# How do you conquer "no trespassing" signs?



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

There are a few places that I want to capture, some places that apparently I'm not allowed to go. I could shoot from beyond the fence, but I won't get the angle and POV that I want. Now, I know it's very frowned upon in this establishment to just go ahead and say "eff that sign, I'm getting my shot" but that's not me. I have a squeaky clean record and can't have a single mark for a couple of my accounts. 

How do you get past this situation? Honesty and sincerity are appreciated, but snarky, smart ass remarks will also be considered.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 30, 2012)

Try just asking the owner of the property for permission.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

That's one problem that I've encountered...some of these properties have no information whatsoever on who the owner is, and some don't even have actual contact information for whatever real estate agency has a sign outside. I'll share an example of this in a bit.


----------



## EIngerson (Dec 30, 2012)

Should be public information.


----------



## runnah (Dec 30, 2012)

Most places are worried about vandals and teens drinking than a guy with a camera. If we are talking abandoned places, go for it. Any workibg industrial or government places are a big no-no.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

runnah said:


> Most places are worried about vandals and teens drinking than a guy with a camera.


I'll agree with that, but trespassing is trespassing, GWAC or 16 year old with a 1/5 of bourbon.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

EIngerson said:


> Should be public information.


That is an excellent point. Another issue I've come across is this: some properties don't have an address or lot number posted, what happens there?


----------



## runnah (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Most places are worried about vandals and teens drinking than a guy with a camera.
> ...



Intent goes a long way. Be polite and explain and you should be fine. Remember that nothing is illegal until you get caught.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

runnah said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Yea.. sure! Like RAPE.. if you don't get caught, it's ok, right?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> That is an excellent point. Another issue I've come across is this: some properties don't have an address or lot number posted, what happens there?



 All that information is public.... available at the county courthouse.


----------



## runnah (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > thetrue said:
> ...



You just defiled my joke. Guilty!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > thetrue said:
> ...



Yeah, entering an abandoned place with a camera is hardly unethical. Just leave everything as it was.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

runnah said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



You forgot to use the JOKE font!


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

480sparky said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> > That is an excellent point. Another issue I've come across is this: some properties don't have an address or lot number posted, what happens there?
> ...


"I wanna know the information on that empty lot on Old Rt13 in Morrisville" they reply "Which one?".............."uhhhhhhhh, ya know, the one across the street from the one with the tree...?" 

Get where I'm going with this?


----------



## Dliwevad (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > Should be public information.
> ...



There will be a record or description of it  Should be able to look it up at the courthouse. Any property will have a deed recorded at your county courthouse that can point you in the direction of an owner. Somebody is paying taxes on it....


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



And if you fall down, go boom? Who is responsible for saving your stupid butt, and paying your healthcare bills? Ah... the PROPERTY OWNER.. thats who, even though you were ILLEGALLY trespassing, The Owner gets the shaft! Because in our society, you could probably sue and win... how stupid is that?

So  you are saying it is not UNETHICAL to ignore NO TRESSPASSING SIGNS?


----------



## Mully (Dec 30, 2012)

There is something NOT funny about rape... think about it.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

Charlie, you just have me motivation to ignore the signs! Free money for an illegally broken ankle! Sweeeet!


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Mully said:


> There is something NOT funny about rape... think about it.



I agree totally! And how many property owners have been financially RAPED by idiots that injured themselves while trespassing? I used to ride ambulances... it happens more often then you think. Most of the time it is adolescents... or druggies... sometimes in places even the homeless are too smart to go!


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

Unpopular, is that what you do?


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

Kids are so dumb sometimes


----------



## pic_chick (Dec 30, 2012)

mile markers or miles from an intersection, Google map overhead view, county maps will show property lines I have had luck with "I need info on the land behind the marks farm on cr9 the lot I believe butts cr12 about 3 miles from the intersection of cr2 and cr12 "
Go around to the nearest house and ask folks in the woods KNOW who's land is who's most of the time

Just a heads up it is hunting season so be near the road going into the woods before dawn by about an hour and you may get to meet the owner as the go in to hunt. Also after dark when they come out.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> "I wanna know the information on that empty lot on Old Rt13 in Morrisville" they reply "Which one?".............."uhhhhhhhh, ya know, the one across the street from the one with the tree...?"
> 
> Get where I'm going with this?



