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

[Heroique]

I plead guilty – I’m a scoff-law when it comes to LF photography.

Every year, I break laws to get shots. Many of them are pre-meditated. These “illegal” shots are only a small part of my portfolio, but they’re among the very best I’ve taken. And telling the story is always a lot of fun. ;)

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

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

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

— Do good results help alleviate any subsequent remorse?

[Preston]

Even if I did break the law to get a photograph, which I have not, it's unlikely I would say anything about it. Also, professionalism demands that I respect the law, and the property rights of others.

--P

[Brian Ellis]

None

[Jay DeFehr]

I've trespassed.... a lot, and ignored public nudity laws....a lot.

Preston, I'm relieved to know your ethics prevent you from full disclosure, if not full compliance.

[vinny]

I live in America and I do whatever the hell I want.

[Heroique]

I live in America and I do whatever the hell I want.

That reminds me! It’s not my worst crime – “trespassing” wins that honor – but it’s certainly my most common: illegal parking on the shoulder of roads. Many times, I’ve pulled-off “wherever the hell I want,” never in the city where traffic is heavy & tickets are likely, but in national forests where I need 45 or 60 minutes for a shot nearby, and there’s nowhere else for my car...

[Chris Wong]

None, at least not intentionally. I think it's bad karma to break the law to get the shot. That doesn't mean that I'm an angel when it comes to breaking the law in general but I don't think a shot is worth breaking the law for.

[Ash]

Any and all that get in the way

[Sirius Glass]

None! No laws broken in the pursuit of photography. That is my story and I am sticking to it! - Sirius Glass

[Heroique]

Any and all that get in the way.

Ash, you’re our local rebel without a cause!

[Heroique]

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


...I don’t think a shot is worth breaking the law for.

The work of our friend and fellow forum member, Chris Jordan, occurred to me in light of these remarks. Many here will recall his photo series, “Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption.” To get some of the shots, Jordan explained in his 2007 PBS interview (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/profile4.html) w/ Bill Moyers that he jumped the fences of private container yards (in Seattle) on early Sunday mornings – not easy with 8x10 gear:

“A lot the photographs I took back then, I had to trespass,” Jordan says. “I had to sneak in or climb over gates or over fences on Sundays to take these photographs. I worked with this camera that was about, I don't know, three and a half or four feet wide. It was an 8x10 view camera. And a tripod that went up 11 feet.”

I’m inclined to call this photo-taking behavior “justifiable” since its aim was to raise public awareness about the trashy consequences of mass consumption. But when such behavior serves only personal, artistic aims – not important, social ones – do you think it would merit the same consideration?

[Roger Cole]

Mostly the laws of physics and chemistry.

Well, I've been known to try, anyway.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Occasional flaunting of the Rule of Thirds

[Ari]

What laws have you broken, and why?

Whadda ya got? :)

Rather than break a law, I try to get someone to let me temporarily bypass a law, in pursuit of a higher ideal, namely my portfolio and photography career.

[Heroique]

Whadda ya got? :)

If Ash is our Rebel without a Cause, you must be The Wild One.

A dangerous gang of film photographers.

Fence jumping & illegal parking suddenly seem so tame!

[Two23]

I do some low level tresspassing to photo abandoned farm houses, railroad shots, and so on, but don't push it too hard. I do a lot of night photography in winter, and when it's 20 below no one seems to bother me much. I don't see tresspassing to take some political type shot as being any more "noble" than just taking a regular shot.


Kent in SD

[Brian C. Miller]

You cannot break laws when there are none!

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/418416.1020.A.jpg

Laws are a fiction of society. When all is ash, justice is what you make!

-- Brian "I didn't do nothin', I swear!" Miller

[jnantz]

i get hassled too much already to
go out and break laws on purpose.

[John Kasaian]

I haven't broken any laws which I am aware of. I'm not sure why I would feel the need to.
Even on military installations I've been able to get permission if I go about it honestly and professionally and had a good reason.

In fact the only place I recollect that I couldn't get access to was inside a convent of cloistered nuns!

[John Kasaian]

You cannot break laws when there are none!

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/418416.1020.A.jpg

Laws are a fiction of society. When all is ash, justice is what you make!

-- Brian "I didn't do nothin', I swear!" Miller

Nope. Not even close. Justice requires restoration in addition to restitution to be truly justice. Nice boom stick though!

[urs0polar]

I’m inclined to call this photo-taking behavior “justifiable” since its aim was to raise public awareness about the trashy consequences of mass consumption. But when such behavior serves only personal, artistic aims – not important, social ones – do you think it would merit the same consideration?


I disagree with you here... just because it's important to one set of people doesn't make it fair to another... like only taking pictures of the worst things and one of the good things of a particular subject, etc etc. Journalists have been doing that since the beginning of cameras. Not saying that your example guy did that with the containers of consumption or whatever as I've never seen his stuff or this series, but politics is usually not truth. One man's art is another man's trash, but the law applies to all men.

Speaking about the original topic: I never want to break the law, and it's probably never "worth it" in the ultimate sense as it's probably even more challenging to get a good shot *without* having to break any laws.

Having said all of that, however: I definitely think some laws are really stupid, like the "no tripods on the sidewalk" laws in NYC, which is where I live. Say the law wasn't there... how many crazy people with tripods clogging up the sidewalks would there really be? Would we all get in breakdance battles with the b-boys to claim turf? How many head spins can I do on concrete if I haven't practiced it recently? I pay my taxes, and sidewalks are a public space. Private backyards and barns, etc are different entirely and I would at least ask before going there.

(funny story, I saw someone last week carrying a medium size tripod in midtown by the Empire State building with a pink Casio $150 point and shoot screwed into the top... maybe there ARE armies of tripodists who can't wait to clog the sidewalks if it wasn't for that stupid law... :P )

[Frank Petronio]

Never would have got these if I waited for permission.

I actually went back and got permission later that year and they made me stand 100 feet back away from the edge of anything. While wearing a hardhat and steel toed boots.

I keep construction work clothes, hardhat, yellow safety vest and even traffic cones when I do stuff like this.

There are plenty of other laws that are fun to break too.

...

[lenser]

Frank,

Is that where they filmed scenes from "The Fountainhead"? Looks like Gary Cooper would have been right at home there.

[Frank Petronio]

Maybe, I haven't seen the movie but the Rock of Ages Granite Quarry in Barre, Vermont has been in operation since the 1700s. That used to be a mountain there, now there is only half of one.

[Thebes]

I have no problems with shooting a bit of outdoor nudity, even near a not-too-busy highway, if I think no one will see well enough to be offended.

But I wouldn't trespass on any property that I accepted as being legitimately private. Maybe property belonging to some multinational corp that I think shouldn't exist, or "trespassing" on public lands... but not in a farmer's field or someone's yard.

[Dave Jeffery]

The nicest thing about CS5 Content- Aware fill is that I no longer need to burn down any more neighborhoods, huge lodges, national park buildings and small quaint tourist towns that get in the way of my landscape pictures.:D

[Richard Mahoney]

Dear Heroique,


I plead guilty – I’m a scoff-law when it comes to LF photography.

