No Trespassing
Jan 23rd, 2008 by jeremy
Taking my snowy orchard photos yesterday, this sign greeted me where I wanted to take the photo. I take pause when told to keep out, and generally respect their wishes.
Today I went ahead and traversed 10 steps onto the property to compose my shot. My question is whether you think this is violation of the intent of their sign, or if I was in good faith not trespassing in a way that they are trying to keep people out.
I have read many photoblogs where the photographer feel ok disregarding signs such as this on a regular basis. I don’t consider myself above the law, nor do I regularly try to ignore others wishes, but in this case I thought I was within the intent of the property owners protection.
What are your thoughts?
Canon 40D, EF-S 17-55, 1/1600 at f/2.8 and 400 ISO
see on flickr
- No related posts
Jeremy,
I feel the property owners meant for you to not disturb their their trees, especially when their fruit are in season. You only step a few steps onto their land and you did not touch anything.
In this case, you are exempt.
Your Bad Jeremy.
Notice the large NO on the sign…as in NO trespassing…it didn’t say You decide when trespassing is ok…
I too think they are trying to keep fruit mongers out in season BUT maybe there are new trees under that snow you could trample off season…it’s like a rolling stop…STOP means STOP and NO Trespassing means just that. But I’ll forgive you this one. HA! Great photos BTW….
Technically you shouldn’t have done it. BUT, you might consider showing the photo to the owners and ask if they would like a nice copy of that shot.
I know I would frame and hang it.
I am sure you all realize that I wasn’t too concerned about it as I was essentially only a few steps past the sign, and my intent was pretty clear in staying off of the property. Just framing my shot. More than anything I am curious as to what everyone else thinks. I have a feeling if the owner had been standing right there he would have been more intrigued as to the shot I was attempting to take versus my being a few steps in on his property line.
That said, some photogs think they have an inherent license to do whatever they want because they are wielding a camera, but I don’t subscribe to that mentality.
I agree with Ali, Jeremy…you’re bad! LOL!
All kidding aside, I believe you were respectful of the owners’ wishes. The owners, I’m sure, are more concerned about thefts, property damage and now days, unfortunately, liability.
I’m always intrigued with your creativity!