They make things called plat maps.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



That is just the most *STUPID* thing I've ever heard. You don't have to sue the property owner, and if you're insured then you can opt to pay the bill yourself to avoid it - not that it really matters if you violated trespassing signs.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

Guess I have to go to the stupid courthouse then. 45 minute drive to find out who owns the property 5 minutes from my house. Smh


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> Guess I have to go to the stupid courthouse then. 45 minute drive to find out who owns the property 5 minutes from my house. Smh



Try online search first.  Find the county web site.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> Unpopular, is that what you do?



yeah. i don't really appreciate that.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



How many of the people that trespass are insured, do you think? The vast majority? Or hardly any of them? And will a Insurance company cover injuries suffered during unethical, illegal, risk-taking behavior?

If some 16 year old stoner see you, the illustrious insured photographer, climbing a fence to go shoot in dangerous area, is he going to walk away? Or is he going to think, "Wow.. must be something cool there... need to check it out!"

Oh.. and you didn't answer the 2ND PART of my Question :* "So  you are saying it is not UNETHICAL to ignore NO TRESSPASSING SIGNS?"*


----------



## Tuffythepug (Dec 30, 2012)

confession time.     While I no longer use this tactic it used to be pretty common for me to treat those "no trespassing" signs as more of a suggestion than a commandment.  If I needed to get to a good fishing hole or photo vantage point I simply ignored the no trespassing sign and went ahead.   For the record, I never left a piece of trash or any evidence that I had been there.  If there was a gate with a padlock I used a pickset that I had with me to pick the lock.   I was legally permitted to carry one for my work, by the way.
But that was then and this is now..    Today  I would not intrude into an area where I was not welcome under any circumstances.    If I can't get permission I forget about it.
I think that's probably the best policy.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

Don't really appreciate what? I'm asking if you ignore the sign, do your thing, and leave? I'll assume you would take care of whatever might happen while you're there, you seem like a decent person.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



None of this quite literally has ANYTHING to do with trespassing. Anything *at all*. There's nothing forcing you to sue the land owner.

Perhaps suing a landowner for your stupidity is immoral (though it's unlikely you'd win), but this is not the same act as trespassing.

If I got hurt trespassing, I wouldn't sue the land owner, and I'd like to believe I'd try to prevent my insurance company from doing so.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> Don't really appreciate what? I'm asking if you ignore the sign, do your thing, and leave? I'll assume you would take care of whatever might happen while you're there, you seem like a decent person.



Sorry, I was confused by the context. If I was feeling adventuous, I would. It's not like you're going to get a record for misdemeanor trespassing. I'm not sure I've even ever heard of anyone getting into too much trouble, unless it's like public transportation facilities, sewers, etc.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



And if your injuries cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars? And you won't even walk again without expensive surgery that YOU can't afford? Sorry... I find it difficult to believe you wouldn't sue!


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


On one hand, I agree with your 16 year old stoner scenario, but on the hand I feel like that 16 year old stoner really shouldn't be your responsibility. His mom didn't ask me to make sure he's being good, and sneakily doing his own thing in a bush doesn't warrant my liability at all.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

My main point is that is illegal to trespass.. whether you get caught or not. Whether you get injured or not. 

I have already lost venues I used to shoot in.. because of IDIOTS with cameras that just figured it would be ok. They didn't ask, they didn't get permits, they didn't pay that small fee... etc. They ignored the signs. As photographers, Do we really want to be part of the problem... and create negative feeling that will affect future photographers?


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



And if it is YOUR land that he is trespassing on? When he falls on that sharp pipe, or in the deep hole? I hope you are well insured.. he may not sue, but his parents will!!!! lol!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Either way, that's not trespassing, that's what I decide to do with the consequences of my trespassing. If i did sue, perhaps that would be unethical. As a rule, I typically don't agree with the whole attractive nuisance doctrine.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



But maybe it is a GOOD REASON not to trespass??