Every year, I break laws to get shots. Many of them are pre-meditated. These “illegal” shots are only a small part of my portfolio, but they’re among the very best I’ve taken. And telling the story is always a lot of fun. ;)

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

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

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

— Do good results help alleviate any subsequent remorse?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're amusing yourself here by playing the devil's advocate. Still -- fun and games to the side -- how do you think this thread helps to promote our credibility in the eye of a public increasingly disaffected with photographers?

Best, Richard

[dperez]

I've trespassed.... a lot, and ignored public nudity laws....a lot.

Preston, I'm relieved to know your ethics prevent you from full disclosure, if not full compliance.

Haha..

[Marko]

I break "The 9/11 Law" here and there, but that's about it.

Most laws exist for a good reason and the fewer people break them, the fewer unreasonable laws we get.

@Richard: I don't think the danger of this thread reducing credibility of photographers in the general public would be very high... For one, "the general public" as we know it seems to be generally disaffected with anything that stands out enough to jolt them out of their... let's be charitable and call it intense focus on celebrities, gossip, mass consumption and junk food.

Two, stemming from the previous point: How many "members of the general public" do you really think read this forum? And even if all four of them did somehow stumble upon this very thread, do you really think they would care (see point one)?

:D

[Jehu]

By "The 9/11 Law" I assume you mean the Patriot Act. It's interesting that the impact of that Act on our rights to photograph are minimal if any.

I always carry a laminated version of Krages article "The Photographer's Rights" with me. Here's a link:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I've had only a few encounters by people that would violate my rights to photograph. I had a security guard try to intimidate me into giving up my film. I snapped a picture of him with my digital camera as he was lecturing me about trespassing. Being a Land Surveyor by profession, I was a little too familiar with trespassing laws. He made it known that I had better give him my film and memory card or I would be spending time in prison. He kept yacking away as I was packing my gear. As I was driving off, he was still yelling about leaving the scene of a crime and cops and various things that were amusing to me. It's fun pushing peoples' buttons sometimes.

[Heroique]

...how do you think this thread helps to promote our credibility in the eye of a public increasingly disaffected with photographers?


Hi Richard,

How people respond to the “When is it justifiable?” part of my post should alleviate your concerns. I’ve given this question some amplification in post #11 (about the container yards), and others have shared additional thoughts. We’d especially enjoy hearing your views on the matter.

[kev curry]

By "The 9/11 Law" I assume you mean the Patriot Act. It's interesting that the impact of that Act on our rights to photograph are minimal if any.



I understand that the 'Patriot Act' severely compromises your rights in their entirety from the stand point of the 4th amendment! But then what do I know...I'm from Scotland!

[Brian C. Miller]

... how do you think this thread helps to promote our credibility in the eye of a public increasingly disaffected with photographers?

What would you point to in the recent news about the public being disaffected by photographers? I did a Google news search, at at most I came up with is that the Obama administration isn't going to be using staged press photo ops any longer. If you are referring to the hassling of photographers by various idiots in charge, well, that's been going on as long as there have been idiots in charge.

[ROL]

It is my policy to break Murphy's – though it nearly always breaks me.

[Jehu]

I understand that the 'Patriot Act' severely compromises your rights in their entirety from the stand point of the 4th amendment! But then what do I know...I'm from Scotland!

"I've heard that..." is the most common phrase leading in to a statement that complains about the Patriot Act. The Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) is the right that most fear losing by the Act. I have yet to hear from someone who has read the Act and still has this concern. I don't want to open a door to a political argument. That would result in the closing of the discussion. It may, however, behoove us to discuss the impact of current events on our rights to photograph.

Here is a useful link to anyone that has concerns of the Patriot Act:
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

I don't see anything about search and seizure that bypasses a court order. Perhaps someone else can find something and correct me on that.

[Kimberly Anderson]

I trespass quite a bit.

I speed down the freeway quite a bit.

[jnantz]

Maybe, I haven't seen the movie but the Rock of Ages Granite Quarry in Barre, Vermont has been in operation since the 1700s. That used to be a mountain there, now there is only half of one.

the quincy granite rail quarry and rock of ages were the 2 oldest granite quarries in the country ... they filled the quincy quarries a few years back ... it was like a 300+ foot drop ( was fully pumped out ) when i was there and the ledges used to just break-away.
frank, did they make you wear a harness too ?

[Frank Petronio]

No but I can't blame them for being cautious either, the way our legal system works.... But it is just such a tempting place to shoot, the good outweighs the bad.

[Kirk Gittings]

And then there is the question of whole workshops not having permission/legal access (and the members not being informed). LULA (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=54220.msg442371#msg442371)

[paulr]

Aside from the breaking the laws of good taste, my crime of choice is definitely tresspassing.

Recently this has meant sneaking into old industrial buildings. I must admit that I enjoy the tresspassing and exploring for its own sake, and sometimes feel like the photography is just an excuse. I generally treat my forbidden prospects as archaeological sites ... I don't disturb anything, don't leave a trace.

For more high profile sites, I keep an orange construction vest in my bag. This works best with large format camera and wood tripod, because it's an instant surveyor costume. It's excellent for stopping on highways too.

Someone mentioned public nudity earlier. Interestingly, in NYC, public nudity is legal if it's for artistic purposes. There is no clear definition of an artistic purpose, but recently there were no issues when a gallery had nude models posed motionless in its storefront windows.

[Brian Ellis]

I understand that the 'Patriot Act' severely compromises your rights in their entirety from the stand point of the 4th amendment! But then what do I know...I'm from Scotland!

You understand wrong.

[Vaughn]

Mostly sleeping in my van where I am not suppose to. But any police that stop by in the middle of the night are usually cool about it if I say that I was too tired to drive.

Otherwise I tend to be obey the rules and regulations designed to protect the environment, and stretch those that are only there for my "protection".

I do not trespass (not on purpose, anyway).

[Heroique]

Mostly sleeping ... where I am not suppose to.

I should add “illegal sleeping” to my crimes, since I haven’t always pitched my tent at the designated site specified on my back-country permit. Other times, I’ll sleep at a designated site, but w/o a required reservation – never, however, if the sites fill-up. I move on. Sometimes I go w/o a permit at all. All of this is rare behavior, usually when it’s necessary for getting a shot. But since I most often explore national forests – not national parks – these back-country restrictions usually don’t apply.

[goamules]

...I had a security guard try to intimidate me into giving up my film. I snapped a picture of him with my digital camera as he was lecturing me about trespassing. Being a Land Surveyor by profession, I was a little too familiar with trespassing laws. He made it known that I had better give him my film and memory card or I would be spending time in prison. He kept yacking away as I was packing my gear. As I was driving off, he was still yelling about leaving the scene of a crime and cops and various things that were amusing to me. It's fun pushing peoples' buttons sometimes.

