Christine Rose wrote:
I have liability but if no one is setting lights and they are not knowingly trespassing what is the difference between someone taking a picture or someone taking a walk?

None that I see. See my post above.

As I see it, photographers are subject to insurance discrimination, with requirements disproportionate to the relative risk.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
And if anything goes wrong and someone gets injured, should the public be expected to take liability for that? 

Or, should the photographer be required to provide a certificate of insurance and obtain a permit??

Just wondering what your take is on that . . . ?

KM

Christine Rose wrote:
Does everyone else have insurance too that accesses the property?

I have liability but if no one is setting lights and they are not knowingly trespassing what is the difference between someone taking a picture or someone taking a walk?

If you are trespassing, it is unlikely that your insurance will cover you.  They generally exclude injury sustained or liability during an illegal act.

B R E N N A N wrote:

Yes, actually. Especially seeing as how the images the prosecution displayed as examples of trespassing signs were of the dollar variety.

Ok, look, if you continue your logic and find yourself in another legal fix, you're going to get chewed up.  You're a text book example of what frustrates a lot of attorneys when they try to explain simple things to their clients.

What someone showed as an "example" doesn't necessarily represent what is prevalent industry wide nor what another person would choose to put on their property.  Most of the signage that you see in your daily life (stop, yield, no u-turn, school zone, no admittance, do not enter, etc..) isn't cheap.  Lowes, Home Depot, et al, are not generally considered an Industrial stores.

You seem to have trouble separating various elements of the incident.

1. "it was an accident":  Ok, what does that have to do with anything?

2.  "signs weren't posted": did that negate the likely fact that a reasonable person couldn't have guessed that they weren't on public access?  Probably not.  I haven't seen the place and my guess would be that the land was owned by someone other than the county (a paper mill, acme corp, john snuffy, etc..)  Just using my common sense I think at first blush that any land that isn't on the map as an obvious public place (to include parks or public forest preserves, etc..) I automatically *assume* that it's private property.   That keeps me from *ever* going wrong doesn't it?

3.  "the guy lied in court":  maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I wasn't there and don't have all the facts, but the one fact that seems crystal clear is that you were on his property and that right there (basically) puts you squarely in a position without a leg to stand on.

Christine Rose wrote:
You know for a site that is supposed to be full of artistic people there sure are a lot of uptight stick up the butts around here.

I wonder if it shows in their work?

If I were Brennan I would be making a little dicklist I mean checklist of people not to work with.

I can't imagine any straight male prosecuting her for trespass -- hell he should have rolled out the red carpet.

She purty

Yep - attitude is everything -

These forums have often helped me refine my list of people to avoid working with - a side benefit of participation I suppose...

and in all fairness I'm sure that a few have me on their "lists"  as well lol

ei Total Productions wrote:

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
And if anything goes wrong and someone gets injured, should the public be expected to take liability for that? 

Or, should the photographer be required to provide a certificate of insurance and obtain a permit??

Just wondering what your take is on that . . . ?

KM

If you are trespassing, it is unlikely that your insurance will cover you.  They generally exclude injury sustained or liability during an illegal act.

I thought Ken was talking about public property here.

I don't trespass. I ask permission but I can see where someone could unknowingly wander onto private property.

By the way some of you act I guess Brennan should be glad that she wasn't wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles.

ei Total Productions wrote:
If you are trespassing, it is unlikely that your insurance will cover you.  They generally exclude injury sustained or liability during an illegal act.

And since almost everything we do violates some law these days, expect insurance companies to have lots of "weasel room".

Even if something happens in your own studio, they could probably find some obscure code that was violated.

Christine Rose wrote:
You know for a site that is supposed to be full of artistic people there sure are a lot of uptight stick up the butts around here.

I wonder if it shows in their work?

If I were Brennan I would be making a little dicklist I mean checklist of people not to work with.

I can't imagine any straight male prosecuting her for trespass -- hell he should have rolled out the red carpet.

She purty

Oh, hai *blush*

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Ok, look, if you continue your logic and find yourself in another legal fix, you're going to get chewed up.  You're a text book example of what frustrates a lot of attorneys when they try to explain simple things to their clients.

What someone showed as an "example" doesn't necessarily represent what is prevalent industry wide nor what another person would choose to put on their property.  Most of the signage that you see in your daily life (stop, yield, no u-turn, school zone, no admittance, do not enter, etc..) isn't cheap.  Lowes, Home Depot, et al, are not generally considered an Industrial stores.

You seem to have trouble separating various elements of the incident.

1. "it was an accident":  Ok, what does that have to do with anything?

2.  "signs weren't posted": did that negate the likely fact that a reasonable person couldn't have guessed that they weren't on public access?  Probably not.  I haven't seen the place and my guess would be that the land was owned by someone other than the county (a paper mill, acme corp, john snuffy, etc..)  Just using my common sense I think at first blush that any land that isn't on the map as an obvious public place (to include parks or public forest preserves, etc..) I automatically *assume* that it's private property.   That keeps me from *ever* going wrong doesn't it?

