question about old barns/houses

[cherrygirl]

Originally Posted by maxharvard

Find me a farmer that doesn't own a gun.

True that!! Especially here in the great state of Texas!

Originally Posted by cherrygirl

True that!! Especially here in the great state of Texas!

My family has a farm... we have a LOT of guns between us

[BobC]

Before i became interested in photography, there was someone who was taking pictures from his car of my house. I was upset and asked him what he was doing. I think if you know or can find out who owns the property you should get permission. Its the right thing to do. I don't care if its legal for you to take the picture without permission, its still the right thing to ask.

[BCampbell]

I agree Bob, and you'll usually find that people are pretty accomodating. The worst that can happen is they say no. It's one thing to know your rights as a photographer, but if we want to act ethically we have to put ourselves in the other person's shoes.

[tinwhistle]

A lot of really good advice here. I have a very extensive portfolio of "Old barns and Buildings", and have had two personal exhibits of that subject. If you shoot from public land (road side) you are legal, but as stated earlier, if you can, get permission. I always leave a business card and will send a couple prints to the land owner. Many times, as also stated earlier, the property owner will give a guided tour and a detailed history of the property. I find the subject fascinating,....Chris

[CarlCrumley]

Recently there was an article in a national photography magazine by a famous professional photographer who said you MUST get a property release from the owner.

I photograph a lot of barns here in upstate New York and that answer concerned me, so I checked with several other experts and here's a summary of what I learned:

1. You can shoot almost any property from a public location, except those properties deemed to be a security risk by government officials, such as airport runways, military installations, federal buildings and so forth. You may be asked to delete photos you take of these areas if caught by an official.

2. If the property is protected by a trademark (i.e., Disneyland), you can photograph it for your own personal use but cannot sell it without a property release and you probably can't get one for a trademarked building.

3. Pretty much any other property is OK to photograph as long as you do it from a public location. To photograph ON private property you must have permission.

3a. If you are only using the photographs for your own viewing pleasure, end of story.
3b. If you are going to sell the photographs, for example, at art festivals, you SHOULD
get a property release but you're probably OK as long as the owner of the barn
doesn't come to the festival, see his/her barn, and demand you stop selling them
or give them a cut of your revenue from sales.
3c. If you are going to publish the photographs in magazines or post them on a stock
site for commercial use you must have a property release. The magazines and
stocks sites are sure to require it.

I try not to be obvious when I shoot these barns and such in upstate New York, and I do sell the photographs at festivals and don't worry much about it. If I was going to submit them to a stock site or a magazine for publication I'd go get property releases.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't get your legal advice from some clown like me on the Internet!

Carl (Pittsford, NY)

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

The law varies from state to state and country to country. Property owners almost always have the right to prohibit photography from, not of their property. There are some instances where we're not allowed to shoot, even from public property -- these usually fall under "expected privacy" clauses, so you generally can't shoot into a bedroom or bathroom, or shoot identifiable photos of people in places they can reasonably expect privacy.

That said, if I was shooting something like a barn from public property and the owner told me to stop, I would try to talk to them and explain the situation. If I just laughed it off and acted like some know-it-all photographer, I'd feel like a big pile of jerk.

This may be true in the states, but Canada has no expressed "expected Privacy" law in place (never has, thanks to the british legal system we inherited). If youre on public property, and it's visible from the street, it's fair game

[nybuen@hotmail.com]

Remember its always easier to ask forgiveness than to seek permission. Take a photo from the road first -- which is legal in any places I'm familiar with -- and then ask for permission so you can get the best angle or perspective.

[dengwms]

I learned a long time ago that 'doing the right thing' and asking first only sets you up for 'No'. I was bounced around, all the way to my county's Chief Commissioner, when I asked first if I could use my metal detector on public property. He told me, since I asked, and there was no county policy, that I would need to request the commissioners create a policy regarding metal detecting. He told me I'd have been better off just not asking, and doing it anyway.

Also, property appraisers routinely photograph houses and property from the street for comparables.

We live in a free country, and self-imposed limits on your rights just invites them being taken away. If someone doesn't like it, they can say so, and I'll likely stop. The camera can be more powerful than a firearm, and has been the undoing of many nefarious characters. I shudder to think that some politician may decide one day to start restricting that freedom.

I would note that I do not take pictures of people without asking their permission if they are the subject of the photograph. Personally, it comes down to whether my photography could be construed as surveillance, stalking or harassment, That's a tough charge to prove if you're just taking photographs of non-human subjects!