Ha! Reminds me of the time (prior to 9-11) when I left my vehicle at the curb of the Albuquerque airport loading zone. I left it running and my kids and dogs inside as I ducked in the glass doors to wave at my arriving party. I wasn't in there 2 minutes when I heard an ominous voice over the intercom summoning me back to my vehicle.

I walked up to my truck where a bicycle cop had his foot on the bumper. He said, "Give me one reason why I shouldn't give you a ticket, impound this truck, take those dogs to the pound, and take your kids to CPS?"
Before I could stop myself, I answered, "Because you don't want to be an asshole?"

I love breaking petty, idiotic rules for folks like that.

[Vaughn]

...I answered, "Because you don't want to be an asshole?"...

But what his reply?:D

[kev curry]

You understand wrong.

The case of another US citizen blind to the far reaching powers and implications of the laws in their own country! Alarmingly common!

The default position of the constitution embodied in the 4th amendment is the right to liberty and the right to be left alone by government. The PA turns that on its head! Anyway enough of this....

[Steve M Hostetter]

I've been in my share of abandoned buildings.. Even as a young child I would actively seek out these places to explore.
I remember at the age of 8 my friend and I went into the old Chruchman mansion which was an old federal style mansion built around 1830 for a banker and rail/road owner rumored to be on the underground rail road
We entered the house and walked up several flights of steps through all kinds of falled debris.. We both heard the sound of someone walking and we turned tail and ran like hell.. Never even looked back.
I have nightmares about the place to this day.

[Jehu]

The case of another US citizen blind to the far reaching powers and implications of the laws in their own country! Alarmingly common!

The default position of the constitution embodied in the 4th amendment is the right to liberty and the right to be left alone by government. The PA turns that on its head! Anyway enough of this....

First of all, I'm NOT arguing politics. I'm not going to bash either Bush or Obama on the photography forum. If I want to do that, it's going to be on a forum where it's appropriate. I am a member of this forum for the purpose of interacting with other large format photographers. There is a political overlap in this subject that needs to be addressed. Whether the Patriot Act is good, bad or meaningless isn't what needs to be discussed.

that said...
Can you tell me what in the Patriot Act is in conflict with the 4th Amendment as it relates to our ability to photograph? This is an honest question and not an argument. The argument department is down the hall next door to the "getting hit on the head" department.

[Sirius Glass]

Well said!

[Richard Mahoney]

Hi Richard,

How people respond to the “When is it justifiable?” part of my post should alleviate your concerns. I’ve given this question some amplification in post #11 (about the container yards), and others have shared additional thoughts. We’d especially enjoy hearing your views on the matter.

Many -- most? -- of my photographs are taken on private land so the first thing I always do is secure permission from the property owner. It's that simple. To do otherwise is -- in my opinion -- poor form and stupid. Let's put it the other way round -- When one could ask for permission why wouldn't one?

Best, Richard

P.S. And really -- for those of you young enough to still care about promoting `causes' -- do you really think the best equipment is a 15kg view camera? Surely jumping the fence and back with a wee rangefinder would be more fun? :)

[Heroique]

...the first thing I always do is secure permission from the property owner. It's that simple. To do otherwise is – in my opinion – poor form and stupid...

Yours is certainly a sensible, polite, and legal option. But is it always the best one?

-----
A do-good photographer: “Hi, I’d like to photograph your company’s property to raise public awareness about massive global waste and its threat to our planet’s health. When’s a good time?”

VP, Public Relations: “Sounds fantastic! Here’re the gate keys – please let us know when the show runs!”

[paulr]

I understand that the 'Patriot Act' severely compromises your rights in their entirety from the stand point of the 4th amendment! But then what do I know...I'm from Scotland!

Not in their entirety but pretty close (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act). Not directly relevent to photographers for the most part, though the spirit that spawned the act has caused much trouble for photographers who haven't broken any laws at all. Many other threads about this.

[paulr]

Yours is certainly a sensible, polite, and legal option. But is it always the best one?

-----
A do-good photographer: “Hi, I’d like to photograph your company’s property to raise public awareness about massive global waste and its threat to our planet’s health. When’s a good time?”


Even when you're not dealing with an absurdist possibility like that, there are other reasons go commando. The kinds of landlords I'd have to approach can be counted on to never return an email. If they did, the answer would most often be no.

If you get caught, it's easier to play dumb when you haven't already been told in writing, "no, you may not photograph there."

[Richard Mahoney]

The kinds of landlords I'd have to approach can be counted on to never return an email. If they did, the answer would most often be no.

I suppose this is one of the pleasant things about working mostly in the (New Zealand) countryside. It's usually just a case of knocking on someone's door and having a chat. More often than not people are genuinely interested in what one is up to. And it's not uncommon for them to refer one to other places and people that could be of interest.

I don't think of myself as `do-gooder' in any sense -- God forbid! -- it's just that I find this sort of contact immensely helpful, not only in providing my subjects with a context but in creating a sense of interest in what might -- for loss of a better phrase -- be considered `regional, documentary photography'. I suppose I see the LF `undercover' approach as something of a lost opportunity to create awareness -- well there you go, perhaps after all I am still a little too fond of `causes' ;)


Kind regards,

Richard

[Vaughn]

I suppose this is one of the pleasant things about working mostly in the (New Zealand) countryside. It's usually just a case of knocking on someone's door and having a chat...

Not only a chat, but being invited in for a cup of tea with the whole family...and a bit of a laugh over being a Yank who drinks his tea black. In 1975 I was hitch-hiking on the west coast of the South Island on a Sunday morning (I had slept in a grove of tree ferns that night before). It was 6 hours before a car even when by me in the right direction! Not one to stand in one place, and getting thirsty, I stopped at a farm house for a drink of water. They treated this long-haired bearded Yank right!

But no matter where you are, honesty and a smile will usually be met with the same.

Vaughn

[Marko]

By "The 9/11 Law" I assume you mean the Patriot Act. It's interesting that the impact of that Act on our rights to photograph are minimal if any.

I always carry a laminated version of Krages article "The Photographer's Rights" with me. Here's a link:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

No, I didn't mean the Patriot Act, although in another forum, I would disagree about it having a minimal impact on anything except on the very thing it was supposedly meant to facilitate (make us all safer). It has had a very chilling effect on virtually everything that has anything to do with the freedom of expression (1st amendment) and other constitutional rights (primarily but not exclusively the 4th amendment).

Photography is very much affected by both for reasons that are (or at least should be) very clear to anybody who bothers to read both the Constitution and the PA with a rational mind.

This is already threading a fine line and I am not going to push this issue any further into the political territory, just suffice it to say that I tend to agree with Kev on this one to a large degree. (Wonder of wonders, this is the second time in less than a month that I agree with Kev on something! Better watch out, the sky may be falling! :D)

But back to the topic - I know about Krages, I often link to that site and always carry a copy myself. What I meant was the imaginary "9/11 Law" that assorted little minimum-wage cop-wannabes invariably bring up when they are trying to prevent me from taking photos some place public.

