B R E N N A N wrote:
Holy shit, Star, I actually agree with you for once

Or, what is more productive: putting up proper signage, or having to waste day after day in court serving as a witness in BS trespassing charges?

...not sure how big the property is, but only twenty five 18x24 inch "No Trespassing Signs" equates to about $700 before tax and before labor.

  It was probably (definitely?) cheaper to spend a few hours at the court house

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
...not sure how big the property is, but only twenty five 18x24 inch "No Trespassing Signs" equates to about $700 before tax.  It was probably cheaper to spend a few hours at the court house

See my earlier post regarding this guys experiences with the courthouse, and how often he is there. $700 before tax is probably what the foreman makes every 2 weeks, and he spent that at the courthouse on our court case alone, while getting paid by the company. Still make sense?

And funny, I found them for less than a buck a piece:
http://www.lowes.com/SearchCatalogDispl … 151&rpp=24

Images Sell LLC wrote:
The property owner sounds like a real jerk. I'm sorry about your misfortune, but thanks for spreading the words of caution.

PHOTOS BY DILLEN wrote:
sounds like this property  owner was a real A-hole... why were you harming...nothing I am sure... just be glad this fool isn't a relative ...

I'm guessing that someone less thoughtful who was there before you helped convince the owner to take a hard line.

I'm guessing copper thieves, which have put many construction sites / vacant properties on edge.

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.

*psssttt* It was not the property owner who called the police, or who showed up in court. The actual property owner is a corporation.

Wild Side Studios wrote:
What if someone is injured on his property - then he would be getting sued.

Laws should be written so that can't happen, which might make people less uptight about trespass.

I for one would gladly give up my right to sue in exchange for being able to go more places.

B R E N N A N wrote:

*psssttt* It was not the property owner who called the police, or who showed up in court. The actual property owner is a corporation.

Are you serious?  Do you honestly believe that the human beings who called the police and who showed up in court weren't employees and representatives of the property owner?  Do you believe that the owner being a corporation instead of an individual makes trespass excusable?

Black Sunshine wrote:
photography is not a crime!

But it's not a justification for other crimes, and it's the nature of photographers to push things, take a mile when given an inch, etc.

rp_photo wrote:

Laws should be written so that can't happen, which might make people less uptight about trespass.

I for one would gladly give up my right to sue in exchange for being able to go more places.

You'll give up your right to sue if I'll give up the part of my private property rights that lets me determine who can and can't use it?  Hmmm ... no.  However if you'd like to pay a portion of the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs then I'll gladly consider leasing you the right to use it for a photo shoot.

BTHPhoto wrote:
Are you serious?  Do you honestly believe that the human beings who called the police and who showed up in court weren't employees and representatives of the property owner?  Do you believe that the owner being a corporation instead of an individual makes trespass excusable?

Did I say that? Nope. Did I even imply that? No.

Please re- read my OP and the intentions stated there.

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.

As I see it, we photographers need to respect private property, and in return our right to shoot on public property needs to be respected.

hbutz New York wrote:
You are in good company.  Spencer Tunick has been arrested at least five times for the crime of photography.  Whenever I take a photograph of a bridge in NYC I am approached and hassled by police.  I have never dared to take a photograph of a train or ferry for fear of being arrested.  Those in power seek to suppress free thinking, art, and photography since free thinking leads to unrest and the questioning of authority.

She was not arrested for the crime of photography. She was arrested for the crime of trespass. 

If the fact that you're carrying a camera or modeling for someone carrying a camera gave you an exemption from all other laws, cameras would be more popular than guns among criminals.

BTHPhoto wrote:

You're looking only at a single incident.  You have no idea how many times this has happened before, whether the owner has been sued before, whether his insurance company was prepared to drop him unless he pressed charges, whether adjacent land owners had been pressuring him to not be an avenue for trespass on their property, etc.  You may believe, based on the information provided by one party in one instance that this was vindictiveness, but that has no basis in fact.  It's simply a story you made up based on incomplete information.

