[BarryE]

That's luckily the case in most parts of the world: Most times, you see a lot less people just a 1/2h walk away from parking lots, making protection still effective for the vast majority area-wise in larger parks.

That reminds me of when my wife and I returned from a walk in a National Park in the UK. We left the car park with no other cars parked. When we returned the car park was nearly full and there was a heated argument among a group of folk over the remaining free seat actually in the car park. It was getting very heated. We'd walked back a few minutes before that and there were many seats empty a mere 5 mins walk away. The views were better there too. Pathetic ...

[Lord Lucan]

you see a lot less people just a 1/2h walk away from parking lots

I would say 5 minutes.

[Serkevan]

I would say 5 minutes.

Completely anecdotal experience of course, but this was very accurate in the national parks we visited in the US - in Zion most people got off the shuttle for the easier hikes at the bottom of the valley and we passed only a few people on the way to Observation Point (which is I think the highest point of the main trails). In Bryce Canyon the observation platform a hundred meters from the parking lot was packed with tourists, but we only met a couple dozen people in 4 or 5 hours of hiking a very easy trail. Grand Canyon had actually a lot of people on the trail, but stil nothing in comparison with the observers at the rim.

In Germany hiking is a more common pastime so you do see a good bunch of people a good hour or two away from the nearest parking spot/train stop (the trains to Saxon Switzerland can be *packed* on summer weekends).

[JensE]

the trains to Saxon Switzerland can be *packed* on summer weekends

They definitely were on Oct 3, despite infection concerns, and it took patience and quick decisions to get decent pictures at viewpoints about 1h away from the usual access points.

[aslyfox]

of course, in defense of the " maddening crowds "

a lot of the " features " tourists want to see, in many locations are fixed and limited

some examples

in Yellowstone, the best known thermal features, the spot to observe the falls at a certain time to see the " rain bow " effect

and that " phenomenon " is not limited to national parks

the view from a tall building's observation platform, the entrance of Notre Dame

you get the idea

[texandrews]

of course, in defense of the " maddening crowds "

a lot of the " features " tourists want to see, in many locations are fixed and limited

some examples

in Yellowstone, the best known thermal features, the spot to observe the falls at a certain time to see the " rain bow " effect

and that " phenomenon " is not limited to national parks

the view from a tall building's observation platform, the entrance of Notre Dame

you get the idea

Indeed, yes. Especially in the u.s. national parks, the Park Service has done everyone a dis-service by accentuating a lot of these places. That goes back a long time, before the crowds became so bad. Now, they've painted themselves into a corner because un-doing some of that will have "serious" political implications. But I think they are just forestalling the inevitable.

[swanlefitte]

At Zion it was crowded on the path to the Narrows and the bridge at sunset was like rows of muskets in Napoleans army to get the Watchmen shot. I choose the valley below Angels Landing at sunset and saw maybe a dozen people in an hour. I only had my kit lens anyway.

[BarryE]

Indeed, yes. Especially in the u.s. national parks, the Park Service has done everyone a dis-service by accentuating a lot of these places. That goes back a long time, before the crowds became so bad. Now, they've painted themselves into a corner because un-doing some of that will have "serious" political implications. But I think they are just forestalling the inevitable.

In the UK the promotion of the National Parks has/is similarly backfiring. The 'authorities' seem to think these semi-wild/natural places now need to be theme parks with attractions to encourage a wide mix of visitors. Then the locals, understandable, have problems with a new type of visitor that do not 'understand/respect' these areas are mainly working farms and productive forests and not play areas. Removing the centuries established working practices of the sheep farmers has accentuated the problems in the Lake District area. Wasn't this obvious?

And what is it with single use BBQs? And single use tents? And single use anything, that encourages some folk to wild camp and/or party in pristine natural places and leave their c*** behind after they leave. Volunteers who have to clean up this mess have been left in tears of frustration. Animals hurt too. This has been worse during this Covid crisis, perhaps as the festival mentality has spilt over into the wild regions - not that we have many properly wild areas in the UK.

There's a simple word that would make so many things better. It's simple, but seemingly incomprehensible to many. That word is respect.

Rant over ...

I've had that kind of thing happen twice, and on both occasions, I simply explained what I was doing and justified it because "I just like to take pictures of pretty trees." kind of stuff, and both landowners invited me to walk around their property at my leisure taking whatever pictures I liked. Sure, I had a perfect legal right to take whatever pictures I wanted to from my position in a public place, but there's no point in arguing legality when (1) the landowner couldn't care less about the law, and is too ignorant and probably too stupid to understand what I'm saying, and (2) a courteous explanation takes care of the problem.