It was done with tongue firmly in cheek, hence the quotes and the big grin at the end.


I've had only a few encounters by people that would violate my rights to photograph. I had a security guard try to intimidate me into giving up my film. I snapped a picture of him with my digital camera as he was lecturing me about trespassing. Being a Land Surveyor by profession, I was a little too familiar with trespassing laws. He made it known that I had better give him my film and memory card or I would be spending time in prison. He kept yacking away as I was packing my gear. As I was driving off, he was still yelling about leaving the scene of a crime and cops and various things that were amusing to me. It's fun pushing peoples' buttons sometimes.

My first response, when reasoning fails (as it usually does with those people) if they are police officers. Then I pull my cellphone and tell them that if they don't call the police I will gladly do so myself. That usually does the trick. If it doesn't, I do call the police. And I keep recording the entire exchange.

[Robert Brummitt]

Does breaking the "Rule of thirds" count?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I don't break any laws, but I do willingly violate the Rule of Thirds and the Scheimpflug Rule quite often. :)

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Sorry, didn't see your post Robert, not trying to steal your jokes.

[Heroique]

Occasional flaunting of the Rule of Thirds.


Does breaking the “Rule of thirds” count?


I don’t break any laws, but I do willingly violate the Rule of Thirds...

Leonardo broke that law – a Renaissance rabble-rouser.

I don’t think he was ever arrested for his crime.

But the painting suggests he did feel sadness and remorse. :(

[Roger Cole]

Even when you're not dealing with an absurdist possibility like that, there are other reasons go commando. The kinds of landlords I'd have to approach can be counted on to never return an email. If they did, the answer would most often be no.

If you get caught, it's easier to play dumb when you haven't already been told in writing, "no, you may not photograph there."

"It is almost always easier to get forgiveness than permission."

[Two23]

1. Aside from the breaking the laws of good taste, my crime of choice is definitely tresspassing.

2, For more high profile sites, I keep an orange construction vest in my bag. This works best with large format camera and wood tripod, because it's an instant surveyor costume. It's excellent for stopping on highways too.

3, Someone mentioned public nudity earlier. Interestingly, in NYC, public nudity is legal if it's for artistic purposes.

1. Ah yes.Where I live it's only tresspassing if the land is posted. Something about sneaking around a big grain elevator at night after everyone is gone adds to the excitement.

2. I do that some, especially for railroad shots. I call it camo. Camo is simply clothing that helps you blend in with your surroundings.

3. I've been considering some nude photography, but I'll wait until it warms up a little bit more around here. I'll just be by myself, with only cows for company.


Kent in SD

[Steve Smith]

I had a security guard try to intimidate me into giving up my film. I snapped a picture of him with my digital camera as he was lecturing me about trespassing. Being a Land Surveyor by profession, I was a little too familiar with trespassing laws. He made it known that I had better give him my film and memory card or I would be spending time in prison. He kept yacking away as I was packing my gear. As I was driving off, he was still yelling about leaving the scene of a crime and cops and various things that were amusing to me. It's fun pushing peoples' buttons sometimes.

I think I would do the same. In the UK, the trespass laws, or at least, their implementation, is a bit different to the US.
If you are trespassing, all the land owner (or security) can do is ask you to leave. They cannot force you unless they have reason to believe that you are going to cause harm to people or property. Even if they call the police there isn't much they can do either. If you are causing a problem they will try to sort it out with a public order offence. However, this is not an arrestable offence, just one for which you can be cautioned.

I think we have a bit more public access to land in the UK as most land, countryside, farms, etc, have public footpaths crossing them and the owners of the land through which they pass cannot stop you from using them - or photographing whilst on the path.


Steve.

[Mark_C]

A few years ago I was setting up to make 5x7" photograph of observatory in Griffiths Park above LA. Within a couple of minutes a very mean lady in uniform informed me that I was breaking a law - I appeared to her to be professional because of my camera being on tripod. That's her words - "You appear to be professional".
In any case, she wanted me to pay some fee at downtown filming office - get the permit and then I could photograph with tripod in parks or on the streets of LA. It was all about money! Not even about insurance, liability or security issue.

She was rude and soon assisted by two other rangers. As I was listening I made one exposure and packed my gear. I made a promise - to myself - of not wasting anymore film to photograph in such tourist unfriendly places. All the photography permits in various locations in US - in public places - in parks, on sidewalks or in subway are in my opinion nothing else but robbery in broad daylight, in majesty of "the Law"... Although the observatory neg is fine I do not have any passion to print it - it would be a waste to promote that unfriendly place.

With 35 mm I did intentionally break "a Law" - Martial Law in fact, back in 1981, '82 and '83 during imposed Martial Law in Poland it was forbidden to photograph. I did not try to get a permit/accreditation since I was not interested in the officially allowed side of a story of the situation within society and opposition (with outlawed "Solidarity" Union).

Some of the photographs from that period you can see there (and the following pages) - December 17, 1981 - the fifth day of the martial law in Poland (http://homepage.mac.com/zbigniew/wstanie/pages/strona_004.html) - if I did obey that "Law" forbidding to photograph you would not see any of them.

cheers
-Mark

[BrianShaw]

I broke the law of reciprocity a couple of times in my life. Guess what the punishment was...


http://artists.letssingit.com/bobby-fuller-four-lyrics-i-fought-the-law-and-the-law-won-fx4r9mq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Fought_the_Law

[rdenney]

Occasional flaunting of the Rule of Thirds

Flaunting the Rule of Thirds would indeed be illegal in many camps. Flouting them would be illegal in other camps. It's a tough life being the Rule of Thirds.

Rick "do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

[Gary Tarbert]

Only the silly rules do i ever break , leaves me some options;) Cheers Gary

[rdenney]

In fact the only place I recollect that I couldn't get access to was inside a convent of cloistered nuns!

The two places I've not been able to get permission for serious photography were Westminster Abbey and The Alamo (capitalized definite article required by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, and don't you forget it.) While such rules seem to me rather pompous, and enforced in way likely to turn people away from the causes those two institutions purportedly support, flouting them hardly constitutes anarchy.

Laws are another matter. Many seem to relish the opportunity to break laws, just for the sake of breaking them. I tend to the conclusion of Doc Sarvis--himself a character given to planned civil disobedience--anarchy is not the answer. I'm generally opposed to planned civil disobedience, which is practiced in anarchic ways nearly every time. But I am also opposed to laws passed by self-serving do-gooders to enhance their own quality of life at the expense of others, especially when those do-gooders are dictating, without compensation, what others must or can't do with their own property. This is worst in suburban neighborhoods, where people buy houses built cheek-by-jowl and then expect the seclusion of a country estate.

And I have a hard time intellectually supporting the notion that some laws just need to be broken, and yet some laws I break. Anyone who looks down their nose at someone who has jumped a fence to make a photograph might not too closely observe their own speedometer during their next freeway commute. Everyone has their limit when laws become onerous.

