# Trespassing, Photographing, Privacy, Opinions. . .



## payette

Hey all- 
Recently I posted a picture in the horse photos section, in which I mentioned that I had taken the picture while out for a drive, of a horse making a goofy face.
Little did I expect that a firestorm of controversy would erupt as to whether or not taking such a photo was legal or illegal, morally correct or incorrect, or just plain right or wrong. 
I am very interested in the discussion that arose, though the picture forum isn't really the apropriate venue.
So, I thought I would start a new thread where people are invited to air their opinions, and state the law as they may know it, regarding when and where it is "okay" or "not okay" to photograph other people's horses, property, etc. 
I have a habit of taking pictures when I'm out and about, of horses, hayfields, crumbling barns, cattle, etc. which I later use for reference photos in artwork. I personally don't photograph people's homes or vehicles, etc. without asking permission. (I'm also an architecture student, and I have on a number of occasions asked- and recieved permission- to photograph houses I admired).
My opinion about the appropriateness of publicly sharing a photo of property owned by someone else is that I don't feel that it is a big deal if there is nothing in the picture which is explicitly identifying. . . but, like I said, that's only my opinion!
Anyway, I started this thread to invite polite, courteous discussion of the topic. Please, everyone, share your point of view, explain it, defend it, etc., but please do not be rude to others. Everyone is equally entitled to their opinion.


----------



## wyominggrandma

Like I stated on the other discussion, I see nothing wrong with taking a photo of animals, etc as long as you are not invading private property. If a horse, dog, cat, deer, etc is in a pasture and you are on a public road, then as far as I am concerned, click away.
Photographers take photos all the time of all kinds of things, and are usually in a public place while doing it.
I loved the photo and maybe someday while you are driving through Wyoming you can take a photo of one of my horses being dorky. If so, just give me a print, okay?


----------



## TheRoughrider21

Honestly, I don't think its trespassing. As long as you werent hunting around the property and like creeping around. But I know three cops...I suppose I could always ask them but I'm sure laws are different in every state. I say if you can see the horse from the road then you're free to take a picture. Cause people could be walking on that persons property if the fence came that close and the person was just walking along the road, so I don't think its any different.


----------



## alexischristina

I wouldn't have a problem with it, I mean, people snap pictures of other _people_ all the time for goodness sake, and I've never actually seen anybody throw a fit- the person, usually, wont find out, and as 'wrong' as that may be, why isn't anybody yelling about that? Often times, when looking through photo's on 'photo sharing' communities, I find people are very proud of their 'sneak photos' as are other people looking at them.
But that's kinda off topic!

I think it's fine, so long as, should you be asked to stop/delete photots/take photos down, you do so politely and then ta-da! no harm done.


----------



## PaintHorseMares

To my knowledge you can generally take and even publish pictures of private property (including animals) from a public place for non commercial use as long as you do not infringe on the privacy or trademarks of the owner...so, unless you were taking a picture of Mr. Ed or if the farm's name was in the picture, I think you're fine.


----------



## HowClever

As far as I am aware it is common practice for rescue organisations over this way to take photos of horses on peoples' properties and it is perfectly legal for them to do so as long as they are on public land. Once you cross a fence it becomes trespassing obviously, but if you are on the side of the road/footpath, etc then it is well within your rights to take photos of anything within your eye sight.


----------



## Jake and Dai

This is an interesting topic to me as near where I live there is the most beautiful appaloosa mule. Not sure thats the proper term but he's got the longest mule ears and a lovely spotted blanket. I've been dying to take a picture of him and post just for fun but have refrained.

I don't think it is illegal but was never sure it was right. 

I wouldn't mind someone taking pictures of my ponies from the road, but would hate to see them show up in a critique section of a forum or heaven forbid, FHOTD.

Conflicted much?


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Jake and Dai said:


> I don't think it is illegal but was never sure it was right.


This!

I can not comment if it is legal or not. But I do not think it is right.


