photosbyhenry Loc: Apple Valley MN

Can you or myself photograph old barns without permission from the owner of the land?

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

Henry,
In most states, as long as long as you arent tresspassing, it's legal. Reactions of property owners may vary depending on thier degree of suspiscion. I carry a stack of simple business cards, and will often offer a print as a "token" if confronted with a hesitant owner....it has worked for me.
Rocco

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

It all revolves around "the expectation of privacy" and are you invading someones right to privacy.
I spend more time getting permission than shooting pictures.
However I have shot pictures of barns and cattle and published them without problems.
A big part of the issue is your ultimate use of the images.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

In Florida our g0ven0r, while not on medications, introduced a bill making it against the law to photograph any farming area in any way from any distance,,, a tree from the roadway with a 500mm lens is a,, REALLY INSANITY, DO YOU GUYS AGREE?? NASA may be exempt? It passed!

We will no longer do hard time and lose our lives because "the crime has been changed from felony to misdemeanor,"
http://www.dvafoto.com/2011/03/update-to-florida-farm-photography-bill/

A FELONY FOR PHOTOGRAPHING A BARN!!!!

We must all remember the as the Republicans candidates and the Supreme Cort say, Corporations are people.... the only exception being, they get more than one vote!!!

Is it really a crime for me to photograph an orange, or an old barn,,,, perhaps the barn has to be 18 y/o or older.

Do other states have such laws????
Do you think it is a good law????

KathyinNH Loc: Kingston, NH

I photograph barns all the time but it is always from the road which is perfectly legal, I guess as long as I'm not in FL. That's the first I've ever heard of it being illegal. Hope that doesn't catch on in other states.

Freddie Loc: Orlando, FL

If anyone is worried about the Florida law, it's not about photographing barns. I don't like big brother controlling me either, but this bill, from what I've read, only effects people who are trespassing on private property for the purpose of taking photos. I would guess it deals more with the tresspassing. If you are not caught tresspassing, you get away without penalty as they have no proof. With this law, if your photos are taken while tresspassing, they can now become a violation because your photos are the proof you were trespassing. If you took photos and didn't publish them in a way to damage the property owner, who would file the charge against you? If you are not up to any maliscious behaviour, you are OK, it's better to ask permission if you sre going to enter someone's property.
The law also does not apply to those of us who take pictures in a public place or from the road or any other public property. I'll be honest, I don't want anyone in my back yard looking in my windows without my permission, whether taking pictures or not. The law was implemented for the agriculture industry (livestock) because of people who think killing a cow for the hamburger they ate for lunch in inhumane and want to make a photography statement. What do you want big brother to do, outlaw hamburgers?
Most laws are there because someone's rights were violated, unfortunately protecting one person's rights may limit others. It's a battle between who's rights are more important in each case. I don't have the right to yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater. Some would say that violates my freedom of speech..... Should I have the right to take pictures of any private corporation's operations? Some would say that violates my freedom of expression.... What if my motive was to blow up a factory, but I didn't know how the building was constructed. Should I have the right to tresspass on the private property of the owner so that I can destroy his corporation? What about his rights to protect his business? Oh, it's a slippery slope my friends....

wmralls Loc: Kansas City

Why don't we read our own sources???

Quoted from this site referenced on dpullum's link:

http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/2011/03/21/florida-farm-bill-update/

"Mixed news on the Florida Farm bill (SB 1246) today. The Florida Senate Committee on Agriculture approved the bill, but before they did they passed two amendments to the language of the bill.

The first amendment changes the language of the bill so that it only applies to trespassers who enter the property, and exempts law enforcement and agents of the Department of Agriculture. The bill now only applies to someone who “enters onto a farm or other property … produces audio or video records without the written consent of the owner or an authorized representative of the owner,”"

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

You expect rational listening to facts to persuade the delusional minds of left wing hippie democrats? never in a million years. That wasn't an earthquake that hit Washington DC last week that was Washington Lincon and Jefferson rolling in their graves over the "community organizer/marxist agitator we have in the white house.

photosbyhenry Loc: Apple Valley MN

I did not mean to or want to this turn into a politcal format. Just an answer to a question. Please keep it on the subject. Thanks

bigcoz Loc: Philly

Never had a problem.

spokenimage Loc: Bearwaller, KY

I am from Bearwaller Kentucky the only thing that we worry about is what will come running out of the barn at you!!!

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I agree, not a political forum. However, when our art form is jeopardized, we should protest.

I was familiar with the FL law before the changes, happy that they changed it. Was rushing out the door this morning to teach a 7AM class and did not thoroughly read the ref, just the change to misdemeanor. For that error, I apologize to all and thank, WMR, the one who gave correct definition. If it had not been changed, we would all have been justifiably very unhappy.

Once I was chatting with Ben Franklin, that ol' liberal hippie commie guy. yep the one with kite and key and he said,"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

PS: love the barns.
Take lots of photographs and enjoy. FL too many termites, too few barns. d/p

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

if you are discussing a law that concerns photography you are discussing both politics and photography and there is no way around it. but to bring this closer to the origional poster question if the subject you want to take a photo of is on private property take your shot from the street or siddewalk or get permission from the owner. Its just common courtesy. There are people who like to go into derilict buildings and take interior shots without first getting permission and risking their safety and the safety of others for a photo. this is to me unethical as well as tresspassing. Finally dpullam you have every right not to agree with Governor Scott but to state he is on medications just because you dont like him is slanderous to both him and to the millions of americans who do suffer from mental illnesses like ME. I am on medication to cope with depression and would not be able to function with out them. One in five americans suffer from some sort of mental illness or learning disability. Perhaps if someone in your family suffered both the effects and the stigma of mental illness you wouldn't be so quick to use an inflamatory putdown.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Sorry, most insensitive of me. That is a sincere apogee. Truly out of line and said in anger based on many changes that a high percentage of Floridians are riled about. Again my apogee, even I trip over my shoelaces and revert to fuming foully. I walk away from this forum that I polluted.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

apology gracefully acepted. no need to withdraw, i actualy enjoy many of your posts about photos and find you insiseful. ( I know i spelled that wrong). You are passionate about what you believe and that is never wrong.