All of the bolded is very true.  However, that doesn't mean that the reactions in this thread imply that photographers believe it's a right to trespass.  We ARE talking about this single incident, and based on what we know, this is not strictly a case of impartial application of the law.  In addition to everything, there was perjury committed.  That's not a made-up story, it happened.   

IF the owner was under some pressure to keep this from happening, it doesn't add up that he wouldn't have already taken physical measures beyond what appears to be a minimum.  It doesn't add up that he would go ahead with prosecution if they were 5 feet over the property line, so far from any construction off a public road, unless he was prepared to prosecute every person who veered off of that road onto his property unwittingly or not.  We don't know if he would, but doesn't that seem unlikely?  And it doesn't add up that he would risk breaking the law himself and losing the case, even though he got away with it in hindsight.

So maybe the math doesn't add up to 100% certainty that it was vindictiveness.  I'll concede 5% off that that.  Which is enough for me to stand by my opinion.

BTHPhoto wrote:
She was not arrested for the crime of photography. She was arrested for the crime of trespass.

Many seem to be missing this point.

About the only time photography is a direct crime is when people are inappropriately photographed, i.e. voyeurism, hiding cameras in dressing rooms, sneaking upskirts, etc.

And the majority of these offenses involve phone cameras, surveillance cameras, and other devices besides DSLR's.

B R E N N A N wrote:

*psssttt* It was not the property owner who called the police, or who showed up in court. The actual property owner is a corporation.

Oh, ok.  I didn't know it was a corporation.  Well, now this makes more sense to me - both the prosecution and the perjury.  There you go.

B R E N N A N wrote:
*psssttt* It was not the property owner who called the police, or who showed up in court. The actual property owner is a corporation.

*pssssttt* Then I would image it was someone either acting on the owners/corporations behalf or an otherwise watchful eye. Whoever it was, they obviously knew YOU didn't belong there. Regardless, you seem to just not get it! You can lay whatever spin you choose, you were in the wrong. And consequently, got what was coming to you. The fact that you try to come across as being the victim here is ridiculous. Done here.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
In addition to everything, there was perjury committed.  That's not a made-up story, it happened.

Really?  Your evidence of that is a statement by the convicted trespasser.  Is that really enough to make you certain it's fact?  I can't think of a single convicted criminal who's ever said "I got a fair trial and everyone told the truth."  That makes me skeptical that the one-sided version of this story is entirely objective and factual.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
IF the owner was under some pressure to keep this from happening, it doesn't add up that he wouldn't have already taken physical measures beyond what appears to be a minimum.  It doesn't add up that he would go ahead with prosecution if they were 5 feet over the property line, so far from any construction off a public road, unless he was prepared to prosecute every person who veered off of that road onto his property unwittingly or not.  We don't know if he would, but doesn't that seem unlikely?

No, it doesn't seem unlikely at all. As a property owner who's been burned badly by trespassers, the worst of which was a photographer, that's pretty much the approach I take now.  My property is marked in accordance with state law.  If you trespass on my property, even a little bit, even by accident, I will take all legal measures available to me.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
And it doesn't add up that he would risk breaking the law himself and losing the case, even though he got away with it in hindsight.

Again, you have no evidence of that other than a statement by the convicted trespasser, which is hardly objective evidence.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
So maybe the math doesn't add up to 100% certainty that it was vindictiveness.  I'll concede 5% off that that.  Which is enough for me to stand by my opinion.

Your math seems terribly biased to me.

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.

Do you own property right NEXT DOOR to public land? If you do then you should take every precaution to let people know that the public land has ended and that they are now on private property. I am floored at how anyone can lay fault with the people who thought they were still on public land and had wandered less than 2 yards onto private property.

NOT YET doing a photo shoot, only scouting. That means they were walking along in publicaly owned lands and a negligant land owner chose to not mark where their lands started and this same landowner felt it was the fault of the people HIKING IN PUBLIC LANDS for not having a gps in their head that let them know the property had become private property.

MARK your fucking property lines if you property is so important to you.