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> thetrue said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



The reason why you can sue in the first place is because the law places some responsibility on property owners to maintain their property. I don't always necessarily agree, but I think there is sense in it. Doesn't the landowner have a responsibility to upkeep their property such that it doesn't attract stoner kids, junkies and photographers, or, in the very least ensure that absolutely nobody may enter if it's THAT dangerous?

Like I said, I see the point, but IMO the violation of trespass over shadows the landowners' responsibility.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > thetrue said:
> ...



Not in a courtroom, with sleazy, money hungry lawyers wanting their huge cut!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Perhaps. Like I said, I don't really trespass.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Never said you did! lol!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Unfortunately, no. But it is more complicated than you're making it out to be, and simply because you get hurt doesn't automatically guarantee you'll win the lawsuit either.

A settlement, otoh, might be pretty likely.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...



Yea.. which still screws the land / property owner, as his insurance rates will go up... and they will probably be forced to spend a lot of money trying even harder to prevent the trespassing which they weren't responsible for, in the first place.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

I'm well insured, I need to be to protect my business, and I have a few layers of legal protection before anyone can get to my bank account with a lawsuit, I understand your argument though Charlie 

Unpopular, you do make a good point though, the consequences of your trespassing would outweigh the fact that you trespassed in the first place. And a misdemeanor may actually screw up one if my accounts.....it's a government thing, and they sure do pay


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

thetrue said:


> I'm well insured, I need to be to protect my business, and I have a few layers of legal protection before anyone can get to my bank account with a lawsuit, I understand your argument though Charlie
> 
> Unpopular, you do make a good point though, the consequences of your trespassing would outweigh the fact that you trespassed in the first place. And* a misdemeanor may actually screw up one if my accounts.....it's a government thing, and they sure do pay *



Good point! Even if they are not injured, a trespasser can still be charged and jailed, and have it placed on their permanent record!

And if the land / property owner is malicious, the trespasser can be charged with any damage that has occurred on the property, whether they did it or not! See that happen too!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Anyway. I'm going to go check out this location - not sure if there are any no trespassing signs or not, but it appears at least connected to the park to the north:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=45.807648,+-108.684043


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

Looks like an interesting spot...what is there?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

I've only seen it from above, on the cliffs. I don't really know. It could be a house, it could be a bunker, it could be some old agricultural facility.

Periodically people build houses underneath these cliffs. They like the boulders and stuff. It doesn't seem to occur to them that those boulders weren't just put there that way by god. They fell there. And needless to say, rockslide insurance underneath cliffs bearing 3' wide cracks is a bit pricy. Speaking of lawsuits ... dumb stoner kids smoking weed in abandoned buildings aren't the only ones, recently a boulder crashed through someone's living room and they tried to sue the city. In some of these neighborhoods, it's not a matter of "if" but when. One cliff is sheering at a rate of about an inch/year.

The building is directly on a path that leads to a popular park which ends on W. 70th, so I don't know if it's part of the park or not. Judging by the footpaths, it looks like it's a pretty popular place to explore, though.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 30, 2012)

Lets see some Fredrico style shots from that place lol


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

fredrico?


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 30, 2012)

unpopular said:


> fredrico?



I think he means Invisible (Federico)!


----------



## texkam (Dec 30, 2012)

So when taxpayer emergency services have to respond and put themselves at risk to rescue/transport/airlift your trespassing a$$, are you going to reimburse?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 30, 2012)

Skiing is an unnecessary risk, also. Mountain climbing, tackle football... With common sense and skill, you can explore abandoned places just as safely as any other high risk activity.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

Yes, I was speaking of Invisible. 

I think that you have a good point. Common sense can play a very important role in if you do choose to explore.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 31, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Skiing is an unnecessary risk, also. Mountain climbing, tackle football... With common sense and skill, you can explore abandoned places just as safely as any other high risk activity.



Except those activities aren't illegal! Trespassing is!


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2012)

I don't personally violate No Trespassing signs.

If I really wanted to shoot something behind one of those signs, I'd do everything I could to contact the property owner, explain my desire to shoot, and agree to abide by their rules on the property and sign a waiver of liability for them.  If I still couldn't get them to agree, I'd move on with my life.


