Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-11-2011, 01:19 PM   #16
Pentaxian
aT0Mx's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 387
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
If you are shooting on private property and are told to stop or leave, and you don't comply, THEN you are trespassing and THEN the police can be called. But first you must be notified. Comply, and you're legal. Don't comply, and you're busted. So, shoot all you can before the rent-a-cops show up! Then stop.
That does vary from state to state. In some states if you are caught by the police on private land you can be charged. They can make the decision to request you to leave, or just detain you right there.

Trespassing signs are a warning to you as well. Even that varies too as the degree of what they mean.

There is no "It happens this way in the states". It even varies from province to province/territory.

10-11-2011, 01:33 PM   #17
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by aT0Mx Quote
That does vary from state to state. In some states if you are caught by the police on private land you can be charged. They can make the decision to request you to leave, or just detain you right there.

Trespassing signs are a warning to you as well. Even that varies too as the degree of what they mean.

There is no "It happens this way in the states". It even varies from province to province/territory.
no, I believe the basic rights being discussed here are laws that are universal across the entire nation. I’m hesitant to say they are federal laws as I don’t know that, but every state recognizes these basic rights in terms of photography.
10-12-2011, 02:04 AM   #18
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
Yes, if you trespass on signed NO TRESPASSING real estate (or are doing some B&E action) and are found by police, they can charge you. But in any case, except for VERY FEW "national security" restrictions, mostly at military facilities, photography is not a crime. Trespassing is. If a private property has public access, AND THIS INCLUDES THE PUBLIC-ACCESS AREAS OF OFFICE BUILDINGS, then merely photographing is not a crime. Non-compliance with requests to stop or leave, *is* trespass, and police can rightly be called on you. So, shoot quickly, and split before the fuzz materialize.
10-12-2011, 04:19 AM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
A case where

....you may be asked not to take photos, police can be called if you press the issue, your camera may be confiscated, and trespassing charges may be pressed.



and the mentioned entrance.. (to US Steel)



The cop sitting 10 yards from my location didn't seem to think much of my big bad camera being used to capture the light.

Taking a picture of your kid eating ice cream is Not illegal, Yet. A little bit of common sense goes a long way but that's too much to ask of some people these days. People at that mall are so full of shit I can smell them all the way over here.

The last Office building I worked in (power-train engineering), many of the people looked like they didn't belong there but were supervisors and managers. There was only one way to get in 'properly' if visiting and that was past a receptionist who had to let one in. Anyone else had to use a passcard that was coded only to let employees go where they belonged. Cameras were definitely frowned upon and using one was a quick ticket to the unemployment line. Going on to the property, they can, and sometimes do, search your vehicle and will 'hold' anything that doesn't belong on the property by policy. However, there is NOTHING to stop Anyone from standing on the other side of the gate, and taking pictures. They can't do shit about it.



Last edited by JeffJS; 10-12-2011 at 04:34 AM.
10-12-2011, 07:04 AM   #20
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
....you may be asked not to take photos, police can be called if you press the issue, your camera may be confiscated, and trespassing charges may be pressed.



and the mentioned entrance.. (to US Steel)



The cop sitting 10 yards from my location didn't seem to think much of my big bad camera being used to capture the light.

Taking a picture of your kid eating ice cream is Not illegal, Yet. A little bit of common sense goes a long way but that's too much to ask of some people these days. People at that mall are so full of shit I can smell them all the way over here.

The last Office building I worked in (power-train engineering), many of the people looked like they didn't belong there but were supervisors and managers. There was only one way to get in 'properly' if visiting and that was past a receptionist who had to let one in. Anyone else had to use a passcard that was coded only to let employees go where they belonged. Cameras were definitely frowned upon and using one was a quick ticket to the unemployment line. Going on to the property, they can, and sometimes do, search your vehicle and will 'hold' anything that doesn't belong on the property by policy. However, there is NOTHING to stop Anyone from standing on the other side of the gate, and taking pictures. They can't do shit about it.
Jeff, all you are saying is that they are enforcing their property rights. There is no news or anything profound in your message.
Someone standing on a public street across from that sign could take pictures all day and all night too if they wanted.
10-12-2011, 03:10 PM   #21
Pentaxian
aT0Mx's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 387
I have and will trespass again. I am an active UE photographer. I know the laws, and research how and when it is safe, if not, I will talk to the owner and get permission.

Just as example of what laws there are on trespassing.

QuoteQuote:
MD – Maryland
Maryland Code

Section 6-402 - Trespass on posted property.
http://198.187.128...me.htm&f=templates

(a) Prohibited.- A person may not enter or trespass on property that is posted conspicuously against trespass by:

(1) signs placed where they reasonably may be seen; or

(2) paint marks that:

(i) conform with regulations that the Department of Natural Resources adopts under § 5-209 of the Natural Resources Article; and

(ii) are made on trees or posts that are located:

1. at each road entrance to the property; and

2. adjacent to public roadways, public waterways, and other land adjoining the property.

