I might be mistaken, but I think in many cases that 'accesses' to private property are also considered valid for certain public use unless they are posted as "No Trespassing" and even then maybe there's a disconnect between the law and the way things really work (and of course the laws are different depending where you are).
For instance, a walkway to one's door is generally used by the public... delivery man, repair man, sales man...even though that walkway runs through one's yard. That of course does not mean that it's really public property, but owner's are typically required to keep such access in good repair (for instance clearing of snow and ice in the winter) otherwise they could incur some liabilty should an injury to the public occur as a result. In fact property owners are frequently required to maintain public sidewalks around the private property. Complicated... I guess it shows little is truly private in the strictest sense of the word. This doesn't mean I think you should walk up my sidewalk and do what ever you want however. I agree... I would not ask permission to photograph in a public place, unless there was some very unusual compelling rerason, that I can't even think of. Further to the point, one can photograph all they want in a cemetery, plenty of people have died and been placed right there on the premises, and no one seems to mind. Tom C. >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: A Gray Matter >Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:35:43 -0600 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rebekah" >Subject: A Gray Matter > > > > Yesterday, I drove by the site of the Charleston Sofa Super Store > > fire, which you can read up on here: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Sofa_Super_Store_fire > > > > My husband and I lost two friends in that fire, and it was a shock to > > see it still standing. I never drove over there because I didn't want > > to see it, and I figured it would have been torn down by now. For > > some reason, it's still standing, and I've decided I'd like to shoot > > some pictures of this in black and white, but I'm unsure of the > > legality and political correctness of doing so. In order to be on the > > right side of the law and not offend the families of the men who > > perished, who or which government whatnot should I ask for permission? > > And, if you had the opportunity to shoot this or something like it, > > would you? > >My understanding of the way things work in your country, admidedly gathered >from reading this forum, is that as long as you are standing on public >property, you can photograph pretty much whatever you want, and if you want >to photograph something from private property, you need to secure the >landowners permission to be on his/her property. > >So, legally, you would be OK, as long as you are on a public sidewalk while >shooting, though sometimes security goons have been known to overstep their >mandate and tell people they can't photograph things that they are within >their rights to photograph. >If you feel the need to step onto private property, such as that owned by >Charlston Sofa, I expect the most that would happen is that you might be >asked to leave by the owner or his agent, which you would be bound to do, >to >the extent that you would have to at least retreat to the sidewalk. > >As for the political correctness of the photography, what's the big deal? >It's a burnt out building, no more than that. If there were a concern about >the fact people died in it (and I am sorry for your loss), then you would >want to be careful about photographing any residential building, as people >sometimes die in their sleep. >On the other hand, only you can decide if photographing the thing is >appropriate form a personal standpoint. > >What should concern you more than your wanting to photograph the thing, >which is your business, and no one elses, is the parania you are displaying >regarding securing permissions, and whether you need the government's >authorization to photograph the thing. This doesn't sound like questions >that a free citizen living in an democratic country should feel the need to >ask. > >William Robb > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