BTHPhoto wrote:
If you trespass on my property, even a little bit, even by accident, I will take all legal measures available to me.

You seem to enjoy pointing that out in this and earlier threads.

I do understand your take as a property owner who has perhaps had problems in the past.

BTHPhoto wrote:
You'll give up your right to sue if I'll give up the part of my private property rights that lets me determine who can and can't use it?  Hmmm ... no.  However if you'd like to pay a portion of the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs then I'll gladly consider leasing you the right to use it for a photo shoot.

Are you unable to understand the OP and subsequent posts, or unwilling? If unable then I will leave you alone, but if you are unwilling then you are trolling.

I mean it seems to me the OP is fairly uncomplicated and any reasonably intelligent person could understand it, but you time after time ignore the relevant facts about signage and placement of the property line next to public lands and subsequently your arguments are, in many ways, nonsensical as they do not apply to the issue at hand.

let me spell it out for you

1. property is next to public land
2. property is not fenced off nor is there even a sign within the sight lines of where the hikers entered
3. there was no photo shoot going on, merely a group of people scouting for one
4. there was time to get a police cruser out to the property, but not time to let the people know they had wandered away from the perfectly legal walking they were doing on publicly owned lands
5. the people walking along the edge of the property line immediately apologized and left once informed that despite the entire lack of any signage or fence or even a line of red twine that they had wandered from publicly owned lands to privately held lands
6. the representative of the property owner perjured themselves in court

HOW on earth are your experiences with people trespassing anything like this one? And if they are how do you not see your own culpability in what has happened.

BTHPhoto wrote:

Loren Fiedler wrote:
In addition to everything, there was perjury committed.  That's not a made-up story, it happened.

Really?  Your evidence of that is a statement by the convicted trespasser.  Is that really enough to make you certain it's fact?  I can't think of a single convicted criminal who's ever said "I got a fair trial and everyone told the truth."  That makes me skeptical that the one-sided version of this story is entirely objective and factual.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
IF the owner was under some pressure to keep this from happening, it doesn't add up that he wouldn't have already taken physical measures beyond what appears to be a minimum.  It doesn't add up that he would go ahead with prosecution if they were 5 feet over the property line, so far from any construction off a public road, unless he was prepared to prosecute every person who veered off of that road onto his property unwittingly or not.  We don't know if he would, but doesn't that seem unlikely?

No, it doesn't seem unlikely at all. As a property owner who's been burned badly by trespassers, the worst of which was a photographer, that's pretty much the approach I take now.  My property is marked in accordance with state law.  If you trespass on my property, even a little bit, even by accident, I will take all legal measures available to me.

Loren Fiedler wrote:
And it doesn't add up that he would risk breaking the law himself and losing the case, even though he got away with it in hindsight.

Again, you have no evidence of that other than a statement by the convicted trespasser, which is hardly objective evidence.


Your math seems terribly biased to me.

Of course it's biased, that's the point.  You said it yourself: all we have to go on is Brennan's post.  You don't know any more about it either.

So why are you arguing?

BTHPhoto wrote:
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Sure I do -  court time costs money in the form of taxes -  and such prosecutions do little to keep others away from their property -  how many people really follow the court docket and are thus going to be dissuaded from wandering onto their land?

I own several large pieces of rural land.  I have learned that  "good fences make good neighbors" and that "not being a pain in the ass makes good neighbors"

-  if there is an attractive nuisance or some danger on my property and I want to protect myself from liability, it is incumbent on me to prevent unwanted access.

- and if there is not,  it is not harming me or my interests for hikers, birders, photographers etc to wander through now and then.

BTHPhoto wrote:
As a property owner who's been burned badly by trespassers, the worst of which was a photographer, that's pretty much the approach I take now.  My property is marked in accordance with state law.  If you trespass on my property, even a little bit, even by accident, I will take all legal measures available to me.

Wow, see if i had had troubles I would go above and BEYOND state law because I would be more concerned with preventing it happening again then in punishing people who do it. I would never do the bare minimum.

