Posted by Lenny Wells on February 22, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Today I had an unpleasant experience.
I have been looking for old building to photograph, here in Louisiana. A friend told me of some old workers quarters near a plantation. He told me that they were fenced off by barbed wire but you can see them from the road.
I found the place today. Upon arriving I saw a man on an atv and asked if I could take a few photos. He replied "as long as you stay on the road. Thanks for asking". I replied "no problem I will stay on the road".
I walked the road with my camera, and tripod, for about an hour. I took about 50 - 80 shots.
The man drove up again and said "one thing I forgot to ask. Are these for commercial purposes?" I repied "no not really".
He said "I think you're lying and I want you to stop now". I said I was not lying but I would leave.
Then he said something strange. He said "we sell this place and I don't want you telling people about it" ?????? You have a plantation in Louisiana and you don't want free publicity???
So I returned to my truck and started packing up. He drives up in a truck and says "I want your film". To which I replied that it was digital and doesn't have film.
He says "I better not find out that you're selling these photos". I handed him my business card and told him that my website and cell phone was on there. I said "if you see them on my site for sale, just let me know".
I called a photographer friend at the Baton Rouge newspaper and asked if photos taken from a public road was fair game. He replied that it was and not to worry about the Jekyll/Hyde man.
Long story but here is my question. Would it be unethical to publish, sell or use these in anyway? Should someone be able to dictate whether or not you can photograph a building from a public road?
Thanks
Lenny
Posted by Steve Foss on February 22, 2007 at 7:47 PM
If you've taken photos of his property, don't you need a property release to profit from them? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here. I'm really curious about the answer. I don't do that type of photography, really, so I'd like to know.
As for being ethical, I think that hinges on the man's desire for privacy. He expressed that desire to you. Is it ethical if you don't honor that desire? Why did you want the images if not to use them in some way? Will publishing or printing the photos require you to identify the location? Or is it one easily recognized? Certainly it was a reasonable assumption on his part that if you were taking images of the property, you intended to profit from the activity in some way. All these seem like considerations to me.
Aside from whether there is a legal issue from gaining profit without a property release (and, again, I don't even know if one is necessary in this case), I would carefully examine not whether the guy acted like a jerk, but how you would feel in his place if you wanted privacy and felt it may be violated.
You have the right to photograph his property from a public road. So the buildings are, in a sense, "fair game," and I don't believe the man had any legal ability to force you to stop or to demand your film. Newspapers, however, operate under a different set of sensibilities when using photos than many other businesses. I can tell you this because I've been in the newspaper business for just about 15 years. While your newspaper friend was correct that taking the images from public road was legal, that doesn't mean your profiting from them against the wishes of the owner is ethical.
Posted by Mike Maples on February 22, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Ethics is a funny concept, isn't it? To some it means "legal" and to others it means "right". To me it means the latter and perhaps even more. There are a great many things that are legal that I believe to be completely unethical and just plain wrong. There are also some things I think are morally and ethically right but you can be cited or even jailed for them.
The fact that you led the man to believe that you didn't intend to use the photos for commercial gain would, in my mind, make it completely unethical to do so later, regardless of the reason or legality. If it had been me I would have shown him the back of my camera as I hit the "erase all" command and I would have marked the hour off as a waste of my time. I don't want photos of someone's property, whether legally taken or not, that I could never use for any real purpose. What would be the point?
Here's a little different take on this. In my home area of eastern Oregon, there is an enormous amount of public land and because of that fact, there is a pretty relaxed attituded towards non-consumptive use on private property. But while in Texas, photographing reptiles and birds, I have run in to some real landowner bullies that seem to have a different concept of my photography rights from the public road. When the guy in your story demanded your film and implied that you are a liar, he would have put himself in a place with me where not only would I not have been concerned for his rights, he would not have wanted to be stepping on my rights any further. The anger you are hearing in this is coming from my own bad experiences. In one case in Texas a man told me I could not photograph birds on his land from the farm-to-market road. Another time in Mexico's state of Quintana Roo, a land owner called the state police on us for photographing birds on his property from the state highway! I thought we were going to be cuffed and hauled away! I guess you can tell, I don't have much sympathy for these little tyrants who are so protective of their little fifedoms. Thanks for letting me vent.
Posted by Lenny Wells on February 23, 2007 at 12:00 AM
I did not mislead this man. I would not have put these up for sale. Several years ago I created another website plugging local parish (county) tourism. I spent my own time and money and developed it into over one million hits per year. The local tourist commission sent the DA's office after me. I took the site down and apologized to the local citizens. I recieved numerous positive responses from the locals.
With my new site I have nothing for sale. I am just supporting Louisiana tourism and I again get slammed.