----------



## texkam (Dec 31, 2012)

> With common sense and skill, you can explore abandoned places just as safely as any other high risk activity.


Perhaps, but as the old saying goes .... It's all fun and games until someone loses a wiener. Skiing, mountain climbing, tackle football, are one thing, but when someone has to risk life and limb to haul your sorry a$$ out because you were somewhere you weren't supposed to be, that's when I have a problem. IMHO, get permission or move on.


----------



## jim84 (Dec 31, 2012)

I think some people here are confusing ethics with law. Not the same thing...:er:

Example, 2008... Banks... Legal.... I believe so... Ethical... Yeah right.



texkam said:


> > With common sense and skill, you can explore abandoned places just as safely as any other high risk activity.
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but as the old saying goes .... It's all fun and games until someone loses a wiener. Skiing, mountain climbing, tackle football, are one thing, but when someone has to risk life and limb to haul your sorry a$$ out because you were somewhere you weren't supposed to be, that's when I have a problem. IMHO, get permission or move on.



A ski hill can be a much more dangerous location for a rescue than some abandoned field with interesting tree's the bank repo'd from some broke farmer and slapped a no trespassing sign on.

I am not suggesting violating the no trespassing signs, I am just suggesting some of these arguments are a little silly.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

I agree with Jim here. My "no trespassing" subjects - I wouldn't be entering the buildings or anything, I don't even know what might be inside. There's one that looks all beat up and is obviously abandoned, but I like the shape of the building, the whole feel of the scene, and how the overgrown stuff outside looks growing up the building. Most of them I really want to do at night though because they'd look fabulous with 15 or so images stacked.


----------



## texkam (Dec 31, 2012)

> A ski hill can be a much more dangerous location for a rescue than some abandoned field with interesting tree's the bank repo'd from some broke farmer and slapped a no trespassing sign on.


Agreed, but the sign is still there for a reason. For one to make a decision to ignore it based on whether one thinks it's there for good reason or not is silly as well. It's tough enough that emergency folks have to put themselves out there for legit accidents in legal circumstances, but to possibly put someone at risk because you're making a choice to ignore a law? Sorry, uncool.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2012)

texkam said:


> > A ski hill can be a much more dangerous location for a rescue than some abandoned field with interesting tree's the bank repo'd from some broke farmer and slapped a no trespassing sign on.
> 
> 
> Agreed, but the sign is still there for a reason. For one to make a decision to ignore it based on whether one thinks it's there for good reason or not is silly as well. It's tough enough that emergency folks have to put themselves out there for legit accidents in legal circumstances, but to possibly put someone at risk because you're making a choice to ignore a law? Sorry, uncool.


While I've already clearly stated that I'm not one to violate "No Trespassing" signs, I have to ask at this point...

Any statistics on how often this happens; That someone violating a "No Trespassing" sign gets injured to the point of needing emergency personnel assistance, AND those emergency personnel have to respond INTO an actually DANGEROUS situation because of it?  An abandoned building is not necessarily a dangerous situation, especially to trained emergency personnel.  It's not like abandoned buildings are usually on fire or wired with explosives or caving in and collapsing - they're just abandoned and have a lot of paint peeling and dust everywhere.

I ask because, frankly, your argument sounds like nothing more than purely hypothetical, overblown hyperbole, slippery-slope fallacy bullspit - no offence.

It also occurs to me that emergency personnel have signed up for a fairly risky job in the first place and therefore train for dangerous situations, so it should be no surprise that they sometimes find themselves IN such situations.

Reality is a fun place.  Give it a try.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

I believe that's the point that unpopular was trying to stress. I'm agreeing with that point, Buckster. 

What about signs that say something to the tune of "Closed sunset - sunrise"? They're clearly not abandoned and stepping on the property is not trespassing, how do you (plural) feel about this?


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2012)

thetrue said:


> I believe that's the point that unpopular was trying to stress. I'm agreeing with that point, Buckster.
> 
> What about signs that say something to the tune of "Closed sunset - sunrise"? They're clearly not abandoned and stepping on the property is not trespassing, how do you (plural) feel about this?


