Again, too many lawyers, too little time to hunt them all down.

[Michael Roberts]

Interesting thread. I got curious about the laws on the books and did some checking. In Colorado, criminal trespass can be either a petty offense, a misdemeanor, or a felony, depending on what kind of property you are trespassing on and what your intentions are. For our photographic purposes, you would be looking at either a Class 1 Petty Offense or a Misdemeanor depending mostly on whether property is fenced (misdemeanor) or not (petty offense). The rub is, even a Class 1 Petty Offense can carry a fine of up to $500 and up to six months jail time in a county jail. This would be for going onto someone's unfenced, and unposted property! The consequences are more dire when the property is fenced or posted.

So the criminal trespass law assumes you will find out who owns the property in question and ask their permission to be on it, ignorance is not an excuse.

I would assume other states' laws are similar.

[c.d.ewen]

You're close. It was actually a lawyers' association that ran the operation. They surveyed every sidewalk in the city, noting cracks, broken pavement, etc. with an extensive index f types of damage and provided the report to the city. This allowed people suing to say, "Hey, the city KNEW about that crack in the sidewalk BEFORE I tripped on it, and they did NOTHING about it, so obviously they were NEGLIGENT." The NY Times had a series of articles on it.

Again, too many lawyers, too little time to hunt them all down.

Terence:

I remember the NYT articles. The survey was in response to a law that NYC passed that said they couldn't be sued for any crack they hadn't been notifed of. The lawyer's group then did the survey and filed the necessary notices. I suspect that the way the survey was paid for was by having any lawyer with a potential suit 'buy' a copy of the notice.

Charley

[robert amsden]

Wear camouflage and pack heat to intimidate unreasonable a holes.

[Dave Parker]

Wear camouflage and pack heat to intimidate unreasonable a holes.

Better watch out! :eek: often times here in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, where I do a lot of shooting, the a hole, will out gun you almost every time, I know guys that own AK-47's, Bazookas as well as RPG's!

What is funny as I am typing this out, there is a story on CNN about a elderly lady in TX that confronted a journalist that crossed her property to get pictures of GWB and she was armed and ready to rock, in TX, the law says you can confront as well as use firearms against Trespassers! :eek:

[robert amsden]

The great Woody Guthrie was right This land was made for you and me.

[eddie]

Wear camouflage and pack heat to intimidate unreasonable a holes.

funny. i was considering just strapping on my 45 in plain view just to make the a holes reconsider their attitudes!

i was shooting on a back road here in the catskills. i was on the road. all legs! i was shooting an old tree with a swing hanging from the branch. then a guy from a house across the street comes out and goes nuts! he assumed i was from NYC, and said so. i tried to explain i was a native for over 35 years but that did not slow the verbal attack. i just moved on. i did not want the shot after that cause it would just remind me what an a hole he was every time i looked at it. te swing has since been removed.....

i always ask before entering private property. i have gotten very warm responses this way. i am a land owner and i appreciate both sides.

[Dave Parker]

a hole or not, I can't imagine any picture that I want to get that is worth getting shot over! Right or wrong, there are weirdos out there that will shoot and ask questions later...

[dpetersen]

Maybe I'm juct lucky, but gaining accss to areas has rarely been a problem. I have been denied on occasion. Out here in the sticks(Iowa/Illinois) the objections that I have heard are (1) the owner thinks you are surveying his land and the taxes will increase-not a lot of photographers, even less that use tripods (2) game poaching-a real problem here (3) fear of lawsuits if you should injure yourself and (4) damaging fences, etc. So I guess the owners do have some real concerns.
Personally, I would get permission or forget it. As was said earlier, no sense in getting shot over a picture. A lot of my photography is done on public lands of which there are plenty to keep me busy. It seems my two activities fly fishing(aka looking for dumb trout) and photography involve someone else's property.
DP

[Stephen Willard]

I have often wondered whether there is any correlation between those who break rules are more creative then those who are compulsive about conforming to rules. The logic being those who are rule breakers and trespass tend to do things outside the box and are more prone to invent and challenge convectional norms while those who must ask at all cost are cursed with the need to conform and thus create art that mimics.

What side of the fence do you stand on? Trespassing law breaker or a trespassless law abiding citizen?