I have a job (not related to photography) so I don't need to sell my photos. On occassion that I do sell one, it is usually to local artist for their paintings.
Posted by Liz Masoner on February 23, 2007 at 11:21 AM
You helped the tourism and the authorities got mad...another reason I don't want to move to Louisiana.
If it wasn't for that kind of attitude you seem to be running up against I'd have suggested mentioning the man's attitude to the police. If someone said something like that around here my first thought would be its a moonshine or Meth house.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 23, 2007 at 12:10 PM
The guy sounds like a wacko. I run into them every now and then. I take a very hard line. I ask them if I'm on a public road. They have to acknowledge that I am. I then tell them that since they don't own the road, they can't ask me to leave. I make it clear I have no intention of leaving and resume taking photos. If they persist, I pull out my cell phone, look them in the eye, and say "If you want to continue bothering me, you're going to be doing it with a county deputy joining us." Only once have I had to call a deputy, and that was down in Iowa at a popular spot along a gravel road. I won. The deputy said the guy was a well known local crank. I'm not easily intimidated. Ignore these people. If they start waving guns around or something, call the deputy, have them arrested for assault. Like I said, I take a hard line with wackos.
Kent in SD
Posted by Tom Webster on February 23, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Legally, you can photograph privately owned buildings from public access as long as the intended use of the images is for editorial purposes only. Once you make the decision to profit from those photographs, either commercially or for promotion to get people to purchase other commercial items from you, then you need to have a property release to legally profit from those images. Are you going to get sued everytime you make an image of someone's property for commercial use without a property release? Most likely not. But the potential for a lawsuit is certainly there. BTW, you can be asked to stop making images of personal property, even if you are photographing from a public street. You can't be asked to leave but you can be asked to stop photographing a person's property. The courts have upheld the rights of property owners time and time again in these situations.
Unless there is some newsworthy reason to be photographing private property, the rights of a property owner supercede the rights of the photographer. This also pertains to photographing animals that a property owner may own. In most states, indigenoues wildlife is owned by the public and is, therefore, "fair game (pun intended) for photography. However, domestic animals are another issue. If you are photographing someone's domestic animals and you are going to use the images for commercial purposes, then you are going to have to get a property release. They are the property owner's property. As regards photographing wildlife on someone's private property from a public road, that's a debatable issue in court. The property owner can't really be sure that is all you are photographing.
Kent, I admire your photography and I admire you as a person. However, I have read other posts you have made along these lines in regards to railroad photography. If I were a representative of a railroad and was asking you stop photographing railroad property and you became aggresive with me, as you have stated you have at other times with railroad officials, I would most certainly call your bluff. Not only would I take you up on your offer to make a call to the local constabulary I would dial the number for you. My second action would be to refer you to the legal team for the railroad. Railroads and railroad rights of way are private property and require the same kinds of releases and permissions as any other form of photography of personal property. I think you have been lucky, so far, in having dealt with some very uninformed railroad representatives and uninformed law enforcement officials. However, I can foresee you getting into trouble in the future with your attitude. If you were to cop this attitude in Arizona to the railroad officials here you would probably be arrested by the railroad police if you did not cease and desist from photographing railroad property. These officials are well-informed of the law and so are the law enforcement agencies here.
You cannot be asked to vacate a public roadway for photographing private property from the roadway, or from any other means of public access, but you can be legally asked to cease photographing private property from such access. Also, what's the use of confrontation, anyhow? Confrontation between photographers and property owners will only lead to ill feelings by the property owner. That, most likely, will result in the property owner never allowing any photographer to photograph his/her property even if the photographer takes the proper steps in asking for permission first.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Tom, thanks. That makes crystal clear some of the legal issues I wasn't sure about.
Posted by Mike Horn on February 23, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Lenny Read this link, and check out the links provided.
You can shoot from public land, as long as you are not on their property, you are allowed to photograph it. In my state, it's legal to photograph anything from public land, except for government property.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 23, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Tom--
I've never really had any problems with railroad officials. They don't seem to care as long as you aren't actually on their right of way. The only two times I was questioned by someone as hard boiled as I am was when taking photos of a train derailment. The freight cars had actually landed on the property of a farmer. I got written permission from the farmer to go take photos. The railroad official from the divisional office backed off when he saw that. I actually won him over and over the past couple of years I've hit him up for favors in return for some nice prints.
The other incident was a few years ago in Twin Cities. I was on private property with permission. A genuine railroad cop tried to run me off, saying I couldn't photo trains. I told him I wasn't taking photos of trains, but was a wildlife photographer taking photos of the deer that wen through there that time of day. I had a 500mm f4 lens at the time, something you don't see railfans using. He didn't know what to say, so he just left.
