abandoned ships in SF bay

[Norma Desmond]

<p>All kinds of reasons. Protect people from hurting themselves. Protect the privacy of what may be contained even in what is now rubbish. Our hard disks, when discarded, are rubbish, and contain much we wouldn't want to make public. So may our non-virtual things.</p>

<p>My "communication from God" comment was simply an answer to E. Short and was meant facetiously.</p>

<p>If I own property or the land something is on, do I really need to justify to some photographer why I don't want him on my land or photographing my property? Do you feel all photographers owe others a good reason (one acceptable to them) why they don't want them using their photographs without permission, or would we just insist they not use them without permission?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>People in this forum generally are quite concerned about their own rights as photographers. It would be nice to show others the same concern, even if their reasons for wanting you off their land or away from their property are not readily apparent to you or not good enough for you.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Our hard disks, when discarded, are rubbish, and contain much we wouldn't want to make public</p>

<p>There's all sort of folk who sort through rubbish,Fred. Photographers just photograph.</p>

<p>"do I really need to justify to some photographer why I don't want him on my land or photographing my property?"</p>

<p>No. However, some of us will believe that freedom of information is more important than individual selfish desires.<br /> <br /> <br />"People in this forum generally are quite concerned about their own rights as photographers"<br /> <br /> <br />Finger wagging, Fred. Yes, photographers rights are important it's called freedom of information. Perhaps the ongoing atrocities perpetuated on humanity would not happen so frequently if there was more freedom of information.</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Nice to see we're on the same side on this one, Fred.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to see how tough it would be to get legal access to those ships. If someone wants to try, the contact information is Kim Riddle, Maritime Administration Public Affairs, phone 202-366-5067, e-mail <a href="mailto:pao.marad@dot.gov">pao.marad@dot.gov</a>.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I was raised partially on Strategic Air Command USAF bases. It was among the greatest joys of my pals and I to sneak onto flight lines where, it was said, even General Curtis Lemay was supposed to be shot on sight...if he didn't pass through the proper gate with the proper pass.</p>

<p>Conflation of adventure with theft tells its own story. The story wasn't about theft, the photos weren't about theft. A little reading goes a long way...and a rat fink is a rat fink. Watch your backs :-)</p>

<p>I can't help remembering friends who were ratted out by sanctimonious "I'm cool" types, who then returned to their own dirty deeds, a' la Newt Gingrich.</p>

<p>Dragging "ownership" and "rights" into this is purest talk show twaddle. </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Allen, to me it's telling that you would assume individual needs or desires are selfish. I imagine that says more about you than anyone else.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What if, on my property, there's a picture of my father with his mistress. Maybe it looks like junk. Maybe I don't want someone photographing it and making it public. Maybe I have a right, not because of selfishness, but in deference to my mother's feelings. I'm not saying that's the case with the boat photos, but it can very well be the type of case with a lot of people not wanting photographers on their property . . . or something comparable even if not similar. Privacy is not selfishness. If parts of privacy or the motivations for it are, in fact, selfish (and I'm sure that can come into play in many cases), then parts of photographing other people's stuff is GOSSIP. That can be ugly and useless and claiming it's only about freedom of information is really, really tough to support.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Abandoned? Not hardly. Trespassing? Of course - no one should argue that. Dangerous? Perhaps even more than they imagined. "Empty" confined spaces like many of the internal compartments they seem to have accessed could easily, through breakdown or decomposition of materials, from release of stored gases, etc. could have made entry hazardous, maybe even deadly. </p>

<p>Well, if nothing else, MARAD is likely looking at beefing up security, securing unlocked doors, etc. Your tax dollars at work.</p>

[jodys]

<p>Bravo. I would have done the same. I have done in fact, many times. There is an unofficial code of ethics for 'urban exploration' (with or without photography), most practitioners are respectful and quite serious about it. I know when I have moved an object for the sake of taking a photo I have gone to great lengths to return said object to it's exact position so that nothing whatsoever was disturbed except the dust and grime I stepped in. I certainly do not vandalize or take 'souvenirs'. I do take appropriate precautions for my personal safety, both for the dangers inherent in abandoned buildings and in case I meet people. I do not make public the locations in which I shot any of my photos, so long as the buildings are still standing and accessible.</p>

<p>Tell me, anyone, would you really prefer it if the takers of these photos had not trespassed to do so (location: the Rawdon, Quebec Canadian headquarters/temple of the Order of the Solar Temple cult, post- mass suicides/murders, before the building's demolition in 2009)? <a href="http://www.uer.ca/locations/viewgal.asp?locid=23001&galid=15331">Link because these are not my photos</a></p>

<p>Note: since that visit, the site was vandalized and the more important artifacts (including the creepy giant mask) were stolen. The city demolished the site because it was attracting too many visitors and generally was unsafe.</p>

[will_daniel1]

Fred, I'm confused about your most recent post. If you mean a photographer stepping onto your property to take photos, that could be both trespass (criminal) and invasion of privacy (civil). If the photos were taken from outside your property line, say with a telephoto lens, it's only the latter -- invasion of privacy. However, if your father and his mistress were public figures or public officials, it might not be invasion of privacy. That would be up to a judge and/or jury to decide, and it varies from state to state.

