Laws/Ethics Re Photography

[Birchcraft]

Just wondering if there are any laws out there or even unwritten rules regarding photography on/across private property. The other day while driving around my friend decided to stop and take some pictures of the mule deer which seem to be full time residents of this neighbors field when someone pulls out of the driveway and starts yelling at him that he doesn't have permission to do that and that its private land. Keep in mind he is parked on the road taking pictures and in this zone the only open season is cow elk and there is no good elk area for at least 10 miles. I can kind of see where the a landowner would be coming from but i never thought a guy would get in **** over taking pictures of a bare field. Thoughts?

[catnthehat]

Public road, wildlife , issues that I can see, but then I am not up on the laws concerning that.
Cat

[densa44]

There are crazy people everywhere.

[riden]

On public land you need no permission to take a picture of anything, or all paparazzi would be in jail.

Wildlife in a field, zero issues.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

I think if the mule deer was in a picture displaying his address, license plate, mailing address and two pieces of ID around his neck while standing in his living room
Maybe

But standing in a field

No

[creeky]

i get permissions for private property and have the owners sign a property release. likewise, government clients will not license an image with identifiable property in said photograph without a property release.

[NEWB]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

I think if the mule deer was in a picture displaying his address, license plate, mailing address and two pieces of ID around his neck while standing in his living room
Maybe

But standing in a field

No

Licence plates and addresses are visable in the public domain. I always chuckle about the people who freak out about their licence plate showing up in a photograph...

Two pieces of ID I would agree with.

Sounds like the guy had a melt down for no reason.

[BANG]

Sounds like he had a run in with a mental health issue.

[Birchcraft]

Thanks for the replies, seems that most would agree no harm done.

[Diesel_wiesel]

I had some people flip out on me for taking pics of a giant mule deer buck once
that was standing in the middle of a cutline on crown land while I was parked in an approach off the road
they said I needed some kinda photography licence
I told em to go pound sand in no uncertain terms
and another time some guy flipped out on me
said the deer were on his land so therefore he owned them while they were on his land
he got told to pound sand as well

[dodger]

I had the dash cam on while driving down the Deerfoot. I have possibly recorded 200 license plates. I will update later on how many lawsuits are pending.

Or. Take the pictures you want of said Mule Deer and ask farmer if his wife wants to be in some pics

Dodger.

[Clgy_Dave2.0]

Point the camera right at him and rapid fire about 20 frames and just smile and wave.

[BlackHeart]

Shows his level of pure ignorance.

Nothing is crossing his property.
If he understood any concept of light and science.
In fact the light from the deer is crossing to the camera, and is no longer on his property.

If you were violating his privacy, then he might have a valid issue, but deer do not have any right of privacy. ;-)

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by NEWB

Licence plates and addresses are visable in the public domain. I always chuckle about the people who freak out about their licence plate showing up in a photograph...



Two pieces of ID I would agree with.



Sounds like the guy had a melt down for no reason.

I agree

[Birchcraft]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

Shows his level of pure ignorance.

Nothing is crossing his property.
If he understood any concept of light and science.
In fact the light from the deer is crossing to the camera, and is no longer on his property.

If you were violating his privacy, then he might have a valid issue, but deer do not have any right of privacy. ;-)

I think it was more of an issue that everything in the picture like the field landscape was his property, or atleast that's what i'd argue in his situation, kind of right to privacy sort of deal. But this guy is well known to be very protective over the deer. It is actually very good that they have his property to hang out on as mule deer are very pressured in our area the last few years.

[Nova]

http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

[walleye guy]

I'm thinking the people at google take a lot of pictures of people's houses and stuff !

[rem338win]

There is zero expectation of privacy in an open field, private or not. Trespass is another matter.

Our laws do not protect any person or entity from having pictures taken from outside of a premise. If you leave the blinds open.....if he doesn't want pictures taken from the road he can build a high fence.

[Ranets]

Originally Posted by rem338win

There is zero expectation of privacy in an open field, private or not. Trespass is another matter.

Our laws do not protect any person or entity from having pictures taken from outside of a premise. If you leave the blinds open.....if he doesn't want pictures taken from the road he can build a high fence.

Exactly landowner needs to take a valium and chill out

[BlackHeart]

Originally Posted by Birchcraft

I think it was more of an issue that everything in the picture like the field landscape was his property, or atleast that's what i'd argue in his situation, kind of right to privacy sort of deal. But this guy is well known to be very protective over the deer. It is actually very good that they have his property to hang out on as mule deer are very pressured in our area the last few years.

Is the light that leaves his property also part of his kingdom??

Your not taking a picture of him in his bedroom.
From the road, a deer on his land, he cannot expect any concept of privacy to apply when anybody driving by can see the same things.

And besides....whats the harm in photographing crown owned deer??

You may try to argue, with someone taking pictures, of your land or of an animal on your land, but depending on your approach and if you took this guy's approach/attitude, that the deer are HIS deer (and he probably has NO-HUNTING signs up every 100 yards), it could lead to some ugly responses.......where you would be 100% in the wrong legally and logically.

Retaining this attitude eventually will lead to trouble.....as the illogical thoughts just self feed to even more illogical thoughts......and then poorly thought out actions. Its not a far stretch for him to start interfering with a legal hunt on nearby crown land......if he is thinking the deer are under his protection.

We need to stomp out this thinking that deer are private property just because they are on private land.

[bobtodrick]

Okay...from a photographer.
You're on public property...snap away at your hearts content.
If there is someone in the picture that is identifiable...AND YOU STAND TO MAKE MONEY FROM THE PHOTO...then you need a model release.
If you are on public land and there is someone in the photo...and you won't make money from it (meaning advertising), or you are casting them in a bad light and publish it...if they give you grief tell them to stuff it.

[Corpus]

Sounds like an extreme case of paranoia.