It's pretty rare I'm told I can't take photos by railroaders. They're pretty used to it. While in Chicago this week I've been taking photos of the CTA Loop trains EVERY night from 5 PM until midnight. I have had three lower level CTA employees tell me I can't take photos of the trains, but I show them a newspaper clipping from the Chicago Tribune where the Mayor's Office and CTA officials say no problem as long as I stay on the public areas, don't use a tripod, and no obnoxious flash. With each of these three I talked to them awhile like I would my next door neighbor, and in the end won each of them over. Believe it or not, one train operator even gave me a short cab ride late one night, something I've never heard of before! He asked that I not take photos of that because he didn't want them to show up on the internet and possibly get him in trouble. That struck me as a very reasonable request.
Kent in Chicago
Posted by Tom Webster on February 24, 2007 at 2:14 AM
OK, Kent. I just worry that you may get in trouble. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad in Arizona is real hard-nosed about their property. My father was an engineer for Santa Fe for 47 years. I had to practically run a gauntlet of officials to photograph some trains for a project. I've been caught photographing trains in Phoenix and have been asked to cease. Maybe the midwest is just more laid back about this. Best regards as always, Tom.
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Tom--
The rail line you are talking about is a magnet for "foamers" (real hardcore railfans.) They stand on tracks, climb signal towers, etc. and are a general nuisance. I don't blame officials for getting upset about them. If you stay off their property though, they will leave you alone. And yes, the Upper Midwest where I live is very laid back in general. I've never been turned down permission to photo barns, abandoned houses, etc when I asked. Local train crews kinow me and let me get away with quite a bit, actually. The small local operations even allow me to ride along in the cab when I need those kinds of shots. A big part of all of this is the population density here, I think. There just aren't that many people, which means there aren't that many photographers scurrying around, some causing trouble. There just aren't all that many people hard core enough about photography to stand out for hours when it's below zero, I suppose.
Discussion
12 repliesI have been looking for old building to photograph, here in Louisiana. A friend told me of some old workers quarters near a plantation. He told me that they were fenced off by barbed wire but you can see them from the road.
I found the place today. Upon arriving I saw a man on an atv and asked if I could take a few photos. He replied "as long as you stay on the road. Thanks for asking". I replied "no problem I will stay on the road".
I walked the road with my camera, and tripod, for about an hour. I took about 50 - 80 shots.
The man drove up again and said "one thing I forgot to ask. Are these for commercial purposes?" I repied "no not really".
He said "I think you're lying and I want you to stop now". I said I was not lying but I would leave.
Then he said something strange. He said "we sell this place and I don't want you telling people about it" ?????? You have a plantation in Louisiana and you don't want free publicity???
So I returned to my truck and started packing up. He drives up in a truck and says "I want your film". To which I replied that it was digital and doesn't have film.
He says "I better not find out that you're selling these photos". I handed him my business card and told him that my website and cell phone was on there. I said "if you see them on my site for sale, just let me know".
I called a photographer friend at the Baton Rouge newspaper and asked if photos taken from a public road was fair game. He replied that it was and not to worry about the Jekyll/Hyde man.
Long story but here is my question. Would it be unethical to publish, sell or use these in anyway? Should someone be able to dictate whether or not you can photograph a building from a public road?
Thanks
Lenny
As for being ethical, I think that hinges on the man's desire for privacy. He expressed that desire to you. Is it ethical if you don't honor that desire? Why did you want the images if not to use them in some way? Will publishing or printing the photos require you to identify the location? Or is it one easily recognized? Certainly it was a reasonable assumption on his part that if you were taking images of the property, you intended to profit from the activity in some way. All these seem like considerations to me.
Aside from whether there is a legal issue from gaining profit without a property release (and, again, I don't even know if one is necessary in this case), I would carefully examine not whether the guy acted like a jerk, but how you would feel in his place if you wanted privacy and felt it may be violated.
You have the right to photograph his property from a public road. So the buildings are, in a sense, "fair game," and I don't believe the man had any legal ability to force you to stop or to demand your film. Newspapers, however, operate under a different set of sensibilities when using photos than many other businesses. I can tell you this because I've been in the newspaper business for just about 15 years. While your newspaper friend was correct that taking the images from public road was legal, that doesn't mean your profiting from them against the wishes of the owner is ethical.
The fact that you led the man to believe that you didn't intend to use the photos for commercial gain would, in my mind, make it completely unethical to do so later, regardless of the reason or legality. If it had been me I would have shown him the back of my camera as I hit the "erase all" command and I would have marked the hour off as a waste of my time. I don't want photos of someone's property, whether legally taken or not, that I could never use for any real purpose. What would be the point?