[jtk]

<p>Perfect thread for July 4!<br>

Few Americans have any sense of the creative, mecenary, evil, wildass, literate, ink-stained-fingered, money-grubbing, fun, rock&roll personalities behind the "gossip" and crazed adventures that kicked out the jams ! <br>

MC5: <a href="

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No, Will, I'm talking about my private old father and his fictional private mistress. And I'm talking to those who ASSUME their actions (even when they return things to the way they found them) have no ill effect on others. No one has any idea why someone would want to maintain privacy and why someone wouldn't want them trespassing on their property, especially to photograph their personal items or property. It's not about vandalism or theft. It's about the ethics and legalities of taking pictures in a place from which you're banned. Taking such pictures can have ramifications that you can't foresee.</p>

<p>Kids. Tom Sawyer? Not much of a concern. To the adults in the room, however . . . </p>

<p>It's funny that Allen thinks I'm wagging my finger at him or the room but agrees with my characterization that many photographers who regularly participate in the street forum are concerned with their own individual rights to shoot. And well they should be. It's perfectly understandable. Allen, what if what I said were an observation without judgment? (Which it was.) Your interpreting it as a finger-wagging tells me it's you who imposed a sense of guilt or shame on it. I wonder why?</p>

[jtk]

<p>All that finger wagging seems like a yearning to prevent fun..</p>

<p>What about photographs of friends and "recent acquaintances" who think they're safe in privacy (not "in public")....whose families then find them posted on Photo.net... nekkid as jaybirds ?</p>

<p>Has each and every one signed a release? What if their families find snaps of them cavorting with other nekkid brief acquaintances in somebody's apartment?</p>

<p>Should the Moderator erase them to protect Photo.net from possible litigation?</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>From what I understand, they do not break in, because that's "breaking and entering" which a much more serious crime.<br>

So... trespassing-- <a href="http://www.shouselaw.com/trespass.html#1">in California, trespassing is</a></p>

<ul>

<li>entering someone else’s property <em>with the intent to damage that property,</em>⁴</li>

<li>entering someone else’s property <em>with the intent to interfere with or obstruct the business activities conducted thereon,⁵</em></li>

<li>entering <em>and "occupying"</em> another’s property without permission,⁶ and</li>

<li>refusing to leave private property <em>after you’ve been asked to do so</em>.⁷</li>

</ul>

<p>Defenses to trespassing include</p>

<ul>

<li>You didn’t <em>actually obstruct or interfere with the activities that took place on the property</em></li>

<li>You didn’t "occupy" the property-- In order to be convicted of California criminal trespass, you must <em>actually deprive the owner of his property for a substantial, continuous period of time</em></li>

</ul>

<p>Penalties-- Misdemeanor Penal Code 602 violations subject you to up to six months in a county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine. If your offense doesn’t rise to misdemeanor level, it may be charged as an infraction.<em> </em><br>

<em>Example</em>: Ignoring a "no trespassing" sign and going onto another’s private property will generally be charged as an infraction…the first and second time. A third offense on the same property will lead to a misdemeanor filing.²⁵</p>

<p>Sounds like the great crime of photographing boats is punished like a traffic ticket.<br>

The government doesn't seem to think it's a big deal and, for once, I agree with it.</p>

[will_daniel1]

Well, Damon, having looked at the definitions of trespassing under California law, I stand corrected in not wanting to glorify that guy for trespessing. But ... those ships are under federal juristiction, are they not?

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Boy oh boy! If you guys aren't the Kill Joy Brigade... a little adventure and a handful of compelling photos, and you're all tangled up in property rights, legalities, ethical dilemmas, and fear and trembling that these intruders could have gotten a boo boo or stepped on an upturned nail...</p>

<p>No one was suggesting it would be a fine thing to break into someone's home. These are abandoned ships... They carried out a plot that was coordinated, planned and executed perfectly. If you can't admire the derring-do of these photographers then something has dried up inside and you should lubricate the valves a little bit (with the plum juice, preferably... or--if of necessity--prune juice)...</p>

<p>As Robert Confucius Plant once said: Does anybody remember laughter?</p>

<p>Obviously, Fred, the adults in the room are akin to Mencken's Protestants who suffer from a pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun...</p>

<p> </p>

[ray .]

<i>"No, Will, I'm talking about my private old father and his fictional private mistress. "</i><p> For

myself, I wish you'd kindly consider abandoning this forum as a vehicle for your bizarre off topic

diversions or whatever is on your mind at the moment that has nothing to do with the original

topic. Please.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ray, done! A promise.</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Personally, I think Fred adds a lot to the forum... I might disagree with him and his manner at times (goose and gander), but his comments can be pretty pithy...</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>If you try really hard, you can turn just about anything into an arcane "philosophy of photgraphy" thread. I'd eather that didn't happen. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Well I guess that's that. Everyone can take a look at the link and see what they see.</p>