File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Sup /p/?

I was taking some photos around a schoolyard today and a man comes out of one of the buildings and starts interrogating me as to why I am taking these pictures. I was pretty put off by his lack of respect and manners so the conversation got pretty out of hand and I ended up leaving with threats to call the police(lol?).

I know that taking a photograph of somebody without their consent and using it for personal gain is against the law, but is taking pictures of inanimate objects without the owners consent against the law?

I want to go back there tomorrow and finish what I was going to do.
>> Anonymous
He probably thought you were a pedophile or something I guess.
>> Anonymous
If you are on private property then it is against the law without permission. You were breaking the law.
>> Anonymous
>>114219
It was a public school...

And I'm sure he didn't think I was a pedo, this was hours after the kids went home.
>> Anonymous
So I guess nobody knows....
>> Anonymous
>>114222

schools =/= public property. they're county property. also, unless he's a cop, he can't do shit other than tell you to leave. if he asks for your film or mem card, drop it down your pants and tell him to take it.
>> Anonymous
>>114222
Public schools are not public property.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Some places will have specific laws and rules for that sort of thing in school grounds too. In the age of great fear of paedos you have to be more sensitive.

There's times when I could keep shooting because it is a public space and ignore people's feelings or fears, but I stop sometimes because pissing people off and burning bridges is a bad idea unless you want to be an all out paparazzi. It also gives other photographers a bad reputation by association. Try to judge it fairly.
>> beethy
>>114219
As far as I know, public schools aren't private property.

I went into a retirement village once to take shots of the flaura and fauna.. some angry shit turd yelled at me and tried to kick me out.
I argued back, which was really fun. :]
>> Vincent
>>114234
I like to yell back, YOU USED TO BE COOL!
then run away.
>> Anonymous
In some US states public schools have a special status. Technically they are public property, but not every person has the "right" to be there like they do in a park or on a street. Most places leave it up to the school administration to determine who can and cannot be on the property and for what reasons.

>>114228if he asks for your film or mem card, drop it down your pants and tell him to take it.
I wouldn't recommend that. You would effectively be giving him permission to reach down your pants and take your memory card.
>> Anonymous
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Not to mention one of these
>> Anonymous
>>114293
Yes, only americans would resolve to that.
>> Anonymous
>>114298
So, going on to private property to take pictures of an abandoned structure is legal, but if asked to leave, it no longer is. Am I correct?
>> Anonymous
>>114335
Well, you'd be trespassing so it's not legal.
>> Anonymous
>>114335
No. Going on to private property without the permission of the owner, regardless of what you are doing, is illegal.

The confusion comes from "public access" facilities that are privately owned. These are places that are privately owned, but there is a general understanding that people are allowed to come and go without express permission from the owner. Examples would be stores, malls, private university campuses, etc. The reason it's OK to go there is that the owner gives you implied permission to be there by virtue of the kind of facility it is. This does not apply to non-public-access private property, even if there are no fences or signs telling you to keep out. Make no mistake, it is trespassing to go onto private property to photograph abandoned buildings, and you CAN be arrested and charged- people just usually don't get caught, and when they do property owners usually don't press charges.

As far as photography is concerned in privately-owned public-access facilities, you can generally take photos until you are told otherwise UNLESS there are signs indicating no photography. Also be aware that they have no obligation to give you a warning, they can kick you off the property for any reason and at any time, and if you argue or refuse to leave they can have you charged with trespassing.

A final warning. In some states it is legal to use deadly force against someone who is on your property without your permission, and again they are not required to warn you before they start shooting. If you choose to trespass to get a photo, you are risking more than a ticket or a little jail time.
>> Anonymous
>>114345
Oh shit, well, this is why I ask. This way I can be completely clear instead of yelling at some cop about photographer's rights, yet being completely ignorant.

Now, what if I'm standing on a public road taking pictures of private property?
>> Anonymous
>>114347
That's perfectly legal, assuming you're not obstructing traffic or doing something to make your presence on the road illegal. You can photograph anything in plain sight without permission as long as you are standing on public property.

The one exception is sites that are designated as sensitive to national security. The legal footing is rather questionable, nevertheless if you want to take a picture of a nuclear power plant and there are signs telling you not to, don't.
>> Anonymous
>>114345
But you're fine as far as prosecution goes as long as you leave if they ask you to, right?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
A pedophile's best friend.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
>>114364
noob
>> Anonymous
>>114378
wich one is that?

Also speaking about teles and law. Is there any definition of "plain sight"? Like, with that cannon 5000mm lens you can photograph people or objects 50km away from you, but is that considered plain sight? There's nothing obscuring sight between you and the object, but normally you would not see it.
>> Anonymous
>>114386
1200mm, $90,000+
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>114378
'scuse me
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>114388
*cough*
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2007:01:25 22:31:24Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height619
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
>>114388
mines longer.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
oh hai, i thought i join the party
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114410
once you can AF yes.
>> Anonymous
>>114402
>>114404

Are there any sites with reliable info to prove this actually existed?
>> Anonymous
>>114363But you're fine as far as prosecution goes as long as you leave if they ask you to, right?
In a public-access area, yes. Unless you have been previously told you aren't allowed on the property. On ordinary private property, no.

>>114386Is there any definition of "plain sight"?
To the best of my knowledge there is no specific definition of plain sight, just situations that would constitute an exception. Pretty much anything you can see with your eyes, a telescope, or a telephoto lens is OK. That's how satellite imaging is OK. I seem to recall a case in which a photographer was accused of industrial espionage and sued for taking aerial photos of an area that's visible to the air but is normally surrounded by fences that you can't see through from the ground. I don't remember well, but I seem to recall that the court ruled it was fair game because the company doesn't own the airspace, and they should build a roof over things they don't want seen. You would probably run into some problems if you used a telephoto lens to photograph someone in their bathroom or bedroom because the law excludes places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'm not sure how the law would apply to using infrared cameras to look through walls or something to that effect, though that might fall under the expectation of privacy clause.
>> Anonymous
>>114772
What reason is there to doubt their existence? Telescopes exist, there is no technological reason you couldn't build a lens like that. It probably wasn't a production item, but could easily have been commissioned for a special project.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
i bought my friend along, i hope you dont mind.