Shooting on private property

[Nightsblood]

Well, thats kinda the way it is around here. Land doesnt get sold, it gets passed down. Plus, I dont want to shoot n run. This land Im scoping out is huge and Id like to take my time with it. There is certainly great potential there. Wish I could say the same for the photographer. :sillysmi:

 

[Lol999]

Peoples replies are as to what they do personally in the environment they photograph in. Being a street shooter I don't encounter barbed wire but I do enter a lot of privately owned spaces such as shopping malls/precincts where you have to ask permission to shoot. Thats where the pleading ignorance part comes in. If there are no signs saying "no photography" then how am i to know ? Likewise on fenced off land. If there's an unofficial entry point with a clearly used footpath, it says to me the owners aren't too concerned, so in I go. You have to remember that land owners can also be opportunists and fence more than they actually own or deny access to rights of way. Also, trespass is a civil matter. If you have caused no criminal damage to access the point then it is not a case for the police. Indeed it can require several visits on your part before it is considered trespass. In these days of rapidly eroding personal freedoms we have to keep nibbling at the edges where we can unless we all want to be still life or studio photographers.

 

[TCimages]

Ask and respect others private property or get a long lens

 

[Eastw77]

Alternatively, move to Scotland! We have no tresspass laws and some of the most amazing scenery on the planet..

 

[strick]

I don't think I understand some of the logic here. Private property such as farms are peoples homes. Would you want someone to walk into your back yard to check out your garden or even look into your windows?

 

[Lol999]

I don't think I understand some of the logic here. Private property such as farms are peoples homes. Would you want someone to walk into your back yard to check out your garden or even look into your windows?

anyone's logic in particular?

 

[JHF Photography]

Also, trespass is a civil matter. If you have caused no criminal damage to access the point then it is not a case for the police. Indeed it can require several visits on your part before it is considered trespass.

Trespass may only be a civil matter in the UK, but I believe here in North America (both Canada and the States) it is a chargable offence. Police can be involved even without damage, and fines can be issued.

Ask and respect others private property or get a long lens

Completely agree. I myself am a home owner (not a lot of land, but I don't really think that should matter) and would much rather somebody just ask. If I found someone in my backyard taking pictures of something (not there's really anything that interesting back there) I would immediately be concerned, suspicious, and a wee bit irritated. Now, if that person had knocked on my door, explained who they were and why they wanted to go into my backyard and take pics, I would have no issues at all with them doing that (as long as the seemed to be on the up and up and had presented themselves well).

 

[RyanLilly]

With farms and the like, there is so much space and interesting things to shoot, why not ask permission, and ask If they don't mind if you stop by to shoot every once in a while. It would be nice to have an open invitation to your favorite spots, and maybe a few more friends.

 

[table1349]

I live in the land of farms. Tons of farm land, beautiful areas to photo.

Do you find that folks generally will allow you to shoot photos on their land or not? I figure they would have to worry about liability and such.

Here is the law in your state. I guess it is up to you to decide what morals you choose to live by.

§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties

If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1- 253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
§ 18.2-119.1. Validity of signs forbidding trespass; penalty (top)

If any person knowingly and intentionally posts No Trespassing signs on the land of another without the permission of a person authorized to post such signs on that land, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
§ 18.2-121. Entering property of another for purpose of damaging it, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any person to enter the land, dwelling, outhouse or any other building of another for the purpose of damaging such property or any of the contents thereof or in any manner to interfere with the rights of the owner, user or the occupant thereof to use such property free from interference.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, if a person intentionally selects the property entered because of the race, religious conviction, color or national origin of the owner, user or occupant of the property, the person shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, and the penalty upon conviction shall include a term of confinement of at least six months, 30 days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement.
§ 18.2-126. Violation of sepulture; defilement of a dead human body; penalties
A. If a person unlawfully disinters or displaces a dead human body, or any part of a dead human body which has been deposited in any vault, grave or other burial place, he is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. If a person willfully and intentionally physically defiles a dead human body he is guilty of a Class 6 felony. For the purposes of this section, the term "defile" shall not include any autopsy or the recovery of organs or tissues for transplantation, or any other lawful purpose.
§ 18.2-128. Trespass upon church or school property