3.  "the guy lied in court":  maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I wasn't there and don't have all the facts, but the one fact that seems crystal clear is that you were on his property and that right there (basically) puts you squarely in a position without a leg to stand on.

You may be surprised to know that many people don't hold attorneys in the highest regard.

Christine Rose wrote:
I thought Ken was talking about public property here.

I don't trespass. I ask permission but I can see where someone could unknowingly wander onto private property.

By the way some of you act I guess Brennan should be glad that she wasn't wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles.

i could have misunderstood his post, in which case, I apologize.

Christine Rose wrote:
By the way some of you act I guess Brennan should be glad that she wasn't wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles.

In the future, online forums will be plagued by "Trayvon's Law", in which all discussions ultimately include mentions of that incident.

B R E N N A N wrote:

Oh, hai *blush*

*waves back*

You can trespass in my backyard anytime LOL

Christie Doll Face wrote:
I got chased out of an old mental hospital by security- they did not call cops but warned us not to come back. It was scary!

You were in a mental hospital, and they let you go and told you not to come back?
Phew! Clean bill of health! I'd be happy now

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

Ok, look, if you continue your logic and find yourself in another legal fix, you're going to get chewed up.  You're a text book example of what frustrates a lot of attorneys when they try to explain simple things to their clients.

Don't insult my intelligence.

I'm not a lawyer, neither are you, so don't be silly enough to project what irritates or frustrates others.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:

Yep - attitude is everything -

These forums have often helped me refine my list of people to avoid working with - a side benefit of participation I suppose...

and in all fairness I'm sure that a few have me on their "lists"  as well lol

All but one were already on my list, the others I expected to make an appearance

Wild Side Studios wrote:

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.

How is he a jerk for defending his property rights?  By the OP's own admission, this area has been frequented numerous times by himself and others.  The property owner was probably sick of the trespasses.  What if someone is injured on his property - then he would be getting sued.

Run! The property owner got into our conversation!

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
Yep - attitude is everything -

These forums have often helped me refine my list of people to avoid working with - a side benefit of participation I suppose...

I'm thinking only a tiny percentage of those in my local area participate here, and despite the potential, only a small percentage more lurk here.

That's why I've always felt reasonably safe speaking my mind here, over-moderation aside.

B R E N N A N wrote:

All but one were already on my list, the others I expected to make an appearance

Another one bites the dust

New Age Studio wrote:

Run! The property owner got into our conversation!

Christine Rose wrote:

Another one bites the dust

I am crushed, crushed I tell you!!!

New Age Studio wrote:
Run! The property owner got into our conversation!

I though this happened in NC, not AK

Christine Rose wrote:

You may be surprised to know that many people don't hold attorneys in the highest regard.

or accountants... until the attorney or accountant miraculously gets them a lot of money then it's all about thank you, hugs, and kisses.  Please.   People bash about attorneys until they need one.

People whine about tax attorneys until they actually use one and save themselves a boat load of money via tax avoidance.

Many physicians loathe attorneys...  I think attorneys keep a balance of sorts in the medical field.

When it comes to the general public though, I think they have the wrong perception; I think most licensed attorneys never, and probably will never see the inside of a courtroom and will never have a direct hand in any litigation of any kind.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

or accountants... until the attorney or accountant miraculously gets them a lot of money then it's all about thank you, hugs, and kisses.  Please.   People bash about attorneys until they need one.

People whine about tax attorneys until they actually use one and save themselves a boat load of money via tax avoidance.

Many physicians loathe attorneys...  I think attorneys keep a balance of sorts in the medical field.

When it comes to the general public though, I think they have the wrong perception; I think most licensed attorneys never, and probably will never see the inside of a courtroom and will never have a direct hand in any litigation of any kind.

I don't think you have any idea what my experience is with attorneys is but please go on with your pretentious blather.

I wonder if some "photographers" think that by acting a fool and being pretentious jackasses to models it is going to help get them shoots.

I mean the OP is a fine model -- I don't know why people feel the need to beat up on her for a simple mistake which by the way she has paid for.

It's not like she killed someone.

B R E N N A N wrote:
Off to enjoy my Saturday! Have fun kids!

troublemaker

LOL

B R E N N A N wrote:

Don't insult my intelligence.

I'm not a lawyer, neither are you, so don't be silly enough to project what irritates or frustrates others.

In no way meaning to "insult" you.

Speaking from business experience, and as a former law student (medical related studies made better economic sense... I'll later go back and pick up the J.D.)

So yes, I'm stating fact.  The *fact* that many laymen have trouble grasping what is or isn't pertinent, and that *fact* is a common frustration amongst attorneys... but you don't have to be an attorney to figure that out.  A temp worker working in a law firm for more than 30 minutes can probably come to the same conclusion.

Christine Rose wrote:
I don't think you have any idea what my experience is with attorneys is but please go on with your pretentious blather.

I wonder if some "photographers" think that by acting a fool and being pretentious jackasses to models it is going to help get them shoots.