Kind of like the OP saying she asks about taking photos of people's houses that interest her. Why is it less important to ask about taking photos of their other things that are located on their own private property?


----------



## BigGreyHorse

I don't know if it is legal but it isn't right IMO and probably not wise either. 

Too many people these days have been targets of (possibly) well meaning crusaders. Over the years there have been enough photos & footage filmed of our farm to overloadl MGM's vault! Shearing sheep is abuse in case you didn't know. :roll: Just the sight of a camera-- inside or outside of our property lines-- gets me upset. 

All that to say, you don't know what has happened previously and an innocent photo may turn into a really bad situation if your intentions are accidentally misinterpreted.


----------



## payette

Jake and Dai said:


> *I wouldn't mind someone taking pictures of my ponies from the road, but would hate to see them show up in a critique section of a forum or heaven forbid, FHOTD.*
> 
> Conflicted much?


I totally agree with you about this! I've seen photos posted on craigslist this past winter where the poster trashed the owners of the horses living next door to them because they didn't feel that adequate shelter was provided. I felt mortified for the owners of the horses, (who looked healthy and content) as their home, paddock, and horses were picked to shreds by strangers. 
I don't feel that is right at all. I'm not THAT old, but I guess I am old fashioned, and believe if you have a problem with someone/something, then you should make an honest effort to communicate with that person directly. . .

I recently witnessed another example of a photographing situation I felt was "wrong", when a patient we were transferring to an air ambulance (I'm a volunteer EMT) was photograhed by 10 or 12 people with cell phones attending a Birthday party at a park directly adjacent to the helipad. The people were on public property, sure, and the patient was probably not readily identifiable, as they were covered in a sheet and surrounded by EMTs, but I was disgusted. I thought photographing that was extremely crass. There were law enforcement officers on scene as well, who did nothing to stop the photographers, so I'm assuming it was "legal"- but to me, definitely not "right".

Jake and Dai- If the mule in question is near you, ask the owners. Many people would be glad to let you take photos, especially if you offer them prints of any that turn out well!


----------



## Ballardhaus

I think as long as you are not making money off of it, it is not illegal. YOU took the picture, and its YOUR property. As long as you didnt trespass to get it, and you were on a public ground, you have rights to take pics. JMO


----------



## payette

Alwaysbehind said:


> This!
> 
> I can not comment if it is legal or not. But I do not think it is right.
> 
> 
> *Kind of like the OP saying she asks about taking photos of people's houses that interest her. Why is it less important to ask about taking photos of their other things that are located on their own private property?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Always behind- I don't think it is less important, per se.
> I draw my own personal right/wrong boundary at depicting things that are readily identifiable. For instance, a horse in a paddock, in front of someone's barn- I'd ask permission. A horse in a great open pasture with no houses nearby (which is more of the norm where I live) I don't generally ask permission. If the horse was clearly branded, I'd probably seek permission before publisizing (sp?) a photo.
> As well, if I were to take a particularly great photo that was worthy of selling as prints, or making into greeting cards, etc., I would definitely seek the permission of the owner of the horse, hayfield, or whatever. Even if I had to search for their house wherever it might be in proximity to their thousand acre pasture. . .


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Payette, I think that is a great way to determine what is OK and what is not. 

A plain chestnut that is not over distinguishing in a large open field with no landmarks to determine the identity of the horse, fine.

A uniquely marked paint with a very strange shaped tree behind it....not so much.


----------



## riccil0ve

As long as you aren't trespassing, the address, farm name, license plate number, etc isn't screaming at you, I don't see a problem.

How is it that www.peopleofwalmart.com has been around so long? Wouldn't it have been shut down if the majority of people complained about the "wrongness" of it? 

Although, oddly enough, you aren't allowed to take pictures in a grocery store, at least not at the one I work at. It's illegal.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

riccil0ve said:


> How is it that www.peopleofwalmart.com has been around so long? Wouldn't it have been shut down if the majority of people complained about the "wrongness" of it?


The same reason that Fugly does not get shut down even though the people whose photos are on there are not happy.