Just one man's opinion...
With my new site I have nothing for sale. I am just supporting Louisiana tourism and I again get slammed.
I have a job (not related to photography) so I don't need to sell my photos. On occassion that I do sell one, it is usually to local artist for their paintings.
If it wasn't for that kind of attitude you seem to be running up against I'd have suggested mentioning the man's attitude to the police. If someone said something like that around here my first thought would be its a moonshine or Meth house.
Kent in SD
Unless there is some newsworthy reason to be photographing private property, the rights of a property owner supercede the rights of the photographer. This also pertains to photographing animals that a property owner may own. In most states, indigenoues wildlife is owned by the public and is, therefore, "fair game (pun intended) for photography. However, domestic animals are another issue. If you are photographing someone's domestic animals and you are going to use the images for commercial purposes, then you are going to have to get a property release. They are the property owner's property. As regards photographing wildlife on someone's private property from a public road, that's a debatable issue in court. The property owner can't really be sure that is all you are photographing.
Kent, I admire your photography and I admire you as a person. However, I have read other posts you have made along these lines in regards to railroad photography. If I were a representative of a railroad and was asking you stop photographing railroad property and you became aggresive with me, as you have stated you have at other times with railroad officials, I would most certainly call your bluff. Not only would I take you up on your offer to make a call to the local constabulary I would dial the number for you. My second action would be to refer you to the legal team for the railroad. Railroads and railroad rights of way are private property and require the same kinds of releases and permissions as any other form of photography of personal property. I think you have been lucky, so far, in having dealt with some very uninformed railroad representatives and uninformed law enforcement officials. However, I can foresee you getting into trouble in the future with your attitude. If you were to cop this attitude in Arizona to the railroad officials here you would probably be arrested by the railroad police if you did not cease and desist from photographing railroad property. These officials are well-informed of the law and so are the law enforcement agencies here.
You cannot be asked to vacate a public roadway for photographing private property from the roadway, or from any other means of public access, but you can be legally asked to cease photographing private property from such access. Also, what's the use of confrontation, anyhow? Confrontation between photographers and property owners will only lead to ill feelings by the property owner. That, most likely, will result in the property owner never allowing any photographer to photograph his/her property even if the photographer takes the proper steps in asking for permission first.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
You can shoot from public land, as long as you are not on their property, you are allowed to photograph it. In my state, it's legal to photograph anything from public land, except for government property.
I've never really had any problems with railroad officials. They don't seem to care as long as you aren't actually on their right of way. The only two times I was questioned by someone as hard boiled as I am was when taking photos of a train derailment. The freight cars had actually landed on the property of a farmer. I got written permission from the farmer to go take photos. The railroad official from the divisional office backed off when he saw that. I actually won him over and over the past couple of years I've hit him up for favors in return for some nice prints.
The other incident was a few years ago in Twin Cities. I was on private property with permission. A genuine railroad cop tried to run me off, saying I couldn't photo trains. I told him I wasn't taking photos of trains, but was a wildlife photographer taking photos of the deer that wen through there that time of day. I had a 500mm f4 lens at the time, something you don't see railfans using. He didn't know what to say, so he just left.
It's pretty rare I'm told I can't take photos by railroaders. They're pretty used to it. While in Chicago this week I've been taking photos of the CTA Loop trains EVERY night from 5 PM until midnight. I have had three lower level CTA employees tell me I can't take photos of the trains, but I show them a newspaper clipping from the Chicago Tribune where the Mayor's Office and CTA officials say no problem as long as I stay on the public areas, don't use a tripod, and no obnoxious flash. With each of these three I talked to them awhile like I would my next door neighbor, and in the end won each of them over. Believe it or not, one train operator even gave me a short cab ride late one night, something I've never heard of before! He asked that I not take photos of that because he didn't want them to show up on the internet and possibly get him in trouble. That struck me as a very reasonable request.
Kent in Chicago
The rail line you are talking about is a magnet for "foamers" (real hardcore railfans.) They stand on tracks, climb signal towers, etc. and are a general nuisance. I don't blame officials for getting upset about them. If you stay off their property though, they will leave you alone. And yes, the Upper Midwest where I live is very laid back in general. I've never been turned down permission to photo barns, abandoned houses, etc when I asked. Local train crews kinow me and let me get away with quite a bit, actually. The small local operations even allow me to ride along in the cab when I need those kinds of shots. A big part of all of this is the population density here, I think. There just aren't that many people, which means there aren't that many photographers scurrying around, some causing trouble. There just aren't all that many people hard core enough about photography to stand out for hours when it's below zero, I suppose.
Kent in SD