I mean the OP is a fine model -- I don't know why people feel the need to beat up on her for a simple mistake which by the way she has paid for.

It's not like she killed someone.

I in no way mentioned you in anything I said.  You made a statement about not all people think highly of attorneys and I elaborated.  Not all people think highly of janitors either, but that doesn't have anything to do with the model in this case either nor does your experience with either attorneys or janitors.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
The *fact* that many laymen have trouble grasping what is or isn't pertinent, and that *fact* is a common frustration amongst attorneys...

Attorneys ought to know that many of their clients are uninformed, nervous, emotional, scared, angry, etc. and be able to deal with it gracefully, much like photographers have to deal with various issues with non-model clients.

Star wrote:
if only someone had locked the gate, but state law doesn't require that. Good thing you only do the bare min.

Good god Star.... what kind of fucked up logic are you spouting?
If a property owner doesn't turn their property in to a fortress they deserve what they get?

By your logic the asshole who broke into my studio shouldn't be held accountable because I should have had an ugly steel door instead of the architecturally accurate wooden door. And surely I should replace my nice glass windows with harder to break plexi ones.

Seriously?

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

In no way meaning to "insult" you.

Speaking from business experience, and as a former law student (medical related studies made better economic sense... I'll later go back and pick up the J.D.)

So yes, I'm stating fact.  The *fact* that many laymen have trouble grasping what is or isn't pertinent, and that *fact* is a common frustration amongst attorneys... but you don't have to be an attorney to figure that out.  A temp worker working in a law firm for more than 30 minutes can probably come to the same conclusion.

Yawn

God you're boring

Christine Rose wrote:
what is the difference between someone taking a picture or someone taking a walk?

. . . a camera . . . ?

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Ok, look, if you continue your logic and find yourself in another legal fix, you're going to get chewed up.  You're a text book example of what frustrates a lot of attorneys when they try to explain simple things to their clients.

What someone showed as an "example" doesn't necessarily represent what is prevalent industry wide nor what another person would choose to put on their property.  Most of the signage that you see in your daily life (stop, yield, no u-turn, school zone, no admittance, do not enter, etc..) isn't cheap.  Lowes, Home Depot, et al, are not generally considered an Industrial stores.

You seem to have trouble separating various elements of the incident.

1. "it was an accident":  Ok, what does that have to do with anything?

2.  "signs weren't posted": did that negate the likely fact that a reasonable person couldn't have guessed that they weren't on public access?  Probably not.  I haven't seen the place and my guess would be that the land was owned by someone other than the county (a paper mill, acme corp, john snuffy, etc..)  Just using my common sense I think at first blush that any land that isn't on the map as an obvious public place (to include parks or public forest preserves, etc..) I automatically *assume* that it's private property.   That keeps me from *ever* going wrong doesn't it?

3.  "the guy lied in court":  maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I wasn't there and don't have all the facts, but the one fact that seems crystal clear is that you were on his property and that right there (basically) puts you squarely in a position without a leg to stand on.

This could be some of the most soporific and insensitive drivel I've ever seen in this forum.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

In no way meaning to "insult" you.

Speaking from business experience, and as a former law student (medical related studies made better economic sense... I'll later go back and pick up the J.D.)

So yes, I'm stating fact.  The *fact* that many laymen have trouble grasping what is or isn't pertinent, and that *fact* is a common frustration amongst attorneys... but you don't have to be an attorney to figure that out.  A temp worker working in a law firm for more than 30 minutes can probably come to the same conclusion.

Clearly you dropped out of law school before you realised why mens rea is important.

Christine Rose wrote:
You know for a site that is supposed to be full of artistic people there sure are a lot of uptight stick up the butts around here.

I wonder if it shows in their work?

Yes, it does.

Christine Rose wrote:
what is the difference between someone taking a picture or someone taking a walk?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
. . . a camera . . . ?

a weapon of mass erection

B R E N N A N wrote:
*makes mental note to switch to worksafe mode when looking at your portfolio*

Unfortunately you can’t un-see what has already been seen.

Wild Side Studios wrote:
Several people stated that the landowner was a jerk.  My initial response was that I do not believe he was a jerk for protecting his property.

You remind me of the old man in our neighborhood growing up… he’d run our and yell ‘all you little fuckers get off my lawn’ when we merely stepped on the corner or his lawn

The op was 5’ over the property line. Doesn’t sound  like there were any fences or warning signs.

If it was that important to the land owner you think he would post them
Are they required by law – maybe not
Is he still a dick – yes. (imo).

Ask youreself this - why are you so invested in arguing this. This is the fight you want to have today? Really?

Chris Macan wrote:

Good god Star.... what kind of fucked up logic are you spouting?
If a property owner doesn't turn their property in to a fortress they deserve what they get?

By your logic the asshole who broke into my studio shouldn't be held accountable because I should have had an ugly steel door instead of the architecturally accurate wooden door. And surely I should replace my nice glass windows with harder to break plexi ones.

Seriously?

that statement is so idiotic it does not deserve a response.