...In over 50 years of visiting parks I've seen fees rise dramatically and access decrease exponentially. For all of you younger guys and gals considering a career or part-time career as a landscape photographer in the United States, or simply someone who wants to take their children to visit areas that have been set aside for all Americans and all people to visit let your representative know how you feel about current Park Service polices, write your congress critters, and make your voice heard at the Department of Interior/National Park Service. Otherwise one day we'll all wake up and find these treasures impossible to access. Probably won't be my lifetime but it certainly will be for you younger folks.

That kind of crap is a passive-aggressive move to force Congress to appropriate more money to the Dept. of the Interior. All the agencies play that kind of game; it's similar to what municipalities do when they want to raise taxes - closing libraries and parks and whining to the citizens affected about how they don't have the cash necessary to keep them going. They hit the things the people use the most in order to stimulate those people to clamor for whatever it is the municipality (or agency) wants. It might be better to complain that the Dept. of the Interior is unreasonably blocking access to park facilities purely to coerce Congress to appropriate more money, and to make the agency re-allocate funds in order to resolve the problem.

[texandrews]

That kind of crap is a passive-aggressive move to force Congress to appropriate more money to the Dept. of the Interior. All the agencies play that kind of game; it's similar to what municipalities do when they want to raise taxes - closing libraries and parks and whining to the citizens affected about how they don't have the cash necessary to keep them going. They hit the things the people use the most in order to stimulate those people to clamor for whatever it is the municipality (or agency) wants. It might be better to complain that the Dept. of the Interior is unreasonably blocking access to park facilities purely to coerce Congress to appropriate more money, and to make the agency re-allocate funds in order to resolve the problem.

I believe that you are very incorrect about this, at least inasmuch as that's a broad brush you're using. This is getting further off topic, though, so we should leave this alone. We've (me included!) been drifting a bit into a complex area. If we all want to take this up, then we should move it to another thread and another forum.

[Astro-Baby]

In the UK we tend to have a more aggressive attitude and are more than willing to poke two fingers up at snotty landowners and the like. I do a lot of hiking and its more common to get flak these days when using trails which cross private land. I have a knack of dealing with this...

Landowner....this is private land can I ask what you are doing ?
Me....you can ask. (Long pause)
Landowner....well ?
me...oh was that a question well what I am doing its private
Landowner...I am calling the police
Me...offering them my phone...be my guest

The trick is stay polite but dont give ground, let them lose their temper not you.

[MarkJerling]

.
This morning was a beautiful autumn morning here in northern Wisconsin USA. This time of year I love to take my camera out shooting the beautiful fall colors.

Last year while shooting the autumn colors on a rural road from my car, a local farmer drove up to my car and got in my face about why I was taking photos of his farmstead.

Well on my morning stroll around the neighborhood this morning, while on a public sidewalk I was angrily confronted by a 30ish year old male home owner about taking photos of the colorful maple tree in his front yard.

In my area there are fewer and fewer places where photography with a large DSLR-style camera (especially with a large lens and a tripod) are accepted/allowed. While ubiquitous cell phone photographers are welcomed, those using "BIG" cameras/lenses/tripods are viewed with suspicion. For example, at the local farmers market, iphoneographers are ignored, but when I shoot the very same photo with my big camera I often get dirty looks.

In my area, places where I can photographic with my DSLRs in peace are becoming fewer and fewer. Mostly I'm left with shooting at governmental parks and botanical gardens (sometimes having to pay extra for being a proper "photographer", while of course the iphone photographer is not so charged).

I'm finding that for a truly stress free photographic experience I'm more and more turning inward and shooting on my own property, in my own gardens, or inside in my little studio.

These increasingly unpleasant encounters have me seriously considering dumping my DSLR gear and getting the new iPhone 12 (larger sensor & RAW files).

Are you too finding the "photographic oases" where you are allowed to photograph in your area are disappearing? Are you too turning inward with your photography and shooting more at home? Or maybe are you feeling the pull to switch to the more acceptable iphone camera to be less conspicuous?

petapixel.com suggest carrying cards with this information:

1. You can make a photograph of anything and anyone on any public property, except where a specific law prohibits it.

e.g. streets, sidewalks, town squares, parks, government buildings open to the public, and public libraries.

2. You may shoot on private property if it is open to the public, but you are obligated to stop if the owner requests it.

e.g. malls, retail stores, restaurants, banks, and office building lobbies.

3. Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.

4. Anyone can be photographed without consent when they are in a public place unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

e.g. private homes, restrooms, dressing rooms, medical facilities, and phone booths.

5. Despite common misconceptions, the following subjects are almost always permissible:

* accidents, fire scenes, criminal activities
* children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
* bridges, infrastructure, transportation facilities
* residential, commercial, and industrial buildings

6. Security is rarely an acceptable reason for restricting photography. Photographing from a public place cannot infringe on trade secrets, nor is it terrorist activity.

7. Private parties cannot detain you against your will unless a serious crime was committed in their presence. Those that do so may be subject to criminal and civil charges.