I have made photographs on private land without permission. I would not have done it had I thought doing so represented the slightest harm to the property owner, but I'll admit that I took that decision away from him. In every case I can think of, my photos would serve the owners positively if they had any effect on them at all. I do not consider myself a photojournalist in the role of Protector of Society or Exposer of Evil. Others can do that. In none of these cases, however, are the photos among my best. I prefer calm and quiet with large-format work, which means not putting myself in the position of being hassled, or waiting for my blood pressure to recede after a confrontation.

Rick "whose convictions are challenged when prudent people are hassled unnecessarily, however" Denney

[rdenney]

Oh, and one thing I've learned in my years on the planet: Most people have very little power over their lives (whether by circumstance or by choice). That leads to this truth: The less power one has, the more firmly their hold on it. That firmness is often expressed as 1.) that power's importance in the world being inflated, and 2.) that importance being justification for responses grossly out of proportion with challenges to that power.

Corollary: The one thing a person with little power seems to love more than anything is being in a position of authority over someone with even less power (at least in that situation).

Rick "who tends to react badly in such cases" Denney

[Brian C. Miller]

I tend to the conclusion of Doc Sarvis--himself a character given to planned civil disobedience--anarchy is not the answer.

There is a difference between anarchy and chaos. A functional anarchy requires perfect self-discipline, like an ant colony. There isn't any central command; the ants just always do the right thing all the time.


V for Vendetta
Eve: All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please?
V: No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age of ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordnung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.

Unfortunately people don't have perfect self-discipline. Thus we have pesky people thwapping us on the heads with rulers. Sometimes we get thwapped because we need it, and sometimes not. Such is life.

[paulr]

I have made photographs on private land without permission. I would not have done it had I thought doing so represented the slightest harm to the property owner, but I'll admit that I took that decision away from him.

Which seems like a way of saying you respect the spirit if not the letter of the law. That's generally my disposition. The owners of the buildings I sneak into probably have no opinion one way or another about my photo projects; they have strong opinions about not having their stuff stolen or damaged. And I respect those opinions ... I tread lightly in their spaces, as if I'm in a wilderness area. I lock the door on my way out.

[Brian Ellis]

Which seems like a way of saying you respect the spirit if not the letter of the law. That's generally my disposition. The owners of the buildings I sneak into probably have no opinion one way or another about my photo projects; they have strong opinions about not having their stuff stolen or damaged. And I respect those opinions ... I tread lightly in their spaces, as if I'm in a wilderness area. I lock the door on my way out.

The owners may not care about your photography projects but I can assure you they do care about what it might cost them if you hurt yourself while you're in there.

[Kirk Gittings]

I once had an assignment for Forbes to photograph Superfund sites at Los Alamos Nat. Labs. One problem they said-we don't have permission-in fact the Lab has forbidden us from doing the photography. Never one to turn down a difficult assignment when the money or the principle is right (in this case both), I demanded a contract guaranteeing they would provide legal defense for me if I was caught. So off I went. I think I was there, all over the lab shooting restricted areas with long lenses, for a full two days. On more than one occasion, Lab security drove right past me as I aimed a long lens from my drivers seat at some secure site. No one ever stopped me.

Some months later after the article came out, I got a phone call from the head of security asking me how in the hell I got those shots. He said his job was on the line. When I told him his answer was simply SOB! This was before 911, Wen Ho Lee and other Lab security boo boos. It is far more secure now and I couldn't get anywhere near the same areas now.

[BrianShaw]

Wow, were you lucky to have encountered only the "screw-ups" of their security force!

[eddie]

Let's see the photos Kirk.

[rdenney]

The owners may not care about your photography projects but I can assure you they do care about what it might cost them if you hurt yourself while you're in there.

Yes, and that's part of the reason for the knee-jerk refusal. Let's say Paul falls through a floor and gets himself killed. (Sorry, Paul.) Paul's significant other might sue. If Paul's significant other is an ex-significant other, she might sue with all the more vigor. If Paul has an insurance policy that pays out, the insurance company will probably sue to recover their loss. Paul's heirs will have no say in the matter, and may not even know about it. If Paul is only injured (yay, Paul!), then his health-insurance provider may well sue to recover their loss, and again may do so without ever even telling Paul.

It seems to me just dang-near impossible these days for us to decide not hold someone else liable for what some lawyer can pitch as their negligence, even if we mean to, unless we are lightly enough injured to suffer in silence, or uninsured. But event hen, the medical examiner and emergency services that come for the body might try something...

Rick "don't get hurt" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry Eddie, that was from the mid 90's (maybe 95?) when Clinton was president, the 35mm slides are buried in storage and I don't have the time or the inclination to dig them out. From an aesthetic POV, it was not my best work so there was never any reason to keep it handy or in my portfolio.

My favorite shot from the project, which I would like to see again, was simply of a tightly framed street sign. On the top it said "Oppenheimer Blvd", beneath that was a sign that said "Turn Left". The Forbes people, I guess, didn't get my sense of humor.....

[Brian C. Miller]

It is far more secure now and I couldn't get anywhere near the same areas now.

Is it secure from Google maps? The images are pretty good. Really, it makes me wonder why anybody would bother with anti-photography security when all a person needs to do is call it up on the web.

[Kirk Gittings]

I haven't looked at it lately on Google maps. When GM first came out LANL was blurred out.

[Jehu]

I keep hearing references to the Patriot Act. Can anyone clarify what the Act did that changed our rights to photograph?

I'm interested in this subject because of an event that happened to a friend of mine. He was photographing some petroleum storage tanks in 2002. The security guard detained him and his girl friend for over three hours. After lots of questions, a visit from the local police and what sounded like a background check, they were released and warned never to go around there again. He was told by the security guard that the Patriot Act gave him the right to detain him. My friend has despised the Act since then. The thing is, he never read it to see what gave the security guard the right to detain him. I have read through it and, while I can't say that I have a good understanding, I believe the security guard was bluffing.

I hate seeing a photographer denied his rights and mistreated but I hate even more the abuse of authority. As large format photographers, we attract attention and really ought to pay attention to this issue. Not because of political disagreement but because there may be a legitimate concern to watch out for. If a security guard has that kind of power then we need to be aware of it. In my friend's case, I believe he should've followed through with a law suit for false imprisonment.

[jp]

I don't think it's illegal, but it's against the letter of hosts rules; I've taken SLR cameras into concerts. I know they don't want flashes going off or film auto-rewinders droning on, or cameras chirping. I've gotten some nice pictures. I generally do this at concerts where if I got kicked out it wouldn't be the end of the world. Having the camera in your wife's purse is an excellent way to get it in; jacket pockets can do also. Security staff is mostly looking for people bringing in booze I think.

I trespass sometimes, but that's not a big deal in my wooded area. "Posted" generally means no trespassing if you are hunting or trapping or have a dog that will crap on their land. Or at worst, it's posted so that people won't see and snitch on their pot growing skills, their malfunctioning sewage system, or the trees they cut that were too close to the water to be cut. We don't have industrial sites to trespass on really.