A. Any person who, without the consent of some person authorized to give such consent, goes or enters upon, in the nighttime, the premises or property of any church or upon any school property for any purpose other than to attend a meeting or service held or conducted in such church or school property, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a church member or student, to enter upon or remain upon any church or school property in violation of (i) any direction to vacate the property by a person authorized to give such direction or (ii) any posted notice which contains such information, posted at a place where it reasonably may be seen. Each time such person enters upon or remains on the posted premises or after such direction that person refuses to vacate such property, it shall constitute a separate offense.

A violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor, except that any person, other than a parent, who violates this subsection on school property with the intent to abduct a student shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

C. For purposes of this section: (i) "school property" includes a school bus as defined in § 46.2-100 and (ii) "church" means any place of worship and includes any educational building or community center owned or leased by a church.
§ 18.2-130. Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon the property of another and secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into or through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure, or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a lawful criminal investigation or a correctional official or local or regional jail official conducting surveillance for security purposes or during an investigation of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail.

 

[Lol999]

Trespass may only be a civil matter in the UK, but I believe here in North America (both Canada and the States) it is a chargable offence. Police can be involved even without damage, and fines can be issued.

As I said, peoples replies are based upon their own styles and areas of photography. Would I enter farmers fields and take photos? Yes. But I would keep to the edges and do no damage. If their farm was in sight oif the shot would I ask permission to be on their land? Possibly, if I was close enough to make them uncomfortable until my intentions were known to them. The easiest thing is to shoot from a public area, be it a right of way footpath or road and then there's not a lot can be said or done. Just because a house is next to farmland does not mean it belongs to the householder. Asking the householder you can still be turned down out of spite, not right. Near my home there is an interesting tree in farmland. I asked the owner of the house next to the field for permission to shoot, assuming them to be the owners. I was turned down flat. mentioning it to a neighbour of theirs I found out the true owners of the land and was granted unequivocal access there and then. Even with good intentions you can be short changed.

 

[crricha13]

Just take 5 mins, and talk to the owner of the property? They probly wouldnt mind you taking pictures of their beautiful land and/or home.

Also another trick, I know for four wheeling you can ride in or i think its like 7-10 feet beside creeks, so i guess you could go that way, find a creek through a road where its a bridge and head down n start walking, bring some waders maybe.

 

[Nightsblood]

LOL, I know the law...Im A Police Officer. Thx for the outline of the law though....you looking for a job? :sillysmi:

I think this thread got off track, the original question posed (no pun) was, Do you generally find landowners are agreeable to allow you on their land, or opposed to it?

I would never impose on someones land without permission. I dont do this for money so, its not that important to me to make someone mad or get in legal troubles which could mean my career. I just wanted to know "in general" how owners view the request usually.

 

[table1349]

LOL, I know the law...Im A Police Officer. Thx for the outline of the law though....you looking for a job? :sillysmi:

I think this thread got off track, the original question posed (no pun) was, Do you generally find landowners are agreeable to allow you on their land, or opposed to it?

I would never impose on someones land without permission. I dont do this for money so, its not that important to me to make someone mad or get in legal troubles which could mean my career. I just wanted to know "in general" how owners view the request usually.

Not unless your department needs a good Asset Forfeiture Detective. That is what I do at my department. As for you original question. I have never had a problem in asking others for permission to enter their land. Perhaps it is because I grew up farming and am a land owner myself and have a bit of a feel for talking to people.

 

[TLTownsend]

I always ask whether I am hunting, fishing or taking photos. For me growing up in farm country in Iowa it is matter of respect. I know a lot farmers up there feel that if you can't take the time to show them the respect to ask permission. Then you won't mind them not showing you respect when they fill your backside full buckshot or salt rock.

In states like Texas going on someones property at night might even mean your death.

It takes a few short minutes to ask and those few short minutes can bring much greater rewards. Always ask people work hard for what they own and your guest when on someone else's land so act like one.

Just my opinion.

 

[chris_arnet]

i had to.