8. It is a crime for someone to threaten injury, detention, confiscation, or arrest because you are making photographs.

9. You are not obligated to provide your identity or reason for photographing unless questioned by a law enforcement officer and state law requires it.

10. Private parties have no right to confiscate your equipment without a court order. Even law enforcement officers must obtain one unless making an arrest. No one can force you to delete photos you have made.


These are general guidelines regarding the right to make photos and should not be interpreted as legal advice. If you need legal help, please contact a lawyer.

I once had a very rude woman enquiring why I was taking photos of 2 children on a public beach. I replied, truthfully: "They're my children." She stood there with her arms crossed and a massive scowl on her face for a good few minutes more while I kept photographing my kids and then she stomped off looking very unhappy.

A couple of errors in PetaPixel's summary (or one error and one need for clarification):

As to #9: state law may only dictate that you identify yourself when subject to arrest (a Norman French word that means, "stop") i.e., if there's grounds to stop you based on "reasonable suspicion" that you are engaged in unlawful activity, the law may provide that you identify yourself for issuance of a summons or warrant, if you prefer not to "go directly to jail". Otherwise, you are not required to identify yourself; and where you are so required, "identification" generally requires only that you tell who you are and where you live. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004); Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015).

As to the statement that you may not take pictures while on private property if the owner objects, that's sort of true, but there are a couple of wrinkles. First, the person with the authority to tell you that has to be a person having a present possessory interest in the land (which may include agents, managers, lessees, etc., not just the fee-simple or residuary owner). Secondly, the rule is actually an anti-trespassing rule, not an anti-photography rule. The person having a present possessory interest can make rules by which "licensees" (people allowed to come on to the property) must comply, same as a license for the use of software. "License" simply means, "permission". But if you violate the "owner's" rule against photography, you cease to have permission and become a trespasser not a licensee. Then you can be arrested for criminal trespass, but not for "criminal photography".

That stuff was all defensive in nature, but here's the offensive factor: keep in mind that "assault" in the U.S. doesn't involve touching; if it involves touching, it's "battery". If you have a reasonable apprehension that someone intends to touch you in a way that would be considered offensive, unprivileged, and unreasonable, (i.e., offers a battery against you), that's "assault". Hauling off and cocking one's fist for the punch is assault - actually punching, that's battery. So if you're accosted by some rude schmuck, you may have reason to call the cops yourself. If, for example, in the example stated by @MarkJerling, he hadn't been so conciliatory, and instead had said something like, "Mind your own business, schmuck." to the woman who clearly assumed he was a pervert, and her response was to do something that looked to him like she was going to strike him, he'd have grounds to have her arrested for assault. (At the risk of annoying some cop who didn't want to be bothered with trivial crap.)

[Rondec]

I live in the country and I am pretty quick to ask farmers if they are OK with my taking images across their property. They have been uniformly fine with that and many have invited me to come to their homes and they would show me across their properties to pretty spots they have noticed.

This is called being neighborly around here and is still something that is valued.

I am afraid that in many places fear and anger have displaced many of the important attributes that help initiate and maintain human relationships.

[Astro-Baby]

I once had a security guard come out of a building and threaten me for taking pics of it claiming it was not legal to take pics of a building and there were laws in place that meant it was prohibited. As I was on public land I told him to shove off, he got rather stroppy and rrold me he would confiscate my camera so I told him that would be theft and I would promptly call the cops. He then demanded I destroy the pics so I just said that wasnt going to happen and back and forth it went ( while I continued to snap away ) he said stuff like he had the power to arrest me so I pointed out that would be impersonating a police officer and if he didnt desist I would lodge a complaint of harrassment. Eventually he ran out of steam. As I say the trick is to stay polite, unthreatening and ideally witnessed. Let them talk rubbish and lose their temper and dont be afraid of the old chutney about calling the Police. Know your rights, know the law and then dig in

I kind of welcome the odd confrontation over stuff, keeps my mind sharp and creates a bit of adrenalin rush otherwise life would be dull.

Had one on a beach as well, was shooting some gulls and some guy come up and asked if I had taken pics of his wife and kids, I said almost certainly as you chose sit in front of me and keep standing up blocking my view. Same old stuff about calling the cops, the only time I ended up getting rather rude myself by commenting his wife and daughters probably wouldnt be attractive to anyone and looked like a collection of bulldogs sucking wee off a nettle and maybe he shouldnt be so deluded as to think that anyone would waste expensive film taking pics of them unless they were planning an exhibition of monsters for which the pics may be too scary and likley to frighten small children and those of a nervous disposition. It all got rather ugly but there I was all set up with the cam on a low tripod and on 10 miles of empty beach mr Thicko chose to sit him and his family directly in front of me and then complain about me taking pics.