Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting on others property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he really had nothing to hide / wrong doing. Turns out, I only shot from the public road anyway (focal length/perspective stuff).
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle(s) (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
After all, do you want others to know your business @ how you process, shoot or create your images? Our secrets are part of (not all) our competitive advantage and/or value to the market. Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting on others property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he really had nothing to hide / wrong doing. Turns out, I only shot from the public road anyway (focal length/perspective stuff).
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
After all, do you want others to know your business @ how you process, shoot or create your images? Our secrets are part of (not all) our competitive advantage and/or value to the market. Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting on others property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong. Turns out, I only shot from the public road anyway (focal length/perspective stuff).
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
After all, do you want others to know your business @ how you process, shoot or create your images? Our secrets are part of (not all) our competitive advantage and/or value to the market. Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong. Turns out, I only shot from the public road anyway (focal length/perspective stuff).
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
After all, do you want others to know your business @ how you process, shoot or create your images? Our secrets are part of (not all) our competitive advantage and/or value to the market. Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong.
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
After all, do you want others to know your business @ how you process, shoot or create your images? Our secrets are part of (not all) our competitive advantage and/or value to the market. Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong.
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
After all, do you want others to know your business @ how you process, shoot or create your images? Our secrets are part of (not all) our competitive advantage and/or value to the market. Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong.
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
After all, do you want others to know your business @ how you process images? Our secrets are part of (not all) our competitive advantage and/or value to the market. Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong.
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to safeguard himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong.
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn\'t want the hassle\'s (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle\'s turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to safeguard himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation, but rather business.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide anymore, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA\'s radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again even though he had done no wrong.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I\'m shooting property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn\'t have anything to really hide, he just wasn\'t the neatest housekeeper around and likely got on somebody\'s wrong side in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn\'t want to hassle with again.
Re: Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I\'ve already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Jul 12, 2013 at 12:03 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11676332 « Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover »
