Mike Kelcher wrote:
Whenever I shoot on private property, I always carry a leash attached to a collar. If we are met by anyone of any "authority" we simply start yelling, "Here Mitzi....c'mere girl" mixed with other things like, "wanna treat?".  If we are spoken to, we ask if they've seen a little white dog...who may appear to be lost. Often they agree to help. So then I say, we'll look this way....and you look that way...here's my number if you see my dog, call me. If we find her, we could call you too....what's your number? Then later, after we're in our vehicle and going down the road, I call and thank them for their help while explaining that we found the dog.  Never a problem.

The "just looking for my dog" defence. It's TRUE [in some places, including NC], and I love it!

The OP was poorly represented.

Studio36

B R E N N A N wrote:

The foreman had a hard-on for fucking with kids.

The area that was fenced off was a liability issue (it was a furniture finishing plant closed down years ago for mesothelioma fallen into disrepair); the area we were in was not.

The court sheriff jokingly asked the foreman during court if coming to the courthouse to prosecute trespassers was going to become a full time job for him. Knowing this, you would think that they would realize the bare minimum precautions they had taken (according to them) were not enough.

I'm such a freak about this kinda stuff, so you can email if you want.   I'd like to know exactly where you were AND compare that to the actual real estate records showing exactly where the property line is.  If you can prove that he in fact didn't own the property up to that line you can bring it up to the DA under the excuse your attorney failed to provide a fair defense.

Also that comment about the foreman sounds like he's been in court for this before.  That might mean there's others out there who can be witness to there not being signage.

Also you were caught "leaving" the area so where the officers caught you may not have been private property.   I would bet, by the company and owners actions that they're somehow in the wrong and they have to over act against people who can prove or report them for being on land they don't own.   

Hit me up, I love this stuff.

Jhono Bashian wrote:
He is responsible if trespassers get hurt or worse.

He's just trying to cover his a$$ if anyone gets hurt.  People have sued for much less.

Abby Hawkins wrote:
I'm sorry about that hun (and I'm sorry about the MMers saying what they're saying).

Yes, it's a problem on internet forums that the moment you rant about an injustice, the "you had it coming" brigade come out of the woodwork. They tend to be of the right-wing authoritarian demeanour, and find it hard to believe that authority could be wrong...

GeorgeMann wrote:

It appears the OP was merely giving an account of what happened when they unknowingly trespassed.
The OP did not request nor expect sympathy, but was merely warning everyone else.
I see nothing in any of your posts that lends anything good to the discussion other than your penchant for argument.

Yes he sounds like the typical hater. Why follow the purpose of a post if you can turn it into something contentious? Either he ignored the point of the OP or he decided to ignore it. Either way he adds nothing to this discussion.

Jo Warner Photography wrote:
Yes, it's a problem on internet forums that the moment you rant about an injustice, the "you had it coming" brigade come out of the woodwork. They tend to be of the right-wing authoritarian demeanour, and find it hard to believe that authority could be wrong...

OP:...I did not post this for any remarks about how it was handled, either my myself, the attorneys, or other parties involved, but as a cautionary tale to all my fellow creatives. Just because you think it's public property, or don't see any signs posted, do NOT assume it is public- please get permission from the property owner; if you can't, don't shoot there...

That is NOT a rant, just a heads up for others to get permission first. Nothing more.

Jhono Bashian wrote:
sorry to hear about this, like so many others...   How many countless times have we encroached on properties that have postings  "No Trespassing"  and thought nothing of it for the opportunity to make a great photograph.   
I for one, am guilty, but I'll plead the 5th. 
The property owner over reacted and wanted to set an example. His property was probably vandalized numerous times and He is responsible if trespassers get hurt or worse.

If that were the case and it may be, then the owner should fence off the area. Screw any arguments, you want people out that much, then put up a physical barrier.

TomFRohwer wrote:
Besides anything else I just like to know how somebody can stand by a lawsuit after looking into these eyes...

Personally, all I'd ask is that I get copies of some of the photos. I might even show her other places on the property to shoot!

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
I just read this thread, and not all of it, but I have to say, your story doesn't make any sense and yeah, you should have been arrested.

You said it wasn't posted, but earlier you said it met the state requirement for a sign every 200 years.

You said it was in the middle of nowhere, but a construction worker immediately showed up and booted you off and called the cops.  Construction workers aren't standing in the middle of nowhere.

You said you were remote but looking for someplace interesting, implying a building.

If you double-spoke to the cops or judge like that, you're history. 