I actually dealt with that situation once, back in 1988.

My reaction to the sign was to flag down a passing cop car and ask permission to go in strictly to shoot photos.  They questioned me, examined my gear, asked if it was for amateur or professional use to which I answered "amateur" whereupon they explained that had I said "professional" they'd have referred me to city hall for a permit to get it done.

They then said I had 15 minutes to get in, shoot, and get back out, where they'd be waiting to make sure I did.  I thanked them, complied, and got this shot (among others) of the GW Bridge between Jersey and Harlem:


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

1988 was a much different time when it was still (almost) safe to hitchhike. These days, and with the cocky cops that are around these parts, I might get cavity searched for asking.


----------



## texkam (Dec 31, 2012)

> An abandoned building is not necessarily a dangerous situation


Perhaps, but just as easily, an abandoned building can also be a very unpredictable and dangerous situation due to structural or wiring issues, for example. It's a crapshoot. Sure, call it hypothetical, overblown hyperbole, slippery-slope fallacy bullspit. Fair enough, and yes it is true emergency personnel have signed up for a fairly risky job in the first place, but I just think it's incredibly selfish and disrespectful to make a decision that could put someone else at risk, even if it is remote, in order for you to get a shot. Is it really worth it? Me thinks not. Not the way I roll, but YMMV.


----------



## Tony S (Dec 31, 2012)

.. and why does it take a no trespassing sign to keep someone off of private property?  If it ain't yours and the owner didn't give expressed permission then stay the hell out.  I have a real problem with 78 acres up in the hills where people are constantly coming into the property "to see what was there" or "I dind't know it was private property".  If you don't know, don't go.  And yes, there are signs and even Forest Service boundary markers, but they go around them giving the excuse that they didn't see them. Lately the sheriffs department has been doing a wonderful job of giving out tickets and hauled two guys off for outstanding warrants.

  I wouldn't give a rats ass why someone has crossed my boundaries, taking pictures or not, you are trespassing.  If you want to use the property, buy it or get permission.  In this day and age of GPS and GIS mapping there is no reason not to know who owns property.

  Stay off private property without permission. Posted or not.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

texkam said:


> > An abandoned building is not necessarily a dangerous situation
> 
> 
> Perhaps, but just as easily, an abandoned building can also be a very unpredictable and dangerous situation due to structural or wiring issues, for example. It's a crapshoot. Sure, call it hypothetical, overblown hyperbole, slippery-slope fallacy bullspit. Fair enough, and yes it is true emergency personnel have signed up for a fairly risky job in the first place, but I just think it's incredibly selfish and disrespectful to make a decision that could put someone else at risk, even if it is remote, in order for you to get a shot. Is it really worth it? Me thinks not. Not the way I roll, but YMMV.



It can, but more often it's a liability thing. The property owner does not have control over the property. If a bunch of kids smoke some weed and decide it'd be fun to burn the place down, taking with it neighboring property, the landowner can be held responsible. Ultimately the property owner is responsible for the site, including what happens inside it - including people falling through floors, setting fires, raping school girls - whatever - legally it's the landowner's responsibility. Just as if you allowed people into your house and didn't keep an eye on them, it being abandoned doesn't really matter.

A "No Trespassing Sign" is basically saying "No, you're not allowed to be here and no matter what you're doing here I don't condone or permit". I don't really know how effective a No Trespassing sign is on a legal standpoint, Gipson seems to think you can just ignore them and sue anyway - I have my doubts it's as easy as that - but I also wouldn't be surprised if they're not rock solid either, and probably only offer one line of defense in an Attractive Nuisance case.

There are some odd things, I've been told by an attorney that "Beware of Dogs" signs essentially say "Yeah, I know my dog is dangerous" so if it ever escapes and bites someone, the first thing the attorney will say is "See, you knew your dog is dangerous". I'd imagine the same could go for "Danger" signs - and an attorney would argue that the structure should have been demolished.