Star wrote:
That means they were walking along in publicaly owned lands and a negligant land owner chose to not mark where their lands started and this same landowner felt it was the fault of the people HIKING IN PUBLIC LANDS for not having a gps in their head that let them know the property had become private property.

Negligent? I don't know all the details, and all the info is one sided so I'm not going to get caught up in a big debate here. There has to be more to the story (from one or both parties), but I don't see any negligence by the land owner here.

Star wrote:
Do you own property right NEXT DOOR to public land? If you do then you should take every precaution to let people know that the public land has ended and that they are now on private property. I am floored at how anyone can lay fault with the people who thought they were still on public land and had wandered less than 2 yards onto private property.

Shoots that start on either public land or authorized private land but stray onto other private land, either by pure accident or some temptation, are very plausable.

The OP's shoot seems to be a straying situation with both accident and temptation.

Enrapture Photography wrote:

Negligent? I don't know all the details, and all the info is one sided so I'm not going to get caught up in a big debate here. There has to be more to the story (from one or both parties), but I don't see any negligence by the land owner here.

if you have to lie about your signage then you were negligent in the posting of it

Loren Fiedler wrote:

Of course it's biased, that's the point.  You said it yourself: all we have to go on is Brennan's post.  You don't know any more about it either.

So why are you arguing?

Because, making statements like "perjury was committed" when you know all you have to go on is the statement of the convicted trespasser is using willful ignorance to legitimize an untenable position.

rp_photo wrote:

Shoots that start on either public land or authorized private land but stray onto other private land, either by pure accident or some temptation, are very plausable.

However, the OP's shoot does not seem like straying since a building was the destination.

where does she say that?

Star wrote:
where does she say that?

I caught that and already made a correction.

The OP's shoot seems to be a straying situation with both accident and temptation.

Star wrote:

if you have to lie about your signage then you were negligent in the posting of it

If you choose to blindly accept the statement of one party in a confrontation as fact then you are negligent in your reasoning.

BTHPhoto wrote:

If you choose to blindly accept the statement of one party in a confrontation as fact then you are negligent in your reasoning.

I will be honest, based on the way she has conducted herself in these forums and in this thread and the way you have blindly ignored anything that didn't support your reasoning I would take her word over yours one thousand times over

BTHPhoto wrote:
No, it doesn't seem unlikely at all. As a property owner who's been burned badly by trespassers, the worst of which was a photographer, that's pretty much the approach I take now.  My property is marked in accordance with state law.  If you trespass on my property, even a little bit, even by accident, I will take all legal measures available to me.

I'm glad you let a few bad eggs affect the caliber of your character.

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 would worry about the third scenario the most.

If the pot growers were smart, they'd choose Army Corps of Engineers land where legal carry is prohibited.

BTHPhoto wrote:

Because, making statements like "perjury was committed" when you know all you have to go on is the statement of the convicted trespasser is using willful ignorance to legitimize an untenable position.

She has time stamped VIDEO EVIDENCE showing that there was no signage. What else do you want? No really, what more proof could she give that would satisfy you?

K I C K H A M wrote:

I'm glad you let a few bad eggs affect the caliber of your character.

You're entirely missing the point.  It has nothing to do with my character.  It has to do with the fact that my experience has proven there is no other way for a property owner to protect themselves.

Star wrote:
if you have to lie about your signage then you were negligent in the posting of it

It depends upon which party you choose to believe. Four people with attorneys and video evidence lost?

ESR Photography wrote:

*pssssttt* Then I would image it was someone either acting on the owners/corporations behalf or an otherwise watchful eye. Whoever it was, they obviously knew YOU didn't belong there. Regardless, you seem to just not get it! You can lay whatever spin you choose, you were in the wrong. And consequently, got what was coming to you. The fact that you try to come across as being the victim here is ridiculous. Done here.

Thanks for playing. When you come back, please do share where you think I'm being a victim.
I acknowledged the property owner was within his rights.
I acknowledged that we were indeed trespassing, albeit unknowingly.

I'm not sure what part of this I don't "get" that you're referring to.