I would never trespass near someone's residence because I do respect their privacy. Other than that, I am a blatant trespasser. I do not even try to sneak. I simply get out of the car, jump the fence, and take the shoot. And when I get caught which is often, I simply remind the landowner I leave no footprint on their land. I do not damage fences, cut vegetation, start fires, shit, pee, poach, harass wildlife, and I do haul all trash out whether its mine or someone elses. So what is the problem, and then I walk off. I have never been shot at or even arrested, but boy have I gotten some great shots. No guilt on my part. I sleep like a baby dreaming of the next poached photograph. It a real rush that gets my creative juices flowing!

[walter23]

I would be interested to see others point of view of this matter.

The whole notion of private property, beyond the boundaries of your personal living space, is a complete farce.

Nobody has any damned right to deny everybody else access to our common history, or to nature, provided the people accessing treat it with respect and leave no trace.

[Navy Moose]

I want to thank all you guys for putting this information out there. The photography group I belong to, we talk about this on a regular basis. I'm always careful to be on public property when I shoot. I've been asked by the police what I'm doing, but they always leave when they see my gear.

I just got my LF gear, and I saw some very strange reactions when I was putting it together. Some people, obviously photographers of some level, asked all kinds of questions, others were amazed that these old fashioned cameras are used in the digital age. I look forward to reactions up in VT and NH in a couple of months :-)

Navy Moose

[srbphoto]

Walter,

Define "the boundaries of your personal living space".

Thanks

Scott

[Deane Johnson]

Wear a hard had and everyone will assume you're there in an official capacity.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I just got my LF gear, and I saw some very strange reactions when I was putting it together. Some people, obviously photographers of some level, asked all kinds of questions, others were amazed that these old fashioned cameras are used in the digital age. I look forward to reactions up in VT and NH in a couple of months :-)

Navy Moose

-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!".

Back to the issue of tresspassing, which I do not do, if there's something I really want to shoot that is far enough away, well, that's one reason I have my 15 inch tele-raptar. :)

[jetcode]

Liability and security are huge factors on properties. If you get hurt the owner is liable even if you are trespassing (attorneys correct me here). If you are shooting back country in Northern California you might run into one or more pot farmers with guns and they are dead serious about protecting their crops.

[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? :eek: 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. :D

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.

[Oortti]

I'm glad that in Finland we don't have such strict restrictions. Feels quite funny to read this conversation about property rights. I guess we have it quite allright here, also from the photographers perspective. The law gives us "every mans rights", which states that you're free to:

-move in the nature or in the yards, fields, forests or whatsoever private lands by foot in a way that is not harmful to the aforementioned (no permission required from the landowner)
-you can camp also in any property or a land, as long as you keep your "proper" distance to any settlements
-freely pick up berries and mushrooms, flowers
-freely fish with a line and hook in any body of water, and use water- and iceways

And then there's also a list of "what not to do", but basically it's all about respecting the nature, avoiding littering and general disturbance.

[scrichton]

Britain is nice and relaxed too. Scotland especially as there are no trespass laws apart from on military property. As long as you are open and honest about what you are doing here I have found everyone is great.

Go further north and you could literally walk into some houses and be greeted with open arms stranger or not.

Oh but don't take pictures of London or kids... you'll be branded either a terrorist or a paedophile!

[hoffner]

I'm glad that in Finland we don't have such strict restrictions. Feels quite funny to read this conversation about property rights. I guess we have it quite allright here, also from the photographers perspective. The law gives us "every mans rights", which states that you're free to:

-.

Of course, the famous Scandinavian Allemans rätt puts Scandinavia on the top of most enjoyable countries when it comes to the use of nature. It's just one of the false myths that people in US have great freedom. Nonsense. The level of civil freedom from danger, from crazy happy gun types, from crazy lawyers, among other things is much higher in Europe.

[mrladewig]

Of course, the famous Scandinavian Allemans r&#228;tt puts Scandinavia on the top of most enjoyable countries when it comes to the use of nature. It's just one of the false myths that people in US have great freedom. Nonsense. The level of civil freedom from danger, from crazy happy gun types, from crazy lawyers, among other things is much higher in Europe.

In the western US between the Park Service, Forest Sevice, BLM and other smaller groups we have millions of acres of public land. We have some wilderness areas that individually reach nearly 1 million acres and some adjacent ones that total 1.5 million combined.

Certainly there are some faults with regard to civil liberties in the US, but there are also some great public holdings open to all. The creation of the National Park system was one of the truly great ideas in this nation, along with it the Wilderness Act which set aside some great land for the enjoyment of the people in its pristine state.

[Louie Powell]

Certainly there are some faults with regard to civil liberties in the US, but there are also some great public holdings open to all. The creation of the National Park system was one of the truly great ideas in this nation, along with it the Wilderness Act which set aside some great land for the enjoyment of the people in its pristine state.