Legal and right are not always the same thing.


----------



## Lunarflowermaiden

riccil0ve said:


> As long as you aren't trespassing, the address, farm name, license plate number, etc isn't screaming at you, I don't see a problem.
> 
> How is it that www.peopleofwalmart.com has been around so long? Wouldn't it have been shut down if the majority of people complained about the "wrongness" of it?
> 
> Although, oddly enough, you aren't allowed to take pictures in a grocery store, at least not at the one I work at. It's illegal.


Yeah I don't see a problem either. There is also no real legal problem with taking pictures of anything on public property (I saw taking pictures of kids at a park being commented on in one of the threads on this issue, when there is no actual law against taking pictures of kids or anyone for that matter in a public park*). 

*You do want to be mindful of the parents though. Because while not illegal, some might think it is weird.


----------



## leonalee

BigGreyHorse said:


> I don't know if it is legal but it isn't right IMO and probably not wise either.
> 
> Too many people these days have been targets of (possibly) well meaning crusaders. Over the years there have been enough photos & footage filmed of our farm to overloadl MGM's vault! Shearing sheep is abuse in case you didn't know. :roll: Just the sight of a camera-- inside or outside of our property lines-- gets me upset.
> 
> All that to say, you don't know what has happened previously and an innocent photo may turn into a really bad situation if your intentions are accidentally misinterpreted.


I agree. I think I'm kind of contradicting myself, but I think it is the best bet to ask permission first. Especially when it comes to my farm!  I guess I have the biggest problem with people taking MY own photos and using them without my permission (you'd be surprised). All around, try to ask first the worst thing that could happen is they say "Absolutely not" in a tone that indicates bad experiences in the past swayed their decision.

But then, there is the stretching-it question of "What if the property isn't really identifying?" I suppose if I had 1000 acres, much of which was road-front pastures, as long as they didn't include my house/barn/identifying farm features, I wouldn't mind so long as the photog wasn't actually on my property and was being otherwise respectful. However, that's not the case in most places (especially around here). This reminds me of an instace when I was visiting France and drove by a beautiful mustard field: we stopped and hopped out to take a picture (in the ditch)... we were nearby a lonnnnnng driveway, but couldn't see the house. Wouldn't you know, the owners pulled in right as we were taking our pic (ourselves in the ditch in front of the seemingly miles of yellow field), and luckily they smiled and waved. I felt stupid, so I personally, wouldn't ever do that again...


----------



## speedy da fish

Personally I wouldn't mind if someone took pictures of my horse and i don't know anyone who would.


----------



## rocky pony

If I had a good reason to not want anybody taking pictures of my horses, I wouldn't put them in a pasture close to a public road, or I'd at least post a sign saying not to photograph them. If I had an extra good reason, I'd put them in a barn or somewhere tucked away and protected from the public eye. If I really, really had something serious going on, I'd probably keep them covered up (full flygear in the summer, sleazies and rugs through the rest of the year) or disguise distinguishable markings or buy only very unremarkable horses...maybe if someone had a hit out on me and I knew of some way to identify me by my horse, or perhaps if I were a horse theif :lol:

It's very silly to think that your horses are incapable of being photographed without your permission with drastic measures are not being taken to prevent them from being seen by anybody. Neither is your house or car or other animals...neither are you.
When it comes to posting a cute picture of a random horse in the middle of nowhere...I can't think of any valid reason to care (unless you would be in danger, in which case see above) except for just being sort of a wet blanket and saying "because he's mine". If your horse is in the view of the public eye, face it, anyone can see him. Who cares if it's through a photograph or in person, that horse is visible for complete strangers to look at all they want...even go home and update their blog about the silly horse they saw whilst out driving today, along with a very detailed description. Is that immoral too?