Also, you have the bad luck of being in NC.  In NY, it would have been a violation, not a misdemeanor and therefore would have been non-criminal.  New York has three levels of offenses, not two.

Finally, it seems like they threw you off for your own good.  If the plant was closed because of Mesopotamia or whatever, and was being demo'd, you probably were stumbling into the middle of an asbestos abatement site.  That's dangerous.  It would also mean HUGE fines for the construction company if they allowed you on the site.  I'm sure you couldn't produce your asbestos worker card, if an EPA inspector came.

Asbestos and lead abatement sites are closed sites and NOBODY gets in without the right credentials.  Had you stayed, it is likely you would have triggered tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

To me, it sounds like you tried to break into asbestos abatement site for demo and you're lucky to get off as easy as you did.  The construction workers did the right thing.

Clearly you didn't understand the OP. She wasn't complaining. She giving others a heads up. Know what you're talking about before posting something as off the mark as this. Does everyone LOOK for something to bitch about anymore?

And if it was as serious because of exposure to asbestos or lead and the site would have been closed off for God's sake, you don't think there should be a fence around it? Signs every 200 feet to keep people out of something THAT dangerous is absurd. Talk about a lazy attempt.

Victoria_Hamilton wrote:
Hi there!! Anyone looking to purchase slimming tablets, teeth whitening kits or tan jabs please feel free to contact me!! Will do wholesale!! Regards, Victoria!

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam.... might have been humorous in Monty Python, but not allowed in the forums.

JoJo wrote:
Be glad the land you trespassed on was not owned by Billy-Bob, the police chief’s brother and the nephew of the judge.

Be glad you were not in a state where it is permissible to shoot trespassers.

Be glad you didn’t run across someone’s still or marijuana crop in the backwoods. They don’t phone the cops (think Hostel III or the Peacock family from the X-files)

I agree. seems like the owner made an "example" out of you and the others.I live near chattanooga, TN. a group of young people went in an old, derelict building in the south part of the city. it was fenced in and had 'no trespassing' signs posted.they got in and began to explore the building. they were on the 4th floor and one young man decided to stay there and shoot some pics while his friends ventured up to the next floor. as he stepped backwards to get a wall in frame, he stepped on a plastic tarp covering a hole in the floor. he fell through and suffered devastating injuries, including quadriplegia. His family sued the owner for 12 million, and won.

you offered the best advice:
"Just because you think it's public property, or don't see any signs posted, do NOT assume it is public- please get permission from the property owner; if you can't, don't shoot there. "

ArtisticPhotography wrote:
..snip....

Finally, it seems like they threw you off for your own good.  If the plant was closed because of Mesopotamia or whatever, and was being demo'd, you probably were stumbling into the middle of an asbestos abatement site.  That's dangerous.  It would also mean HUGE fines for the construction company if they allowed you on the site.  I'm sure you couldn't produce your asbestos worker card, if an EPA inspector came.

Asbestos and lead abatement sites are closed sites and NOBODY gets in without the right credentials.  Had you stayed, it is likely you would have triggered tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

To me, it sounds like you tried to break into asbestos abatement site for demo and you're lucky to get off as easy as you did.  The construction workers did the right thing.

Do you not see the flaw in this hypothesis:

If this site was that dangerous then I'm certain that questions would have been asked of the owner/construction company about why it was so easy to gain access to the site. Allegedly the OP was able to 'walk' on to it.

I work in the construction industry in the UK and I know that the over here the onus is on the site owners/operators to ensure reasonable precautions are taken to prevent access to the site. This is usually in the form of 2 meter high metal fencing.

If you can just walk on to a site in the UK then there's going to be a lot more people ahead of you in the queue for a kick up the arse.

Abby Hawkins wrote:
I'm sorry about that hun (and I'm sorry about the MMers saying what they're saying).  Yes it's illegal to trespass, but it blows my mind that instead of giving you a warning and then maybe pressing charges if you tried to stay/were belligerent, they immediately called the cops and pressed charges.  They didn't seem to care that you didn't know this small area right off the road was private property.  That's someone who is clearly on the warpath.

I am sorry the OP had a bad experience also, but, from the other side, my family has property that has been ours for years.

The property owner did not do anything in a vacumn. He followed laws and a judicila process.

We met all legal posting requirements, etc., and we had problems with people with ATVs going on it. There was also a small beach.

We dealt with it by asking people to leave, never pressed charges.

It was almost like a Seinfled episode, people from the city just 'wanted to use our beach' univited. And even camp there. And we got these 'looks' like we were harshing their melloe. So one of my uncles would answer, hey, I want to go into the city next week, can I 'just' sleep in your living room.