Someone hiking through with a camera looking for nature scenes isn't a problem and would probably get you a good conversation going if you have antique LF equipment, as most of the local land owners are fairly antique as well. If you have a kindle or library access, read thoreau's "walking"; that's sort of our situation regarding trespassing and our ambivalence to it.

As far as keeping a hardhat and vest to look like a surveyor, don't dress too nice! I showed up a worksite (with permission) one day to take some photos of ledge blasting. I had a nice 3-season jacket and dress pants and clean shiny hardhat and pelican case. I didn't get far from the car and worked stopped; the workers were certain I was someone important from the state checking up on them. The property owner straightened things out. On the other hand at work we're often hiking through the woods near homes with a surveyor tripod and a optical fusion splicer, and we're often mistaken for surveyors.

I've camped where I wasn't supposed to (in a state park that was closed for the winter). I've urinated outdoors as God intended us to, but man would deem indecent exposure.

I've taken photos breaking the rule of thirds, I've put horizons in the center of some photos, I've taken handheld photos at shutter speeds less than the reciprocal of the focal length (without VR/IS), and I have ignored the sunny/16 rule.

I'm not overcome by rebellion in breaking laws, but it's impossible to do lots of normal simple things without breaking some laws. I wouldn't attempt dangerous activity while trespassing (such as base jumping or causing plainly visible OSHA violations) and prefer a leave-no-trace style. I don't want my presence to cause actual risk or damage to landowners. If more people trespassed like that, there would be little need to post land.

[paulr]

It seems to me just dang-near impossible these days for us to decide not hold someone else liable for what some lawyer can pitch as their negligence...

Rick "don't get hurt" Denney

Yup, which is why in a sense I'm doing them a favor by sneaking in rather than asking. The liability laws might be so ridiculous as to allow suits on behalf of a tresspasser, but I can only imagine that the plaintif would be at a disadvantage.

I'll take responsibility for not falling into a hole; I'm not going to take responsibility for a dumb legal system.

[paulr]

I wonder how many signatures I could get on a petition to repeal the rule of thirds. It would probably take a hard-to-follow, impassioned rant about its unfairness. The tea partiers would probably get onboard. They hate the thought of old socialist Europeans telling us what to do.

[Rider]

I definitely think some laws are really stupid, like the "no tripods on the sidewalk" laws in NYC, which is where I live. Say the law wasn't there... how many crazy people with tripods clogging up the sidewalks would there really be?

Not every block would get clogged up, but some of the more popular corners might regularly see photographers setting up a tripod to do time lapse photography for example. Overnight. Over two weeks. Two years. Who knows?

[paulr]

Instead of singling out photographers, there should just be a "don't block traffic on the sidewalk" law.

If it isn't busy and you're not in people's way, take pics to your heart's content. If it's crowded, expect a cop to tell you to wake up and leave. The same standard should be applied to street preachers, mimes, and people with double-wide baby strollers.

[Vaughn]

I highly respect the Law of Gravity. So far I have only been fined a spot meter lens cap and a lens shade (and once a soggy spot meter, but the fine was thankfully forgiven.)

Vaughn

[Frank Petronio]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?

[AFSmithphoto]

I have without a doubt exceeded the speed limit on my way to/from photographing something, maybe even passed a vehicle or to on the right on a multiple lane road if I felt it was safe to do so.
I've probably also done the converse, driving in left lane while not in the act of passing to scope out something I might want to shoot.
I've pulled onto the shoulder many a time to get a shot, and have even been ticketed for doing so once.
I can't remember a time I've been aware of trespassing to get a shot, but wouldn't be surprised to learn I'd done so without knowing it, which is exactly the same from a legal standpoint.
I've slept in a car when the campsite I had booked closed the gates before I got there (and sometimes when I'd failed to book one) and set up a tent by a rest area. Both no-nos.
I remember one occasion when opening a new roll of 120 in high wind, the wrapper blew out of my hand and landed who knows where, which is littering.
Finally, I may or may not have routinely nudged some photos digitally with software that may or may not have been completely paid for, if at all, running on a computer with an operating system that may or may not have been installed on more machines than my license specified.
It's also possible I've omitted something here, though I'm not under oath to tell the whole truth, or any of it, which means it's perfectly legal.

[AFSmithphoto]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?


I'd say, in the US at least, you have zero legal responsibility to report illegal activity in which you are not involved, so long as you don't lie to or intentionally mislead law enforcement officials when questioned about what you know regarding said illegal activity.
If you have a moral responsibility to report something is a far more personal question and would depend on exactly what that illegal activity is.

[Roger Cole]

I'd say, in the US at least, you have zero legal responsibility to report illegal activity in which you are not involved, so long as you don't lie to or intentionally mislead law enforcement officials when questioned about what you know regarding said illegal activity.
If you have a moral responsibility to report something is a far more personal question and would depend on exactly what that illegal activity is.

An exception would be child endangerment. Many states have laws requiring knowledge of such to be reported (and morally I agree - that's not something I'd ever let slide.)

[AFSmithphoto]

An exception would be child endangerment. Many states have laws requiring knowledge of such to be reported (and morally I agree - that's not something I'd ever let slide.)

Good point Roger. There are probably a few other exceptions as well, and I can say that that's definitely I agree with from a moral standpoint.

[Vaughn]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?

There are always a few photos like that passing thru the university darkroom every semester -- this is Humboldt County. :D

[Marko]

I keep hearing references to the Patriot Act. Can anyone clarify what the Act did that changed our rights to photograph?

I'm interested in this subject because of an event that happened to a friend of mine. He was photographing some petroleum storage tanks in 2002. The security guard detained him and his girl friend for over three hours. After lots of questions, a visit from the local police and what sounded like a background check, they were released and warned never to go around there again. He was told by the security guard that the Patriot Act gave him the right to detain him. My friend has despised the Act since then. The thing is, he never read it to see what gave the security guard the right to detain him. I have read through it and, while I can't say that I have a good understanding, I believe the security guard was bluffing.

I hate seeing a photographer denied his rights and mistreated but I hate even more the abuse of authority. As large format photographers, we attract attention and really ought to pay attention to this issue. Not because of political disagreement but because there may be a legitimate concern to watch out for. If a security guard has that kind of power then we need to be aware of it. In my friend's case, I believe he should've followed through with a law suit for false imprisonment.

The Patriot Act has narrowed down significantly the concept of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the guise of "fighting terrorism".

It provided a giant loophole for the authorities (various government agencies) to circumvent the very checks and balances that were placed on them in the first place.

It created a general climate of un-accountability for those agencies and the climate of fear for their "subjects".

It also created a climate of suspicion in which photography seems to figure prominently on the list of "suspicious behaviors".

If you search the web, you will find numerous examples of photographers being hassled, arrested or even prosecuted for a simple act of taking pictures in public. I remember clearly a case when two sherif's deputies hassled a LA-based photographers' rights activist for taking photos in the subway system (public place, unrestricted by any law on the books) and then threatened to "enter him into the terrorists database" simply because he insisted on his rights. He video-recorded the entire exchange and posted it on YouTube - that created quite a stir, but how many people would go to that length?