To the point, by all means, I'd be very pleasantly surprised to come across a photo someone took of my horse online, assuming the photo was, as described, taken from public property with no trespassing on private property and no one was claiming him as their own or publicly accusing me of poor care in an unjustified situation or, of course, making money off of it, or calling him butt-ugly (even then I'd just have my little feels hurt for him and agree that they were entitled to their own opinion, no real harm or fowl)
One of my favourite things to photograph these days is random cattle in the middle of nowhere. Honestly, I've usually been known to stop dead in the middle of the road, roll down the car window, and crank up the zoom. I've done the same with horses, though I usually get enough of a "fix" taking pictures of my own horses at home since I can get them to run around like wild things and pose for me 
Now that I certainly wouldn't do with a stranger's horses!

Wow, kind of a novel....it's late, I ramble!


----------



## jimmy

i do,nt see anything wrong with it ,if you want to use the pics commercially it would be manners to ask permission for that


----------



## KANSAS_TWISTER

again nothing wrong with taking a picture!!! question is there any difrence to posting a pic from public property then it is posting a pic on here of a horse that some one might buy?


----------



## rocky pony

I would think posting a picture of a horse you're considering buying wouldn't be as debatable, at least if the horse is listed online. If the owner put the horse online, why can't someone else do so to ask opinions on their conformation for what they'd be using the horse for? I would think a respectable owner would like potential buyers to be educated about the horse before checking them out.


----------



## speedy da fish

Alwaysbehind said:


> Payette, I think that is a great way to determine what is OK and what is not.
> 
> A plain chestnut that is not over distinguishing in a large open field with no landmarks to determine the identity of the horse, fine.
> 
> A uniquely marked paint with a very strange shaped tree behind it....not so much.


I think the owner of the horse will know, no matter what. Doesn't make a difference whether the horse is distinctive or not, it's the same thing.
I think that photographers can take pictures of what they want... and if they get complaints then they know who to avoid but they are not breaking the law (at least where I live).


----------



## Rowzy

I wouldn't mind somebody taking pictures of my horse in the pasture if 1) my pasture was visible from the road (and said picture was taken from the road and 2) they didn't show my address, any building etc.

Sometimes people take a picture of my horse when we are at a trail head but they always ask permission first and I am never on the horse. I don't mind that either.

What I do mind, and I don't think is right is people taking pictures of me AND my horse WITHOUT my permission. This has happened, and it is just really creepy.

That was a little off topic... Anyways I think the pictures that you take a perfectly fine, especially if you aren't going to post them for critique or something.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

The problem being that legal follows the same line for everyone and "right" is open to interpretation. Attacking someone for doing something perfectly legal because you don't think it's "right" can land in it's OWN realm of legality. That's automatically putting it in the same ballpark as people who verbally abuse or mistreat homosexuals for example. Your opinion or feelings on right or wrong do not give you the right to treat someone disrespectfully when they are in accordance with the law. I suppose you CAN as long as it's not in the vein of slander, libel or discrimination/racism, but I think it says a lot about someone who tries to push their own idealistic views on others.

In the end, you can not like it and you can request people don't photograph you or any of your property, but bringing the hammer down on someone who chooses to do so in an incident completely unrelated to you makes me think of Jehovah Witness' knocking on my door at 7am. 

I see zero difference in some random stranger photographing my horse from the road, some random stranger taking a photo of a downtown business or some random stranger photographing a crowd of people. In Canada anyway, it's a basic right as per our charter. Welcome to the media era, if it was illegal we wouldn't have People magazine to harrass all the celebrities. Do I agree with it? Not really, but it's still a legal right.

Canadian photography laws – VERY brief summary leaflet | Publicphotography.org

I do honestly believe that if you have issue with some photographing a horse or house or object that they do not own, that you should never be taking photos, ever. You will almost ALWAYS be including something you do not own, on vacations and trips, and I see zero difference in the moral OR legal right of photographing horses, croplands, highways, etc. that do not belong to you. Typically, you can't be morally against one thing and morally for another. That's like saying you're a vegan but it's ok to eat pigs because you don't like them and don't consider them animals.

Just my opinion!


