Fauxtography is dangerous.
← Previous post
Next post →
where the hell is it implied that anyone who didn’t see a no trespassing sign is a fauxtog?
Amen Jessie! Just because a person either a) doesn’t see a no trespassing sign or ignores it (if it was indeed there) doesn’t make them a fauxtographer. I know plenty of pros whose motto is shoot first and ask permission later. Especially if it is an abandoned location.
And if anything – the guy that did the shooting with the pellet gun is going to wish he had not shot them. Trespassing or not – you can’t just start firing a pellet gun at someone.
shoot first and ask permission later – funny you should say that.
You know a lot of pros who ignore private property? Property releases? Common sense?
Property releases are only required when selling the print under certain circumstances – not as a global gotta have.
Required for Commercial Use. Commercial use typically means – in advertising or promotion of a product or a good or service. Not in the instance of selling a print to a Senior or couple.
False. As long as you sell it, it’s commercial use. Hence the term ‘professional’. Don’t interpret the law, it’s not up to you. It’s a lot harder to get sued, but not impossible. And even without the release, you can’t ignore private property. Even as an amateur, you can’t come into my backyard uninvited. I understand that it can be difficult to track down the owner of the property in some cases, but if you can’t get permission, you can’t do the shoot. Legally.
Property release every time. Even when the subject is on their own property.
Actually you shouldn’t count on that last statement aout “you can’t just start firing a pellet gun at someone”… in many states it is common knowledge that if you’re tresspassing on private property you may get shot and it’s your own fault and blame. In other words, it is legal in some states to shoot tresspassers on your property, all you have to do is state that you felt they presented a threat. (Old laws are still laws as long as they haven’t been repealed)
roadrunner is correct. It is my understanding that in Texas you can shoot someone to protect your property, not just your life. That is a hold-over from cattle rustling days.
Now Texas is rare in that regard, in most states you can only shoot to protect life.
But just because you can’t legally be shot by the proerty owner that doesn’t give you a “free pass” to trespass. It IS lazy and it IS illegal.
And we forgot to mention that just because you may not be able to be legally shot doesn’t mean you won’t be. Imagine that barn you want ot shoot by is full of someones pot crop drying… yes, they WILL shoot you for being there with a camera.
Tresspassing is just stupid and wrong no matter what the circumstances.
Yes you can Dave, as long as the owner of the land felt they were a threat. Colorado has such a law as well as Missouri. So keep that in mind when scouting locations.
i’m going to start a site called “youarenotaphotographysnarkwebsite.com.”
I’m going to start a website called youdon’tgetthejokeanddefendfauxtogs.com
Don – I get the joke – when there is one to get. Getting shot at is not a joke – Trust me.
I’ve been shot at – nothing to do with photography. I was deer hunting and some idiot thought I was going to “steal” the deer they shot right below my stand. So they fired a shot about 2 feet over my head (it hit the tree behind me) Not a fun situation.
I fail to see the humor in getting shot at. Sorry.
And there is still nothing in the story to indicate it was a Fauxtographer.
Maybe I’ll start a website – Photographerswhothinktheyaregods.com
True, Dave, it’s not funny to get shot at.
But… and I apologise for the long, convoluted sentence here:
it is funny that you don’t see the irony in the fact that you got shot at when you were out on a trip specifically to shoot at poor little deer.
“Fauxtography is dangerous.”
No living in a county were any crazy person has a gun+minimal gun control is.
That is the risk you take going on private property
The experts agree, gun control works. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Saddam……..
Minimal gun control for a pellet gun? Really? It’s probably an airsoft gun.
wow… are we just turning on each other now in the comments section??
Common sense is that you only shoot in public areas unless you have express permission from the property owner. Anyone should do this, but most people don’t have the common sense to do it.
Wow, dangerous. We don’t know the whole story, so let’s not jump to conclusions. Part of being a professional photographer is knowing where you are and making sure you have permission to be there. You can not randomly go on people’s property and start taking pictures. However that does not give the owner of that property the right to just take what ever action they want to.
Gun ownership is not the problem. It is irresponsible gun owners. I and most of my family have owned guns all of our life and have never randomly shot at people. We understand the consequences, even with a pellet gun. True guns are dangerous if improperly handled, but so is getting into your car.
I agree Dave T. Also lack of common sense is to blame on both sides. That is usually the problem to begin with.
I fail to see how shooting at someone who is on your property without your permission is ‘randomly shooting’ people.
“…never RANDOMLY shot at people.” Sooo, does that mean people in your family have PURPOSELY shot at people? Just thought I’d ask!
Just the one that served in the military.
Did the shooter know the photographer’s work? That might explain a few things…
Rural Indiana – there may not have been a house that looked occupied for miles. Same thing in rural Minnesota – there are stretches of road where you will see an abandoned building and nothing for miles around –
So again – can’t blame the photographer – as much as some want to. I probably would do the same thing – stop, shoot get back in – no harm, no foul. Based on the date though and reading the paper that this came from – sounds like hunting season was in full force – so the farmer / landowner / shooter (gun) may have thought that they were poachers or hunters trespassing on his land.
You can’t blame the photographer? Oh please! I live in rural Minnesota and we are still intelligent enough to know that property belongs to people. Is the photographer under the impression that if there isn’t a person standing there that no one owns it? Really, people are not that stupid.
You know property is owned and like someone said, there are “professionals” who shoot first and ask permission later (or rather don’t ask for permission if they don’t get caught).
The point would be that you are conducting yourself in an unprofessional manner if you do this.
You know just because you have a nice camera (or even a point and shoot) and think a site would make a “cool” background, that does NOT give you the right to trespass.
Sure…it may be HARD to find the property owner and ask permission and yes they may tell you to go to hell, but if you don’t get permission…don’t go on the property!
The people that think it is “no big deal” are the ones that ruin it for everyone else.
One think I have found is that a surprising number of people WILL give you permission if you take the time to ask.
Just… Wow. Snarking “professionals”. Very classy.
These laws allowing people to shoot trespassers threatening the safety or property of the home owner is in part a reaction to lawsuits from real criminals and lack of common sense and prosecutorial discretion. But if I were the photographer or the girl, I would face the trespassing charge to get this coward into court to go on public record to explain how he felt threatened by a girl and a guy with a camera. Without facts not presented in the story, the shooter sounds like a hot head that would be in trouble if this happened in a bar or in a “road rage” incident.
just a bunch of americans….
Here is the way I look at it: If I don’t hold a DEED to the place, it is not MINE. I am not a photographer, but I spent the first 30 years of my married life out in the country, on acres and acres of land. I would look out the window and there would be some goofball with a rifle. They always had the same look on their faces when I said, “This is private property.” No, I know it was not posted, but that is because it is private property. I never saw any reason to post the land.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.