If you stop and think about both the details and the general climate that results from that unfortunate law, you should be able to clearly see the negative impact on photography in particular and our civil rights in general and in principle. Your friend's case is one of the more benign examples.

In general, any law enacted as a reaction to a particular crime - i.e. instance of breaking already existing laws - is typically both ineffective and unnecessarily restrictive. It is both a knee-jerk reaction designed to make a narrow slice of the population comfortable at the expense of everybody else and, worse, a way to promote certain political agendas that otherwise wouldn't pass a ballot. It is especially sinister when it singles out certain unpopular class of people (terrorists, pedophiles, photographers... ;)) as an excuse for its own existence.

[paulr]

There are always a few photos like that passing thru the university darkroom every semester -- this is Humboldt County. :D

Well, there are pictures like that have comprised major exhibitions and books (Nan Goldin, etc. etc...). I don't think anyone's tried to make the photographer complicit.

[Steve Smith]

Well, there are pictures like that have comprised major exhibitions and books (Nan Goldin, etc. etc...). I don't think anyone's tried to make the photographer complicit.

Not possible without real evidence.


Steve.

[jp]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?

If you're doing it for the media, I'd make sure you have a good understanding of how exactly your sources will be kept confidential. The subjects would probably want that to avoid a potential investigation resulting from the media coverage.

If you're doing it for fun or stock use, I'd personally try to keep places/people less identifiable. You probably don't want to get subpoenaed if the subject gets investigated and is easily identified in your photos. Certainly not an issue shooting photos of the items, probably not an issue showing a normal pot consumer, but it would be an issue if they have some business (farming or dealing) or public/legal notoriety. Lawyers take longer and cost more compared to an ass-kicker who wants to get his point across.

[Jehu]

I remember something about a young, single mother who posted a picture of her toddler with a bong. She paid for that one.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/mom-arrested-for-posting-facebook-picture-of-baby-861714.html

[E. von Hoegh]

I plead guilty – I’m a scoff-law when it comes to LF photography.

Every year, I break laws to get shots. Many of them are pre-meditated. These “illegal” shots are only a small part of my portfolio, but they’re among the very best I’ve taken. And telling the story is always a lot of fun. ;)

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

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

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

— Do good results help alleviate any subsequent remorse?

None.

No.

No.

No.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?

Frank, you could always photograph legal use of the drug by using legal smokers that have been prescribed the drug..

There is a magazine called " hightimes" not sure but I think that's how they get around it..

[Jim Galli]

I've been told I break all the laws of composition :rolleyes:

[Jehu]

The Patriot Act has narrowed down significantly the concept of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the guise of "fighting terrorism".

It provided a giant loophole for the authorities (various government agencies) to circumvent the very checks and balances that were placed on them in the first place.

It created a general climate of un-accountability for those agencies and the climate of fear for their "subjects".

It also created a climate of suspicion in which photography seems to figure prominently on the list of "suspicious behaviors".

...

Most of what you've said is true if you consider that it may not be the Act itself but the perception of the Act. Those who oppose the Act for political purposes have done an effective job of misleading those who accept their generalizations of it.

We need to accept the fact that photographing possible terrorist attack targets is "suspicious activity". You cannot spend hours photographing a nuclear power plant near high population areas without attracting the attention of those we trust to protect us. How they react is often outside of the latitude that the law provides. That's simply an abuse of authority but it's not afforded by the Patriot Act. Abusers of authority have always been around. Now they have the general perception of the Patriot Act to aid them.

It's worth noting that the actions taken against the would-be Brooklyn Bridge saboteur were within the pre-9/11 rules. The wire-tapping warrant was issued by a judge as was the warrant that allowed the NYPD to enter and search his home. The Act is credited because the process was expedited and the agencies shared information, not because there was a bypass of the judicial process. It's also worth noting that he first attracted the attention of the police because he spent a lot of time photographing the structure.

As responsible photographers, we need to consider national security. Sometimes the subjects we have the right to photograph are the same subjects that would be photographed in planning a terrorist attack. It is possible to cooperate with authorities without tolerating abuse of authority. Discussions like this could help us out when it comes to the obstinate security guard or ill-tempered cop that tries to bully us.

[Brian C. Miller]

The Patriot Act has narrowed down significantly the concept of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the guise of "fighting terrorism".

It provided a giant loophole for the authorities (various government agencies) to circumvent the very checks and balances that were placed on them in the first place.


From The Stranger, 2004: Taking Pictures While Brown (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/taking-pictures-while-brown/Content?oid=18762)
After this hit the press, a group of us went down to the Ballard locks in Seattle and did a photography protest. Yes, we were blatantly photographing the bridge and the locks, and no, there isn't anything in the Patriot Act about being prohibited from doing so.

[Jehu]

Perhaps if, instead of protests, one was to file a civil suit and get events like this into a courtroom, those who abuse their authority would be held accountable on occasion. Website articles, blogs and forum discussions don't dissuade the culprits as effectively as being sued.

The "brown guy" had the right to photograph anything that was visible from any place that he could legally be. That doesn't mean he can't be identified by authorities.

This is another example of an authority figure improperly citing the Patriot Act to justify his own improper actions.

[Robert Hughes]

What the Supreme Court has to say about this:

4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Supremes Say Police Can Create Conditions To Enter Home Without A Warrant (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110517/12313814301/4th-amendment-what-4th-amendment-supremes-say-police-can-create-conditions-to-enter-home-without-warrant.shtml)

So - if you, or anybody you know, has ever met Frank, expect the Boys in Blue to pay you a visit sometime soon...

[Ed Kelsey]

I don't get why you have to break laws to get your shots

[bobwysiwyg]

I don't get why you have to break laws to get your shots

+1

[Eric Woodbury]

About 1970, I went with my father to hunt for watercolor material. He was a watercolorist and would go out in the country to look for barns and such that he could photo to use in his work. I remember one time crossing a barbed wire fence to get some pix of an old barn. The farm was not active, all run down and such. No livestock, no crops. While we there, we got run off by the farmer that owned the place. That's all well and good, but the problem I have is now that land is a big subdivision with all its beauty plowed and paved. What was the farmer protecting? Somebody will tell me about liability and property rights. All true and all crap. In this area I prefer the English philosophy of access and hiking trails: once a trail always a trail.

Today, I do not make a habit of trespassing. I either ask or go find something else. It would seem the only reason for illicit activity would be if one had taken all the licit photos and nothing was left but the illicit ones. Besides, refer to the statistics about how many pix do you take to get one really good one? Odds are that trespassing won't produce a good photo.

[Vaughn]

+1

I suppose folks trespass because WYSIWYG and sometimes one wants to see more. ;)

[bobwysiwyg]

Good one. ;)

[Vaughn]

Good one. ;)

I was hoping you'd answer, "I don't care if they want to, and stop calling me Seymore!"