Long story short, there was an injury, we got sued, and the plaintiffs attorney used that fact that we never prosecuted people against us. Don't you get it ?

This douche-bag family paraded their darling around in his wheelchair like we caused him to be parlaized.

It was very difficult to insure the property after that.

In the land involved in this thread, if that owner is ever sued, he or she can use the prosecution of the OP to show they took due dillegence to keep people off the land.

It is confounding how the same people that wail about violation of intellectual propert rights want to dispatch the FBI Tactical Team for someone copying a photo image but at the same time disregard other forms of property rights.

Some people are hippies until they themselves are violated......then they stop being hippies...

Victoria_Hamilton wrote:
Hi there!! Anyone looking to purchase slimming tablets, teeth whitening kits or tan jabs please feel free to contact me!! Will do wholesale!! Regards, Victoria!

Interested.

Dave the design student wrote:
Devil's Advocate here, the property owner wasn't an asshole, he's protecting himself from a lawsuit if a tresspasser gets hurt on his property.  It's his property, he has a right to not have people on it without his permission.  It's cool you learned that lesson out of it.

see my post earlier. its a real possibility in today's world.

Svetlana Muerte wrote:

Nope. 100% defense against trespass, unless there is a child injured while trying get to an 'attractive nuisance.'

Nope. Completely state specific.

Chris Macan wrote:
The owner is probably sick of damage done by idiots,
I didn't press charges the first few times kids got into my "neat old space"
The 4th time they did stupid pointless damage.... now everyone gets charged.

Idiots ruin it for everyone.

Sorry you got the short end of the stick.... but sometimes that is how it goes.

Yep.  I have a friend, also a photog, who has a lot of property and has had to chase people away.  So, now he is starting to enforce it legally.

ESR Photography wrote:
Some of the responses within this thread blow me away. Are there actually those of you out there who think it's perfectly okay to just waltz onto land which is not yours and do with it what you wish? Fence, no fence, posted, not posted, who gives a shit! If it's not yours or you don't have permission to use it, STFOut!

How anyone could even remotely begin to lay fault with the property owner is beyond me. Most folks work their ass off to acquire property. And they have every right and expectation to believe that NO ONE - regardless of circumstance - should take it upon themselves to use it as their own. Yes, even if it's just for a little bitty harmless photo.

Folks who elect to engage in this type of shooting should understand that with such comes a very real possibility of a consequence. It further saddens me to see so many who take private property rights so loosely. Personally, I didn't acquire my property with the understanding that anyone can just come along and use it as they wish. I'd like to think I'm not the only property owner who feels this way. Just my take.

Clearly you are very passionate about this issue of protecting private property, even in a situation like this where it sounds like very remote, unfenced, with minimal signage, and genuinly sounds like a mistake for which they were apologetic.

As passionate as you are I was wondering if you were arrested for trespassing for the photos you have in your portfolio of the model posing on the railroad tracks? Or if you were not arrested at the time did you turn yourself into authorities? I have to believe you couldn't let yourself get away with this crime since you are self admitedly "blow away" by some of the responses of those that are sympathetic to the rediculous prosecution this model and crew went through.

Your photo says it was shot in Dallas TX and the law there clearly states:

Texas law defines railroad property as a train, locomotive, railroad car, caboose, work equipment, rolling stock, safety device, switch, or connection that is owned, leased, operated, or possessed by railroad; or a railroad track, rail, bridge, trestle, or right-of-way owned or used by a railroad. Under the same code section, it is unlawful for anyone to enter or remain on railroad property without the consent of the owner, knowing that it is railroad property. An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the person causes bodily injury to another, in which event the offense is a felony of the third degree. Tex. [Penal] Code Ann. §28.08(A) (1999).

And not to be picky but how big was the fine for the public nudity (like your shots clearly taken on State land at a creek) because Texas law says:

(n) Public Nudity. It is an offense for any person to disrobe or appear nude in public. Females are considered to be disrobed when their breasts below the top of the areola are exposed except when nursing a baby.

Or... does your bewilderment of people "trespassing" only apply to property you're not trespassing or violating laws upon?

Doug Jantz wrote:
Yep.  I have a friend, also a photog, who has a lot of property and has had to chase people away.  So, now he is starting to enforce it legally.

Somehow I can imagine a photographer who owns property being especially harsh when it comes to other photographers on their property, especially if they once trespassed themselves before being fortunate enough to have their own locations.