I'm a bit torn, you know. On one side I really do think landowners shouldn't be permitted to sit on delapitated buildings which attract youth, the homeless and crime - I can't hardly blame a homeless person from using an abandoned building when shelters are frequently full - but at the same time I can't logically reason liability to the landowner when people knowingly violate trespassing signs.

And what about when trespassing is common? I do frequently trespass on the irrigation ditch right of way, everyone does. The no trespassing signs are rusted and barely legible, and haven't been repaired for decades, property owners have even maintained their yards, illegally, right up to the canal. The only reason I know it's still trespassing is because I've known people (unsavory looking types) who have reported that the police have given trespassing warnings. But I've never known ANYONE to actually get in trouble, and it seems the police only enforce it if they are either bored or think you're drunk. Shouldn't property owners have to make maintain their signage, and the police equally enforce trespassing? Why is it that if you own a house that sits next to the canal you can set up a lawn chair and a garden, but if you're homeless you can't even walk along it?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

Tony S said:


> .. and why does it take a no trespassing sign to keep someone off of private property?  If it ain't yours and the owner didn't give expressed permission then stay the hell out.  I have a real problem with 78 acres up in the hills where people are constantly coming into the property "to see what was there" or "I dind't know it was private property".



78 acres of wilderness is a different thing from an abandoned mill. You're preserving the environment and resources, perhaps raising some cattle all the while having a piece of paradise all to yourself. A dilapidated building in a crowded urban area is a waste of resources and is damaging to the environment and surrounding property values. Nothing is being maintained, preserved or protected, except liability.

So I don't feel a photographer entering illegally is at any kind of moral question. At least not until he starts suing or behaving irresponsibly. Granted, the law might say otherwise - but trespassing laws were meant to protect people like you, not irresponsible property owners who willingly refuse to maintain an unsafe structure.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

Tony, I'm by no means talking about a large lot such as yours, but broken and run down properties that do nothing but sit there, rotting and have been untouched for years. You won't see that in your case, simply because its your land, your property that you own and actively maintain. What I do see a lot of (particularly around me) is buildings that were formerly used for thriving businesses in the 60's through the early 90's that once abandoned have only received the treatment of a "For sale or lease" sign, if even that much. For example, one of the steel mills that was in action until 1990, then closed promptly and hasn't been so much as looked at from inside the gate since. The former parking lot is now a small jungle, and despite its rough appearance, I'd love to go inside those gates, get close to the building and take some photos of what used to be the second largest employer in the county. 

I personally don't have any idea who might own the property and honestly, with that much time of neglect, I wouldn't go near it unless I had EMS standing by. I wasn't implying that myself or anyone SHOULD circumvent the "system," but rather how many people actually do, and how those who enjoy the risk do so. 

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, sir.


----------



## jim84 (Dec 31, 2012)

I don't believe it is trespassing from a legal standpoint to be on someones land if no signs are posted (or barriers to entry), until the point they ask you to leave, and you refuse. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.

How about the local city property across the road from my apartment, it's controlled by the parks and rec dept, but mainly it's an open public square, with a fountain, benches, lamps, library, city hall, police, fire, etc. The signs stated it is closed at dusk or something. It also says no bicycles. Am I unethical for riding my bike through there during the day? What about strolling through at night?

Why does a deer get a free pass? A crow, squirrel, snake? Is there something unethical about being human, our simple presence is unethical?

How about this for ethics(I am asking those with the apparent black and white standpoint that whatever the law says is ethical), what about photographers, videographers, or journalists who sneak in and capture footage, images, or proof of inhumane treatment of animals on factory farms? This is definitely illegal, but is it ethical?



I just don't understand this simple view that whatever the law says is what is right. I guess maybe I'm not conservative enough... Hah.


----------



## Tony S (Dec 31, 2012)

Why would it matter whether it's a large lot, a small plot in town, or an abandoned building?  It's not yours, you have not paid for the right to go there, and you don't have permission.

  In many places it is not a requirement to post no trespassing signs, it's up to the individual to know that where they are going is open and available to them, otherwise stay out.

  Since your house is there with no signs on it and looks interesting perhaps you won't mind people sneaking in to take pictures?  After all, they aren't going to hurt anything by just coming in to take pictures.