[Robert Brummitt]

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

[Jehu]

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

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

[Sean Galbraith]

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

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

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

— Do good results help alleviate any subsequent remorse?

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

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

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

[dsphotog]

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

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

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

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

[Steve Smith]

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

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


http://www.realbuzz.com/articles/right-to-roam-walking-laws/



Steve.

[rdenney]

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

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

Rick "who can do without neighborhood nazis" Denney

[Struan Gray]

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

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


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

[Richard Mahoney]

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

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

Best, Richard

[Richard Mahoney]

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

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

Kind regards,

Richard

[rdenney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vaughn]

It seems to be not a case of people suing people, but of insurance companies suing insurance companies.

Someone gets hurt on someone else's land and goes to the hospital. Their health insurance pays for the medical care and sues to recover the costs. The landowner hopefully has homeowners liability insurance (usually required if the bank still holds the deed) so it ends up one insurance company suing the other insurance company.

All seems to a bit of a scam. Especially when both insurance companies make money out of the whole process.

[paulr]

Our woods are full of such hazards. We have trees with dangling broken "widowmaker" branches, standing dead trees that are waiting for the next vigorous thunderstorm to come down...

I read somewhere that the number one topic of lawsuits in California is trees. Including suits of the "your tree is blocking my view of the bay" and "that's my tree not yours; more than half the roots on my property" variety.

There's something wonderfully perverse about this. I hope (against most odds) that the trees are still here after we've killed each other off.

[Heroique]

...This is part of a long decline in individual property rights in the United States. These rights were probably stronger here than anywhere originally, given the position of the founders and their belief in the primacy of property owners over their private holdings...

When shooting in Washington state, I’m especially careful not to trespass in areas belonging to native peoples – most often, the lands of the Makahs and Quinaults of the Olympics, the Yakamas of the Cascades. These people (of course) would take exception to the view of history above, and their old stories are enough to make me think I’m really “trespassing” all the time, no matter how careful I am of today’s legal reservation boundaries.

[rdenney]

When shooting in Washington state, I’m especially careful not to trespass in areas belonging to native peoples – most often, the lands of the Makahs and Quinaults of the Olympics, the Yakamas of the Cascades. These people (of course) would take exception to the view of history above, and their old stories are enough to make me think I’m really “trespassing” all the time, no matter how careful I am of today’s legal reservation boundaries.

That really depends on the tribe and you really can't generalize. Most tribes (Navajo, for example, plus other southwestern tribes in my experience) believe that the land cannot be owned by any person and don't particularly mind if non-Navajo people wander around, as long as they behave with common sense, are polite and respectful, and don't mess with their livestock. It is much different in pueblo villages, where most would prefer you didn't photograph at all without permission. Most do not want to be photographed in daily life--they consider it an disrespectful intrusion, as any of us would if a bunch of pointing, foreign tourists tried to photograph us while we were, say, mowing our lawns. It is their home, after all. But the pueblo tribes generally don't mind us photographing landscapes on their reservations. Some pueblo tribes don't want non-members of their tribes on their reservations at all, and take pains to tell people that by providing specific places for visitors to go and nowhere else. That should, of course, be fully respected.

I've known a few members of southwestern tribes and none of them have held the sins of the past against the non-tribal-members they know. They do hold it against Americans of European descent in general, but this is easy enough to overcome. Showing off wealth, being disrespectful of one's visitor status, being ungracious and ungrateful, making special note of their economic conditions (especially with photographs), damaging or taking things, not being prepared to take care of oneself in the wilderness, not being willing to have a conversation and tell stories, offering advice on how to be more "successful", and not controlling one's anger are sure ways to reinforce that general distrust.

Most photographers are okay--they demonstrate the same respect for the land shared by the native tribes and they tend not to be loud-mouthed boors--as long as they also respect the people.

Rick "who, like many, has wandered around and made many photographs on reservations" Denney

[SamReeves]

I have to admit, I've hopped the fence a few times. But only where it's no man's land. Where it's likely you won't see anyone for several hours. Otherwise, don't chance it.

[Scott Davis]

I think the only one I've broken per-se has been the public nudity statutes. I've shot models in national parks that don't have a 'blind-eye' policy (along the C&O Canal, among others) but I made sure to do it at a very low-risk time. I've also shot in places where it was legal, or at least tolerated- Land's End in San Francisco comes to mind. I have a great story about that one - I was working with a model amongst the rocks on that beach, and we had been shooting for a while undisturbed. The sun was creeping up in the sky, and all of a sudden, this tennis ball comes rolling along the wet sand, followed in short order by a golden retriever, and soon after by the dog's owner. With no time to cover up, my model just stood there as the dog walker passed through. He turned to us, shaded his eyes with his hand, nodded and said, "nice day for it!" and continued on with the dog.

[WootSK]

Trespassing and hiding overnight there just for an early morning shot because I have no transport there in the midnight. Of cause, though it is a landed property, the place is a deserted house and the only thing that talks most likely floats as well there.

[paulr]

I think the only one I've broken per-se has been the public nudity statutes. I've shot models in national parks that don't have a 'blind-eye' policy (along the C&O Canal, among others) ...

It surprises me that there are public nudity laws (at least enforced ones) in national parks. Have you heard of anyone getting in trouble?

[Frank Petronio]

Somebody, with binoculars or a telescope because they were nowhere in sight, saw Jessalyn do this for a few seconds on the beach near Astoria, Oregon.

I think the cops enjoyed the call, they were cracking up over it.

Another time, Tiana was posing in front of the concrete grain elevators South of Buffalo, again nobody in sight except for a ship thousands of feet down the River. Cops got called and they sent over three cars, six cops.

Both times it was to "check that the model wasn't a minor and was consenting." I guess that is a reasonable concern but com'on, they probably all fought to go on the call.

[Alan Gales]

The callers were probably just jealous of you, Frank!

[MumbleyJoe]

I've trespassed.... a lot, and ignored public nudity laws....a lot.

It took me a few moments to interpret that to mean photographing nude models, and not ignorning public nudity laws as the photographer - still not certain you didn't mean that. :) (Is it still nudity if you have the darkcloth over your head?)

I'm pretty law-abiding all around. It's possible I've ended up somewhere I shouldn't have been, though really if I know I shouldn't be there I move on. I don't willfully trespass. I mostly shoot in public spaces and play by the rules.

[Thebes]

In many places "public nudity" laws are actually against indecent exposure which could require the likelihood of offending or frightening the general public to meet the law's definition.

In many places so long as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy you're fine. IIRC National Forests are like this, and its not at all unusual for hikers to shower in the boonies with a dromedary bag, etc, and no shower curtain.

[madmax12]

Laws You Mean There Are Laws Against Us ......... Never

[matthew klos]

Illegal parking, trespassing, public nudity (of a model), fire building. I was doing this shot once with my 4x5 of a scene with 10 people with like 7 strobes going off in my back yard of Christ's crucifixion. I made a life-size cross with a friend up on it, and the next door neighbor called the police on me. Not sure if that is breaking the law or not but made for an interesting story for crit that week.