# A local photographer got busted trespassing thanks to social media



## rexbobcat (Apr 28, 2014)

So a photographer I know got busted trespassing in a dangerous historical sight thanks to her Twitter and Instagram posts.

Photographer busted in Baker Hotel through social media | Crime and Safety | News from F...

Does anyone else think that urbex (in most cases...not all) is just the glamourization of trespassing? I mean, I've done my fair share of snooping around, but...boasting about the extent of my illegal activities is never something that seemed appealing.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 28, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> So a photographer I know got busted trespassing in a dangerous historical sight thanks to her Twitter and Instagram posts.
> 
> Photographer busted in Baker Hotel through social media | Crime and Safety | News from F...
> 
> Does anyone else think that urbex (in most cases...not all) is just the glamourization of trespassing? I mean, I've done my fair share of snooping around, but...boasting about the extent of my illegal activities is never something that seemed appealing.


not to sharp is she


----------



## TheNevadanStig (Apr 28, 2014)

I guess an old hotel might be a little different, but not a good idea to trespass anywhere there is a castle law.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 29, 2014)

Break the law, repeatedly, then brag about it on social media AND publish photos that identify where you broke the law. Pure genius.


----------



## mmaria (Apr 29, 2014)

Marketing perhaps?


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 29, 2014)

mmaria said:


> Marketing perhaps?



But for what end? She specializes in wedding and pretty general family photography. The last thing I want to read when looking for a photographer is how they got fined for trespassing BECAUSE of their photos.

Now, if she just wanted exposure for her photos than I guess it could be marketing...

She's also getting a lot of support on FB right now too. Like, "Wow that's awesome," and the most recent:

"nice! Made my day...'Marinello quipped during a telephone interview'...I can just hear you speaking to the journalist.  "

I wish I could get that much support for getting caught trespassing and evading the police (because of my own trail of bread crumbs).

I guess I'm just not sassy and whimsical enough.


----------



## mmaria (Apr 29, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Now, if she just wanted exposure for her photos than I guess it could be marketing...
> 
> She's also getting a lot of support on FB right now too. Like, "Wow that's awesome," and the most recent:
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I thought. She'll get support and exposure.
I'm with you here, I don't support this kind of behavior - I would certainly enter that hotel, because of my personal curiosity and experience, but I wouldn't post pictures on Social Networks. She knew what she was doing for sure.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 29, 2014)

mmaria said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if she just wanted exposure for her photos than I guess it could be marketing...
> ...



I will never fully understand internet/gen-y culture, partly because the line between bravery and...stupidity has become so blurred.

It wouldn't bug me so much, I guess, if she wasn't so smug about it. "I guess I'm officially a street artist with my first citation."

Sweet Jesus I wish people would stop being such try-hards. Just show your work and stop trying to convince people that you're so totally awesome.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 29, 2014)

article is stupid, girl is stupid; wasted my time.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 29, 2014)

It says she'd doing a book... so I have to wonder if all the posting was to get people to follow her. This doesn't touch on using the property to photograph and then publish the photos - do you suppose she got a property release from the owner? (I'd be surprised if she did since she trespassed repeatedly.) 

I think if someone wanted to do this it would be possible to contact the owners especially since it's a historic building that's going to be restored. There might have been some interest in having a photographer record the restoration process etc.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 29, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> It says she'd doing a book... so I have to wonder if all the posting was to get people to follow her. This doesn't touch on using the property to photograph and then publish the photos - do you suppose she got a property release from the owner? (I'd be surprised if she did since she trespassed repeatedly.)
> 
> I think if someone wanted to do this it would be possible to contact the owners especially since it's a historic building that's going to be restored. There might have been some interest in having a photographer record the restoration process etc.


bingo. she totally went about this the wrong way. she must be blond. Chances are all she had to do was ask permission and she might have even been paid for it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 29, 2014)

"I&#8217;m Crazy, but sometimes that&#8217;s not even enough.&#8221;  so I added in stupid - and it worked.


----------



## ronlane (Apr 29, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> mmaria said:
> 
> 
> > Marketing perhaps?
> ...



Marketing for the book, if she can get it published. All the support and people will be curious about what's in the book and probably buy it. It's a plan, probably not the best one but it is a plan.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 29, 2014)

ronlane said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > mmaria said:
> ...



But now that it has been brought to light, I imagine it would be harder to get it published, wouldn't it?

She attained the photos illegally and now she wants to profit from them...wouldn't the building owners have some sort of day in it?