(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both.
QuoteQuote:
MI – Michigan
Michigan Compiled Laws

Chapter LXXXV Trespass
Michigan Legislature - Home(S(fpde14552fxxq524ml3dkpjm))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-328-1931-LXXXV

750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; penalty.

Any person who shall wilfully enter, upon the lands or premises of another without lawful authority, after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, agent or servant of the owner or occupant, or any person being upon the land or premises of another, upon being notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, the agent or servant of either, who without lawful authority neglects or refuses to depart therefrom, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $50.00, or both, in the discretion of the court.


750.552c Entering or remaining in key facility; prohibition; "key facility" defined; posting signs; violation as felony; penalty; scope of section.

(1) A person shall not intentionally and without authority or permission enter or remain in or upon premises or a structure belonging to another person that is a key facility if the key facility is completely enclosed by a physical barrier of any kind, including, but not limited to, a significant water barrier that prevents pedestrian access, and is posted with signage as prescribed under subsection (2). As used in this subsection, "key facility" means 1 or more of the following:

(a) A chemical manufacturing facility.

(b) A refinery.

(c) An electric utility facility, including, but not limited to, a power plant, a power generation facility peaker, an electric transmission facility, an electric station or substation, or any other facility used to support the generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity. Electric utility facility does not include electric transmission land or right-of-way that is not completely enclosed, posted, and maintained by the electric utility.

(d) A water intake structure or water treatment facility.

(e) A natural gas utility facility, including, but not limited to, an age station, compressor station, odorization facility, main line valve, natural gas storage facility, or any other facility used to support the acquisition, transmission, distribution, or storage of natural gas. Natural gas utility facility does not include gas transmission pipeline property that is not completely enclosed, posted, and maintained by the natural gas utility.

(f) Gasoline, propane, liquid natural gas (LNG), or other fuel terminal or storage facility.

(g) A transportation facility, including, but not limited to, a port, railroad switching yard, or trucking terminal.

(h) A pulp or paper manufacturing facility.

(i) A pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

(j) A hazardous waste storage, treatment, or disposal facility.

(k) A telecommunication facility, including, but not limited to, a central office or cellular telephone tower site.

(l) A facility substantially similar to a facility, structure, or station listed in subdivisions (a) to (k) or a resource required to submit a risk management plan under 42 USC 7412(r).

(2) A key facility shall be posted in a conspicuous manner against entry. The minimum letter height on the posting signs shall be 1 inch. Each posting sign shall be not less than 50 square inches, and the signs shall be spaced to enable a person to observe not less than 1 sign at any point of entry upon the property.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.

(4) This section does not prohibit and shall be not construed to prevent lawful assembly or a peaceful and orderly petition for the redress of grievances, including, but not limited to, a labor dispute between an employer and its employees.
QuoteQuote:
MO – Missouri
Missouri Revised Statutes

Section 569.150.1 - Trespass in the second degree.
http://www.moga.mo...599/5690000150.HTM

569.150. 1. A person commits the offense of trespass in the second degree if he enters unlawfully upon real property of another. This is an offense of absolute liability.

2. Trespass in the second degree is an infraction.


Section 569.140.1 - Trespass in the first degree.
http://www.moga.mo...599/5690000140.HTM

569.140. 1. A person commits the crime of trespass in the first degree if he knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property.

2. A person does not commit the crime of trespass in the first degree by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or as to which notice against trespass is given by:

(1) Actual communication to the actor; or

(2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.

3. Trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor.
QuoteQuote:
OR – Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes

Section 245 – Criminal trespass in the second degree.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

164.245 Criminal trespass in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree if the person enters or remains unlawfully in a motor vehicle or in or upon premises.

(2) Criminal trespass in the second degree is a Class C misdemeanor.


Section 255 – Criminal trespass in the first degree.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html

164.255 Criminal trespass in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree if the person:

(a) Enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling;

(b) Having been denied future entry to a building pursuant to a merchant’s notice of trespass, reenters the building during hours when the building is open to the public with the intent to commit theft therein;

(c) Enters or remains unlawfully upon railroad yards, tracks, bridges or rights of way; or

(d) Enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises that have been determined to be not fit for use under ORS 453.855 to 453.912.

(2) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the owner of record of the premises if:

(a) The owner notifies the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the premises that the owner intends to enter the premises;

(b) The owner enters or remains on the premises for the purpose of inspecting or decontaminating the premises or lawfully removing items from the premises; and

(c) The owner has not been arrested for, charged with or convicted of a criminal offense that contributed to the determination that the premises are not fit for use.