----------



## Chiilaa

Well said MM


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

Just for the record, I read my post again and I wanted to state that I wasn't referring specifically to the recent post that caused this thread. I know nobody attacked her or abused her rights, I was just using it as a loose example of taking it to a more extreme measure in cases and what the legal implications could be. Just wanted to clarify on that!


----------



## kmacdougall

I'm really glad I found this thread because something kind of like this recently happened to me. I'll give you the short version: I despise my boyfriend's brother and he despises me. I was recently facebook "creeping" on one of his friends he had gone away for a weekend with and found a picture of (what I believed to be) my horse. It was taken at night while my boy was dead lame and had been laying down a lot. He was laying down in it, and wearing his red checked Hamilton halter. The corner & foundation of the barn were visible. Let me tell you, finding a photo of my horse on the facebook of a girl you don't know was very strange. But it wasn't the picture itself that bothered me. It was the fact that it was taken at night; from INSIDE his pasture; while he was in tons of pain and probably scared and confused as to why there were people around him. They have sworn up and down that it is another horse, but my dad and I aren't convinced and have even gone so far as to recreate the scene and photograph it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kmacdougall

I wasn't done sorry, my phone cut me off. Anyway the people swear it wasn't my horse, and 5 degrees to the right and I'd know for sure (he has one white heel bulb) but I don't and I don't think I ever will. My german shepherd sleeps in the barn now though. But if someone wanted to take photos in the day time, over the fence, without antagonizing them, I'd certainly welcome them. In fact, they'd have to walk on my property to take them, and I'd be okay with that. The nicest picture anyone has ever taken of my dog was taken by someone on my property while I was vacationing in Florida. It's so beautiful that she matted & framed it and gave it to me, and it hangs in my house. She has the rights to it, what she chooses to do with it, I don't care. I have the real thing, but I'm so happy she used her skills to capture something so important to me in such a nice way. And for what its worth, payette, I think your photo is wonderful. If you're ever in Canada's Ocean Playground, you are welcome to shoot my boys.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Solon

Alwaysbehind said:


> The same reason that Fugly does not get shut down even though the people whose photos are on there are not happy.
> 
> Legal and right are not always the same thing.


Agree 100% I wouldn't want someone photographing my horse and putting it on forums without my permission. May not be illegal, but it's not right.

I think the OP should not have done it and a house isn't less than a horse. It's interesting that its okay to get permission for the house but not the horse. JMO.


----------



## Lottii

I quite often take photo's of other peoples animals. But they are taken from a road/footpath or something, never close enough to be called trespassing. I think the only time I could have been accused of trespassing was climbing into a **** (empty stream thing) to take a photo without the fence in the way. Round here the ***** are generally considered part of the road etc but I am sure it could be disputed. 
And come on, don't you all get that little rush of happiness when a little girl sees your horse and bursts into a massive grin! If she has a camera and took a photo would you be upset?


----------



## ShutUpJoe

What the heck do you guys, who don't like people taking pictures of your horses, think is going to happen? I have no qualms with anyone who takes a picture of my horse as long as I'm not in the picture. Now taking a picture of my kids would be a completely different subject.


----------



## Amba1027

I just want to jump on here and point out something else. Everyone is saying don't take pictures of others horses/property/kids/etc. How many of you board your horse and take pictures when they are out in the field with their pasture mates? You probably get some other people's horses in those shots. Do you have their permisson to be taking pictures of their horses? I went to a park with my baby cousin. I took pictures of her while she was there. Being a park there were many other children there (along with many other people taking pictures). I'm sure I got a lot of other kids in those pictures. So what. Should parents not be able to take pictures of their kids in public places just because, heaven forbid, they catch someone elses kid in the photo?


----------



## Cat

My understanding is that it is legal to take pictures of private items as long as you are not trespassing while doing so. However - if that item is a privately owned item - you can not make money off that picture without the owner's permission. Meaning - you can't sell it as prints nor can you use it in some form of marketing material. 

What is legal does not mean its the same as morally right - those are two different things.


