What is the law regarding no trespassing signs?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16033881
You cannot commercially publish images of someone's private property

Really? You're saying that every time a film shows the NY (or London, or Paris, or any place in the world) skyline that they've gone and got permission from every building you can see. Rubbish!

The oft-quoted example is The Eiffel Tower. You can take as many pictures of the Tower as you like, you can publish them anyplace you like, you can sell those pictures any way you like.

However, you the rules are different for the light show on The Eiffel Tower at night. You're not allowed to sell or publish any photos of the light show without permission - because it is copyrighted.

If I try to sell an image that shows physical property that is privately owned, my agencies will not accept it. If I try to sell it on my own, as stock, the end user(s) will ask me for a signed release from the property owner. If I do not have the requested release, the client will not use the photo, and therefore will not pay me for its use. Therefore, I cannot sell images of privately owned physical property without a release from the property owner.

Dan, I think you are missing my point. I am not saying there is a law against such image use. I am saying I can't sell such image. There is a difference between these statements. There does not need to be a law in order for it to be impossible to sell an image. There is no law saying that I can't do a triple back flip off a diving board into a swimming pool. But guess what, I can't - and neither can you. So when I say that you cannot sell an image to be published for commercial use, I do not mean there is a law against it - I simply mean that you can't sell it.

I did not say it was illegal to sell images of privately owned physical property. I merely said that these images cannot be sold and commercially published. And they can't be - at least in my experience they can't be. I based my statements on real life experience gathered by selling images for commercial use, both thru agencies and independently (directly to the ned user).

Dan, do you sell your images as stock, for commercial use? If so, do you sell (license) a lot of images that show privately owned property? If so, do you do so without property releases? I would be interested in knowing who you sell to, or who you sell thru - as I would love to find someone who would be willing to buy such images without releases. All of the clients and agencies I have found require releases for privately owned physical property.

I had a picture of a guy riding a horse. The agency, of course, required a model release for the rider. I had one, but they rejected the image anyway because of the horse. Did I also have a property release from the owner of the horse? No, I didn't. So I could not sell the image because it showed privately owned physical property and I did not have a release for it. Same thing happened when I tried to sell the image to my local chamber of commerce. They wouldn't touch it without both releases.

And Hollis, you have a really good point about the buildings in movies. Here is some company policy which governs what you can sell and what you can't sell, concerning buildings within a cityscape:

Empire State Building
Located in New York City.
Isolated images are unacceptable for commercial use.
Cityscapes will be considered, as long as the building is not the primary subject of the image. These images will be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Flatiron Building
Located in New York City.
Isolated Images are unacceptable for commercial use.
Cityscape images will be considered, as long as the building is not the primary subject of the image. These images will be evaluated on a case by case basis.

If it is not your property or public property while are you are even considering going onto it without permission. In many US states trespassing is a misdemeanor fine but my moral conscience tells me "NO. It is not your property". I do not need a sign to state the obvious.

If you want to go on property that does not belong to you, find the property owner and get permission. Sometimes these people will grant permission, even though there may be a sign stating "No Trespassing". Get permission in writing so you can produce it should a police officer arrive and ask what you are doing.

While your at it, may as well get a property release signed, too. I've done this in exchange for a copy of some of the images I made.

I read though this thread and this question comes to mind, "If it was your property and your sign, how would you feel about other people ignoring your wishes and using it like it was their own?"

whuband wrote in post #16035797
I read though this thread and this question comes to mind, "If it was your property and your sign, how would you feel about other people ignoring your wishes and using it like it was their own?"

I would feel like having a lawyer get some money out of them.

From Carolyn Wright's site, a German case: http://www.photoattorn​ey.com/?p=1118
Note under the picture the first paragraph states "no court has found that taking and selling photos of property violates any rights of the owner, unless the photographer trespasses on the property."

This illustrates that photographers do get sued and they have to answer the suit with a lawyer which will cost them money. Not to mention the other headaches that come with a lawsuit.

The purpose of a release is to try to prevent problems down the road, ASMP still advises that obtaining a release is the best route to take whenever possible. They contend that the concept of property release has never been fully addressed by the courts.

Common sense should dictate how we sell photos for advertising. Take a scenario where you have pictures of an organic farm. Selling those pictures to a Tourist Commission would likely be fine with the owner of the farm. If you were to sell those same pictures to a company that makes pesticides the farmer might take offense. He might sue you and the company because a reasonable person may assume an endorsement of the product being advertised, doing irreparable harm to his business.

whuband wrote in post #16035797
I read though this thread and this question comes to mind, "If it was your property and your sign, how would you feel about other people ignoring your wishes and using it like it was their own?"

Or to put it in photography terms, "What if someone downloaded your photo and used it"?

Also depends heavily on the state where you live. Not only in terms of the laws, but also how seriously people take property rights.

As an example. In Texas if the property is posted, and it can be posted in many different ways, the owner can legally shoot you on sight. Whether they will or not depends on less rigid definitions.

My sign:

Trespassers will be shot, then prosecuted.

I shoot them first as proof of trespass.

20droger wrote in post #16037837
My sign:

Trespassers will be shot, then prosecuted.

I shoot them first as proof of trespass.

So where do you put those shots: in People or in Nature & Landscapes?

OhLook wrote in post #16038902
So where do you put those shots: in People or in Nature & Landscapes?

In my lawyer's briefs.

He says they're a bit scratchy. I say Good! Maybe he'll stay awake during proceedings.

jordyquint wrote in post #16020441
I am in Kansas, USA.

If you want a legally viable answer, you need to consult an attorney who is licensed to practice in Kansas, USA. Why anyone would ask such a question on a world-wide photography forum is beyond me.

If you just want a practical answer, stay off private property unless you have express permission to enter upon it.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16022975
Actually it isn't grey at all. You are free to take photos of or on private property unless notified otherwise (either in notice or by posting of a notice).

Or unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, so unless you can clearly indicate which situations would involve a breach of such and which would not (and even the courts cannot do so without looking at individual circumstances), it is a grey area.

Sirrith wrote in post #16048317
Or unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy....

Which quite clearly there isn't in this case. The OP is asking about photographing buildings out in the country, not sneaking into peoples bedrooms or the local Starbucks toilet.

Buildings, trees, cars etc have no right of privacy.

When I see signs like this, I tend to stay out.