Doesn't she need a property release


----------



## ronlane (Apr 29, 2014)

rexbobcat, I'm not a lawyer but believe you are correct. That's why I said it was a plan but probably not the best one.

I don't know anything about it but it sounds to me like the place has changed ownership because of the "its proposed renovation" statement. It may be a chance to go get the release you need, oh and permission to continue to shoot the rest of it.

I don't know what she is/was thinking but I know it's not worth a fine that she got.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 29, 2014)

ronlane said:


> rexbobcat, I'm not a lawyer but believe you are correct. That's why I said it was a plan but probably not the best one.



Well I'm not a lawyer either, but I have run a few of them down with my car. But yup, to make sure your not going to wind up in front of a judge somewhere you should probably get a property release first. 



> I don't know anything about it but it sounds to me like the place has changed ownership because of the "its proposed renovation" statement. It may be a chance to go get the release you need, oh and permission to continue to shoot the rest of it.




Well personally I hope the current owner (however that might be) turns her down flat. This sort of stupidity just shouldn't be encouraged.



> I don't know what she is/was thinking but I know it's not worth a fine that she got.



She was being edgy.  I guess some people just don't understand that if you have to go out of your way and put effort into being edgy, your not edgy.  Sad, really.


----------



## Civchic (Apr 29, 2014)

_&#8220;When I go to these places, I don&#8217;t leave something behind like &#8216;I was here,&#8217;&#8221; Marinello said. &#8220;The only thing I take are the images. &#8230; I have a lot of respect for these places.&#8221;
Read more here: Photographer busted in Baker Hotel through social media | Crime and Safety | News from F...
_

FTA - Dude.  You have NO respect for the property owner, or the building itself.  I'm a buy, renovate, rent property owner and this kind of stuff gives me chills.  My husband's boss is a MAJOR re-developer (currently about to open (as condos) a hotel a lot like the one in the article, and just starting a Sanitorium renovation) and everytime some photog or urbex guy goes in, he leaves an opening for animals and squatters to go in and do more damage.  And if they get hurt or killed when a floor board gives way or a ceiling or wall collapses, or a fire is started - oh hey, that's OUR insurance.  

Get permission, get access, have a representative there to make sure you arse is safe.  Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you know where it's safe to step.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 29, 2014)

ronlane said:


> rexbobcat, I'm not a lawyer but believe you are correct. That's why I said it was a plan but probably not the best one.
> 
> I don't know anything about it but it sounds to me like the place has changed ownership because of the "its proposed renovation" statement. It may be a chance to go get the release you need, oh and permission to continue to shoot the rest of it.
> 
> I don't know what she is/was thinking but I know it's not worth a fine that she got.


if it were me, i wouldn't be to concerned with the fine. it isn't much or a big deal. i would be worried about everyone thinking i was a total idiot...


----------



## ronlane (Apr 29, 2014)

bribrius said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat, I'm not a lawyer but believe you are correct. That's why I said it was a plan but probably not the best one.
> ...



In my line of work (day job), I have to be concerned with the fine more so than what people think. I like to eat and that requires money for food and without a job, there is no money, hence, no food........


----------



## bribrius (Apr 29, 2014)

ronlane said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...



so true....


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 29, 2014)

So now she'll get to pay a fine _and_ have people thinking she's a total idiot - bonus! 

Seems like she didn't exactly make the best decisions when doing this. I agree Civchic, the property owner could be stuck with any damage or insurance claims because of people being on the property - especially of an abandoned building that probably isn't currently up to code.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 29, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> So now she'll get to pay a fine _and_ have people thinking she's a total idiot - bonus!



Now, VS - lets be fair about this. I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought she was a total idiot long before she ever got fined.. lol..



> Seems like she didn't exactly make the best decisions when doing this. I agree Civchic, the property owner could be stuck with any damage or insurance claims because of people being on the property - especially of an abandoned building that probably isn't currently up to code.



Not to mention the fact that this is just the sort of twit who would trespass, get hurt, then sue the property owner claiming that they were "negligent" because they made it too easy to break in. Sigh.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 29, 2014)

There's so much self-deprecating humblebragging going on on her Facebook. 

"seriously. 7 newspaper articles and 1 TV interview in 28 hours? I think I need to sleep."

She's trying to act like she's not happy to be in this situation...but her facade is pretty thin. She's looooooving it.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 29, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't know what she is/was thinking but I know it's not worth a fine that she got.
> ...


----------