(3) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Just a sampling. Some are 'you are guilty' some are 'please leave, no, you are guilty'

But if the owner says you can stay on the land, as long as you don't photograph anything, that's his land and his rule for you to be able to stay on his land. Such as the owner of the Mall states. Yes, they should have used more tact.

If I was ever caught, and ticketed for my trespass, I'd have pay, and not argue 'hey I was just taking pictures'. I bet there's signs in the mall to stop loitering, and I'm sure there's people that have been kicked out cause of that, where's the plea from them?


Last edited by aT0Mx; 10-12-2011 at 03:40 PM.
10-13-2011, 11:16 AM   #22
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by aT0Mx Quote
I hate to tell you, but it's private property.

They can tell you not to take photographs.
It is in Scottland so I want comment on their laws, but in the U.S. he could legally take pics there. Depending on the setup of the mall, they may ask him to leave in order not be subject to trespass. However, if those guys publicly implied he was a terror suspect, that is a libel and slander lawsuit in the U.S.A.

10-13-2011, 04:14 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Lloydy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 1,114
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
In the BBC report there was a quote from the mall saying they ban photography in order to protect the privacy rights of shoppers.

Meanwhile every section of the mall is covered by CCTV and every store likely has extensive CCTV too, sometimes even in places like change rooms. I find their concern about shopper's privacy touching, but hollow and insincere.

What is doubly annoying, as reported in the BBC story, is that the photog was originally reported to mall security by the staff of the ice cream shop where he had bought the icecream for his daughter:



They were worried that they were being photographed, as much as being concerned about the kid. So more general paranoia about photography.

Meanwhile most of the staff probably have no qualms about putting up on Facebook all their family snaps and exposing them to the world, nor any qualms about being videoed 8 hours a day by CCTV whilst at work, and out on the street, and in the pub, and in the supermarket.
Camera's in changing rooms ? that would be illegal, and treated very seriously. It has happened in a few factories where over zealous employers have installed camera's in changing rooms and they've been heavily fined and punished for it.

We do have more CCTV here than the USA and Canada per population, but the truth is, most of us don't give a *****.
I know that as long as I'm doing nothing wrong or illegal I have nothing to fear, the thought of being under surveillance while going about my business doesn't enter my thoughts.
I also know that the scumbags who steal purses on the street, break into cars and cause antisocial behavior are being watched, hey, bring it on.
And it's coming to a street near you, make no mistake about that. Did you see the footage of the recent riots ? The police and judges certainly did.

It's a misconception that we don't have the rights that Americans have, we do. They are just written and defined differently. We can, and do, photograph more or less what we want - if it's visible from a public place then it's ok.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

the incident in the mall was stupidity and ignorance by someone who was making the rules up as they went along.
10-13-2011, 05:06 PM   #24
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
QuoteOriginally posted by Lloydy Quote
I also know that the scumbags who steal purses on the street, break into cars and cause antisocial behavior are being watched, hey, bring it on.
I've read that One Nation, Under Surveillance hasn't really diminished UK street crime much, as many of those cams aren't monitored, and police response is too often delayed or nonexistent. Are these reports accurate?

But yes, with surveillance ubiquitous in commercial spaces, "customer privacy" is obviously a lie. And if mall management or public officials repeat such lies, they lose further credibility -- why should ANY statement or justification be believed? All this is quite toxic to free societies.
10-14-2011, 04:21 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Lloydy's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 1,114
Of course it's very contrary to the notion of free society to have surveillance, but if we want the freedom to safe from terrorism and being mugged, and the ability to round up looters and rioters when civil disorder breaks out, then that's the price. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got. And like I said before, it's something that the normal law abiding person doesn't think about, it's a subject of conversation that never come up.
As it's being used at the moment we don't fear it, and as long as we keep a healthy interest in how it's being used, then the balance of maintaining our ability to go where we want, when we want, with less risk has to be worth it. The alternative is police on the street, that's a hell of an expensive option.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
centre, facebook, ice-cream, plot, police, qaeda, scottish, toddler
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nutrisystem: Hot Dogs and ice cream diet ! jogiba General Talk 5 08-03-2011 07:03 AM
Ice Cream mikro Monthly Photo Contests 0 08-25-2010 04:58 PM
What's your favorite ice cream? ChrisPlatt General Talk 43 01-26-2010 10:29 PM
Ice Cream Man columbus Photo Critique 6 09-26-2009 11:58 AM
Bubble Gum Ice Cream! ajuett Post Your Photos! 7 03-05-2009 07:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:11 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top