This is quite true, and is something that we in the US can be very grateful for.

But - - -

The imposition of unreasonable constraints on photography, including such things a public service announcements that suggest that photography is a "strange activity" that "must be reported to authorities" creates a situation in which the only socially acceptable form of photography is nature photography in these great public holdings. That's a blatant deprivation of the civil rights of those whose photographic vision extends beyond roots and rocks.

[hoffner]

----
Certainly there are some faults with regard to civil liberties in the US, but there are also some great public holdings open to all. The creation of the National Park system was one of the truly great ideas in this nation, along with it the Wilderness Act which set aside some great land for the enjoyment of the people in its pristine state.

Just try to say this in Scandinavia where the whole of the country is open for free (see Oortti's post) roaming... Did you see how surprised Oortti was? For a good reason.
Naah, don't even try...

[Marko]

So, what's your point? Tire chains vs. chain fence? ;)

[hoffner]

And what's your point? Tire chains vs. chain fence?

[mrladewig]

I'm sorry, my point was that there is still plenty to be grateful for in the US. The holding of land as public is a great benefit to all Americans and for that matter, any who wish to visit. We don't check citizenship to allow entry to a National Park or forest or BLM district. And it is a vast amount of land that has been set aside.

And I know that there are some liberties that the people of this land have given away too cheaply, but I can tell you that I do not appreciate it when people trespass on my property. I suppose that we've developed an expectation of privacy in our homes. Still, you would find here that most landowners in the US would be gracious hosts if asked. Sometimes it is just difficult to find the right person to ask.

[hoffner]

----
Still, you would find here that most landowners in the US would be gracious hosts if asked. Sometimes it is just difficult to find the right person to ask.

I surely believe both of the statements.

[Marko]

And what's your point? Tire chains vs. chain fence?

This was a thread about property rights and trespassing laws in the US. Quoting Scandinavian laws in comparison makes as much sense as comparing the respective climate conditions (e.g. you'd need tire chains to really roam freely through most of it for most part of the year, which is at least as much hassle as asking for permission to bypass the chain fence.)

BTW, I remain unaware of the country called Scandinavia... ;)

[hoffner]

This was a thread about property rights and trespassing laws in the US. Quoting Scandinavian laws in comparison makes as much sense as comparing the respective climate conditions (e.g. you'd need tire chains to really roam freely through most of it for most part of the year, which is at least as much hassle as asking for permission to bypass the chain fence.)

BTW, I remain unaware of the country called Scandinavia... ;)

The OP asked for "others point of view on this matter". Nowhere in his post nor elsewhere is it written that non American points of view should be avoided. Did you have that impression? Would you like non American freedom experience be banned from answers to the OP?
Surely it makes a lot of sense to compare the freedom in nature photography in US and in Scandinavia, especially if someone asks for "others point of view". Does it bother you a lot?
Your knowledge of the climate conditions in Scandinavia its really pitiful. Scandinavia is free for roaming for most part of the year - and widely used so by many hikers each year. In the winter time people use skies or snowshoes for their free roaming. The use of winter tires or tire chains has nothing to do with their freedom to take pictures.
If you are unaware of the country called Scandinavia is perhaps for a good reason - there isn't any country called so. Did anybody told you otherwise?

[Once]

This was a thread about property rights and trespassing laws in the US. Quoting Scandinavian laws in comparison makes as much sense as comparing the respective climate conditions (e.g. you'd need tire chains to really roam freely through most of it for most part of the year, which is at least as much hassle as asking for permission to bypass the chain fence.)

BTW, I remain unaware of the country called Scandinavia... ;)

I don't agree with you. This site has many contributors from many countries. Why didn't you protest when Oortti (thank you, Oortti for the very interesting post - I didn't know your country is so well aimed toward us, nature photographers!:) ) wrote his post? And why do you give lessons to Hofner when he wrote his post? Are you a moderator of some self imposed kind?
A good answer of yours, Hofner, about Scandinavia :D Cheers!

[Marko]

It's perfectly fine to disagree, just as it is to point out how it's done in different countries. That's the point of the discussion.

It is not fine, however, to use a thread like this to throw around stereotypes about the entire country and people who live there. Like this:


It's just one of the false myths that people in US have great freedom. Nonsense. The level of civil freedom from danger, from crazy happy gun types, from crazy lawyers, among other things is much higher in Europe.

I live here, I'm neither a lawyer nor a trigger-happy gun type and I don't feel threatened from either. I reacted because I find that kind of attitude rude and offensive, especially coming from someone confusing a country with a region.

[Deane Johnson]

Would a possible solution be to get the trigger-happy gun types to focus their attention on the crazy lawyers?:)

[Once]

It's perfectly fine to disagree, just as it is to point out how it's done in different countries. That's the point of the discussion.

It is not fine, however, to use a thread like this to throw around stereotypes about the entire country and people who live there. Like this:



I live here, I'm neither a lawyer nor a trigger-happy gun type and I don't feel threatened from either. I reacted because I find that kind of attitude rude and offensive, especially coming from someone confusing a country with a region.

Mr. Marko, you're not the one in position to decide what is and what isn't a stereotype. Let the other people say what they think.
Speaking about "someone confusing a country with a region " - are perhaps speaking about yourself? Mr. Hofner didn't confuse the two at all.

[Once]

Would a possible solution be to get the trigger-happy gun types to focus their attention on the crazy lawyers?:)

A good point, Deane. I wonder who is more numerous in the country :)

[hoffner]

It's perfectly fine to disagree, just as it is to point out how it's done in different countries. That's the point of the discussion.

It is not fine, however, to use a thread like this to throw around stereotypes about the entire country and people who live there. Like this:
.

You think that in a thread about civil liberties in the US it is not "fine" to say that somebody thinks, the great freedom in US is a false myth.

I think that in a thread about civil liberties it's fine to say that great freedom in the US is a false myth.

Now if you don't like it, find it rude etc. take a deep breath and relax. It'll be better afterwords.
Did you read that Oortti find it's funny the description of civil liberties when it comes to the free roaming in the US? Is that fine on your scale?
Do you still have any difficulty with Scandinavia's free roaming concept (it's called the "Allemans rätt")? Now that is some freedom - almost a real myth!
For your calm don't even try to have a look at some other threads about freedom of this and that in the US, here around - could make you shaky...
Hope you will let now the others on this forum express their free opinion with no offense taken.

[hoffner]

Mr. Marko, you're not the one in position to decide what is and what isn't a stereotype. Let the other people say what they think.
Speaking about "someone confusing a country with a region " - are perhaps speaking about yourself? Mr. Hofner didn't confuse the two at all.

Hi Once, just a small correction - it's Mr. Hoffner...:) Of course, I agree with you in what you said.
Now, tell us how is it with the civil liberties for photographers (and nature roamers) in India?

[Marko]

Speaking about "someone confusing a country with a region " - are perhaps speaking about yourself? Mr. Hofner didn't confuse the two at all.

As far as I remember, it was he who mentioned Scandinavia as a country a few posts back. Once or twice, can't quite remember now, but you guys sure sound like two personalities sharing the same head... ;)

[Once]

Hi Once, just a small correction - it's Mr. Hoffner...:) Of course, I agree with you in what you said.
Now, tell us how is it with the civil liberties for photographers (and nature roamers) in India?

Sorry for the missed "f":)
Well, India is a big country so it's not easy to summarize. Very generally I can say that to put a tripod in Bombay on a street is allowed but somehow not practical, if you understand what I mean :)
On the other hand, the cows have surely bigger freedom to roam on streets here than in the US :)
Seriously, I don't come into conflicts with trespassing codes. I don't know any special rules concerning my freedom as a photographer, I just use the common sense and don't put a tripod into someone's garden. I think the common sense is also used on the other side of the fence, people don't take guns on you first and ask then, that's for sure. India's people learned a long time ago how to live in great numbers, I guess.

[Once]

As far as I remember, it was he who mentioned Scandinavia as a country a few posts back. Once or twice, can't quite remember now, but you guys sure sound like two personalities sharing the same head... ;)

You're mistaken, Sir. Hoffner did mention Scandinavia as being on the top of the most enjoyable countries when it comes to the use of nature. As Scandinavia is a region of several countries (as is for ex. Mediterranean ) having the same freedom policy you can still speak about its rang among other countries. That's my opinion.
I have to tell you that your posts are of the unpleasant nature, though.

[walter23]

Exploration is exciting. Forbidden exploration is more exciting.

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

Couldn't have put it better. Bravo, man.

[walter23]

Public space (and more generally, the right of public access) must be protected.

I can only afford a tiny fraction of the world's land. Under total privatization I'll potentially lose access to 99.9999999999999999&#37; of everything else, which isn't really a fair price for my secure and private ownership of the other 0.00000000000000001%.