I've seen some amazing night shots taken in abandoned buildings, junkyards, etc.where the photographers managed to sneak-in (trespassing). My question is can a photographer be arrested for trespassing based on the evidence of the photograph itself (with intact EXIF showing date/time)? Just curious. Anybody know?
jcbenner wrote:
I've seen some amazing night shots taken in abandoned buildings, junkyards, etc.where the photographers managed to sneak-in (trespassing). My question is can a photographer be arrested for trespassing based on the evidence of the photograph itself (with intact EXIF showing date/time)? Just curious. Anybody know? On point
that is interesting topic. As a people photographer i would never risk to enter building or other private property on assignment. we always ask for permission in advance.
however when on some location scouting i would enter without permission.
For me the rules are simple, if there is lock or sign, don't enter. If property is easy to access (no needs to enter through broken windows etc) i would scout in there without looking for owner. Have been also catch by police couple of times (for doing weird things) but never been a problem when cleared up (motive).
Yes. If you are caught on scene, it would be trespassing, disorderly conduct, or, depending on the cop's mood, they can charge you criminal trespassing and burglary as well. If you pull a really really dumb act (arson) and post pics online and brag about it, I am sure both the local and state law enforcement will be after you. Otherwise, I believe they prefer to chew donuts rather than checking exifs of pics posted on the UE (urban explorations) sites out there.
Not asking about the photographer getting caught in the act, just asking about a property owner going after a photographer after the fact based on a published photo. Joe's link would seem to indicate that this IS possible (although complicated).
The case posted by "joebee" is an example of an action taken against a photographer who was trespassing on private property even though the owner of the property did not know exactly when the trespass occurred.
I think you can be charged for trespassing when it's made sufficiently clear that the only way the photo could have been taken was if the photographer was trespassing onto the property. Of course it depends.
This so-called trend of 'derelict photography' is intriguing but still very risky from a lot of different standpoints.
I think you'd need to study the local laws. Each state (and country) has different laws regarding trespassing. I doubt that in most situations an owner is going to delve into pictures after the fact to try to prosecute just for trespassing. It just doesn't seem worth the time and effort. However, that could easily change with some sorts of property or if there had been ongoing problems and the owner was trying to control the property and reduce liability due to dangerous conditions, or if there had been other crimes in the area/property.
Certainly a picture could provide evidence that someone was there. Does it make a difference if you are seen or shown on a security camera or your own? Or your picture could only have been taken from a place you weren't supposed to be? It would seem to depend on the totality of the circumstances. Would someone follow a posted picture taken in a mall and then "trespass" you from the mall because a picture showed a bunch of kids messing around? Seems pretty remote to worry about. If the picture seems to be an intrusion where not only was the picture taken on private property but invaded someone's "privacy," then it doesn't seem impossible that they might backtrack to the image and shooter if the information was available.
It is not the police that would use the pictures, but the DA that prosecuted the case. If the photos met the rules of evidence, they could be introduced into court. Usually, recorded data (pictures, voice, etc) require a live person to testity to their authenticity. Some of that is changing with recent health care cases where electronic health record systems are generating data that may be directly admissible.
The case could, and has been argued that images taken by the perpetrator would amount to self-incrimination which is not always admissible. Different states, different courts and different judges on different days may rule on this differently.
Even if not admissible, the existence of pictures could encourage law enforcement to dig for more evidence where otherwise they might have let the case drop.
The more then likely thing to happen is you would get sued for not having a property release from the owner.
Does it really matter if you could be arrested? If you're not supposed to be somewhere, then don't go. I find it sad that one can justify breaking the law so easily. Only worried about being caught, not the fact that you may be breaking the law in the first place. Is OK if you don't get busted?
If you're concerned about it, then its probably not right and DON'T DO IT. It's that simple.
There have been a couple things that are sort of the same. One is a guy had a video camera in his Ferarri showing both the road and the speedometer, the speedo was going between 100 and 135 mph. A cop saw the video, knew the road ordered the DVD (the driver was selling it) and they charged the driver with reckless driving. The other was another video guy was selling DVDs of dance and music performances in Havana, someone from the state department ran across the DVDs did a cross check to see if the guy had gone through the proper procedures to visit Cuba, when it was found that he hadn't , somewhere between $7000 and $10,000 in fines were levied.So it's possible to cause some trouble for yourself with photo evidence...
As far as people being ok with breaking the law without getting caught , have ya been on I-5 freeway heading north outta LA? 85mph is the average because it is lightly patrolled except on holidays. Most drivers are ok with it.
You might be able to get away with trespassing, but if you want to publish a photo taken on private property the publisher would likely demand a release from the property owner.
That said, for a personal photo I'd happily enter an abandoned building or lot as long as it did not involve actually damaging property to get there and I was happy to accept my fate if a building fell on my head!
I sometimes get around the trespass/publishing issue by using a long lens and getting right up against the property boundary (ensuring I'm still on public land).
nathanlake wrote:
Holier than thou does not go over very well here.
indeed... it's not like I make a point of breaking in to abandoned properties for kicks, just that I am happy to admit that I'm inquisitive and have been known to go exploring if the opportunity presents itself and the risk is low.
Kinda like speeding -- I never believe anyone who claims to never have broken a speed limit
pipspeak wrote:
indeed... it's not like I make a point of breaking in to abandoned properties for kicks, just that I am happy to admit that I'm inquisitive and have been known to go exploring if the opportunity presents itself and the risk is low.
Kinda like speeding -- I never believe anyone who claims to never have broken a speed limit
I always look at it from the other foot. What if it was your property, abandoned and possibly dangerous buildings. How would you feel if say a bunch of kids go exploring those buildings?
chez wrote:
I always look at it from the other foot. What if it was your property, abandoned and possibly dangerous buildings. How would you feel if say a bunch of kids go exploring those buildings?
Red herring....we are not talking about a bunch of kids.