OK, I'm over this post since we know that those who are going to void the property rights of others because they don't feel it applies to them don't give a **** and will do what they want anyways.  It's almost like big brother and the government coming in and taking away the rights of property owners, but even worse since it's from your "supposed" fellow man.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

Tony S said:


> Why would it matter whether it's a large lot, a small plot in town, or an abandoned building?  It's not yours, you have not paid for the right to go there, and you don't have permission.



IMO irresponsible owners loose that privilege when they neglect their property. If a land owner has no respect for the community, why should the community respect the land owner?


----------



## amolitor (Dec 31, 2012)

Cool, so I can just take any cameras you're not using, or where you're not keeping them maintained to my standard? Sweet. I'll be right over. Some time when you're out.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2012)

How to *conquer* no trespassing signs? Why...it's simple!!!!


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

Tony either you're reading things out of context or your post isn't directed at me, because clearly you're not referring to what I've stated. 

If someone walks through my yard and takes a photo, how does that effect my life? It doesn't. Not even a little. THAT would be the equivalent to what I'm saying.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Cool, so I can just take any cameras you're not using, or where you're not keeping them maintained to my standard? Sweet. I'll be right over. Some time when you're out.



Don't be ridiculous. Taking photos on land who's property owners abandoned structures, who likely don't pay taxes or insurance and just wait for the tax payers to come and condemn the place and knock it over is NOT the same thing as you snatching up any unused cameras and keeping them!

All I am saying is that land owners do have some responsibilities in this issue. They aren't wholly "innocent victims of trespassing".


----------



## Parker219 (Dec 31, 2012)

Like this if you think they have over analyzed this WAY too much.

Its simple, if there is a no trespassing sign, get permission or find a new place to take pictures from.

6 pages?!? So far!


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

Parker219 said:


> Like this if you think they have over analyzed this WAY too much.
> 
> Its simple, if there is a no trespassing sign, get permission or find a new place to take pictures from.
> 
> 7 pages?!? So far!


Lol


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 31, 2012)

True confessions, I've "not seen" more then a few signs in my days. I used to spend a lot of time roaming around the old coal mines in the Pa Coal regions. Most of it is posted by the big coal companies for liability reasons. I certainly know it's illegal to do so, but I've entered on many occasions. I would certainly only do it in locations that have been abandoned for decades, but I realize it doesn't make it any more legal.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

I have ZERO sympathy for any property owner who gets butt hurt about trespassing if there is no fence or signs. None at all. I'll leave if approached, but - even if you may not be legally required to in order to enforce - if there's no signs and you're adjacent to an area with public access you better expect to chase off trespassers.

Oh, and BTW - if you shoot at me and I didn't see a sign, you may as well hand over some of your land to me now, because WILL get sued.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 31, 2012)

I don't conquer "No Trespassing" signs, I respect them.


----------



## Mully (Dec 31, 2012)

If there are posted no trespassing you can get arrested and property owners do press charges.  Here in NC dear hunters think they can go any place they please.... I got threatened one year by several guys with rifles who were on my property.... they were not nice ,I put up signs, they came back I had them arrested and pressed charges for being dicks about it.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

Any ideas what the actual penalties typically are, I have a hard time seeing them being shipped off to the big house...


----------



## Mully (Dec 31, 2012)

I let my pair go with community service ...25 hrs each....the judge wanted to give them 3 months... they have family I could not do that.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

Three months?! I guess it was pretty aggravated, being that they came back after you told them to leave, ignoring newly erected signs and threatening you in the presence of firearms.

In Wyoming they had this really great optional program called Land Share, where property owners would get some sort of tax benefits if they permitted limited access. The program is a big success, and opened up a lot of land to the public.

---

The general public aren't the only ones who act in a less than ethical way when it comes to land access. There's also a big problem with public land lease holders and adjacent property owners putting up "private property" signs on public land, or locking access gates. I've even heard of ranchers shooing off hunters and hikers at gunpoint on land that they don't actually own.


----------



## invisible (Dec 31, 2012)

What constitutes "trespassing" varies from province to province here in Canada, and it looks like it varies from state to state in the U.S. as well. Here's a pretty good resource: Trespass Law - US - Thread - Urban Exploration Resource

I assume a no-trespassing sign is a no-go everywhere, with penalties. Penalties can vary wildly from one province/state to the next, so it's key to familiarize oneself with the local trespassing laws. Manitoba trespassing laws are very friendly, so the photo-fun never ends around here. On the other hand, I understand that in some U.S. states the owner has the legal right to shoot you if s/he catches you trespassing  don't quote me on this, though. 

Jeff, even though most times it's difficult to identify/locate the owner, in my experience it's not uncommon that the owner is the guy who lives right next door. (Then again, I only shoot in the countryside, so I don't know if this is also true in urban areas.) We typically keep driving when we see a no-trespassing sign, but if the property looks really cool then we don't hesitate to knock on the neighbour's door. If they are indeed the owner, they are happy to let you enter their property more often than not, unless they believe it's dangerous. What they love is the fact that a couple guys with cool-looking gear (a tripod is key!) want to photograph their beloved eyesore. Offering them a print of the resulting photo can be a dealbreaker, so keep that card in your backpocket, along with personal cards.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

For countryside adventures, I could see that being the case. I'm speaking more of urban and industrial suburban areas though. 

The tripod trick, though, may come in VERY handy.


----------



## invisible (Dec 31, 2012)

thetrue said:


> The tripod trick, though, may come in VERY handy.


It also doubles as a weapon


----------



## MSnowy (Dec 31, 2012)

I turn around and leave. If it's not yours leave it alone.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 31, 2012)

how is it that there are people here that are very  much against copyright infringement and illegal downloading/use of software, but are totally ok with trespassing? using the argument that you didnt leave any clues that you were there to justify breaking the law is just as ridiculous as saying you are using a hacked copy of photoshop because you "would have never bought it anyway". just because it appears to be a "victimless" crime does not make it any less against the law. would  you want me in your house photographing your totally awesome living room set that I just HAVE to get a picture of, while  you were gone,  as long as you never knew I was there?
trespassing is trespassing.


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 31, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Don't you consider it far more likely to have that kind of accident crossing a street?  You could trip on a pothole and hurl yourself in front of a car.  Do you find it unethical to cross the street?  I mean think of what could happen!

Do you think it's unethical for uninsured people to cross the street?


----------



## nycphotography (Dec 31, 2012)

thetrue said:


> 1988 was a much different time when it was still (almost) safe to hitchhike. These days, and with the cocky cops that are around these parts, I might get cavity searched for asking.



Ironic that the pre '98 threat was from one side of the law while the post '01 threat is from the other.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

In all likelihood it is much more likely that an insurance company would be the one to think about lawsuits, not the individual. Insurance companies are probably instrumental in the majority of all negligence cases.


----------



## runnah (Dec 31, 2012)

Abandoned and unused properties use no trespassing signs to cover the property owners asses incase some dumbass gets hurt.


----------



## ratssass (Dec 31, 2012)

*No Trespassing! *....hmmmm,wonder if that applies to me.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

I love TPF! You guys always make me giggle a little.


----------



## texkam (Dec 31, 2012)

People ignore watermarks.

^That should be good for another six pages.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 31, 2012)

Watermarks aren't ignorable!


----------



## texkam (Dec 31, 2012)

After all that photo was on on a really crappy website that wasn't being maintained very well.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 31, 2012)

Watermarks on No Trespassing signs are a good way to keep them from being stolen.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 31, 2012)

texkam said:


> After all that photo was on on a really crappy website that wasn't being maintained very well.



Welcome to the Exaggeration and Non Sequitur Forums, where debates are won on the basis of stupidity!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jan 1, 2013)

I kinda skimmed through but earlier in the thread there was some discussion regarding tracking down land owners.  I use a eGIS website for that kind of stuff.  I can find any public info on any property I want and search by several different means, or even by map.  Find the owner's name, the address their tax bill gets sent to, how much they paid for the property and how much they pay in property taxes as well as links to any other property they own.  Handy stuff.  The site I use is Indiana specific so it won't help you but my county clerk's office is who told me about it.


----------