----------



## Solon

Amba1027 said:


> How many of you board your horse and take pictures when they are out in the field with their pasture mates? You probably get some other people's horses in those shots. Do you have their permisson to be taking pictures of their horses?


Yes I board and yes, I have asked permission to take pictures of my boy's pasture mate with the intent of sharing them with my friends online. That's the obvious thing to do. :roll:


----------



## Amba1027

How is that the obvious thing to do? I would never even have considered that one would need permission to have someone elses horse in pictures. It's not that big a deal. In fact, it's not any sort of deal at all. Like someone else mention, what do you people think is going to happen if someone else takes pictures of something belonging to you? I swear poeple freak out about this stuff just because they can.


----------



## Solon

Because people shouldn't be posting pictures of other people's [insert whatever you want] without permission. Maybe it's not obvious to you, but to a lot of people it would be.

I have to get all sorts of permission to take peoples pictures and use them at work.


----------



## Amba1027

Maybe it's just because I take thousands of pictures on a fairly regular basis but I truely find this ridiculous. Ever taken a picture of something in a parking lot? It would be virtually impossible to find all those car owners and ask their permission to post that photo. And I bet 99% of them wouldn't give a rats butt that you got their car in a picture and would be wondering why the heck you are wasting their time asking if you can post said picture.


----------



## Solon

I ask when I take the picture.


----------



## ShutUpJoe

I think this matter may be another agree/disagree thing. Some are going to say it's ok some are going to say it's not. It's not going to really change anything....


----------



## Sunny

I wouldn't want someone to take pictures of my horse. Why? I don't really know, for sure. Lots of reasons, you could say. Maybe because I keep my horse at a private facility and I don't want people lurking around. Maybe because I don't want a random stranger close enough to my horse that they could touch her. Maybe because it would likely result in tresspassing. Heck, maybe it's because i'm so selfish about my horse that I don't want anyone enjoying her but myself! :lol: I would be less agitated if someone just snapped a shot from a distance, enjoyed it, and deleted it. I would get angry if it was posted someone, like the internet. However, I wouldn't be happy with either. Different strokes for different folks.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Amba1027

ShutUpJoe said:


> I think this matter may be another agree/disagree thing. Some are going to say it's ok some are going to say it's not. It's not going to really change anything....


And that's fine except that the people who don't think it's ok are going to hound those that think it's fine. I don't want to have to worry about whether or not people are going to freak out at me when I post pictures now, just because I don't see the need to ask permission. If you think you should ask permission go for it. But don't bug others just because they don't feel the same.


----------



## ShutUpJoe

If you tell them you have permission how are they to know whether you really do or don't? The point is it's not illegal to take a picture unless you trespass to do so. So don't trespass and there isn't really anything anybody can do. If you post a pic you found on the web try to include the link, even though if they are really concerned all they have to do is look at the picture's properties and they can see themselves where it came from. 

I mean seriously how many sorrel, bay, black, grulla, buckskin horses are out in the world. Show me a horse and I could probably find one pretty darn similar. The only way I'd have a problem with someone else posting my horse's pic is if they claimed my horse was theirs.


----------



## Solon

Amba1027 said:


> And that's fine except that the people who don't think it's ok are going to hound those that think it's fine. I don't want to have to worry about whether or not people are going to freak out at me when I post pictures now, just because I don't see the need to ask permission. If you think you should ask permission go for it. But don't bug others just because they don't feel the same.


Oh baloney. No one is bugging anyone about it except sharing their opinions. And there are a lot of personal reasons why people wouldn't want others to photograph their horses. I don't know how many friends of mine have gotten AC called on them because some idiot takes a picture of their horse from afar without knowing anything about the situation. Rescued horses, just got to the property, Animal Control called. 

They didn't get into trouble after showing proof. That kind of thing happens all the time. People post pictures of other people's horses and say it's theirs like Joe mentioned. 

I just think it's really odd to take pictures of other people's property. When I'm at the fair, I ask the owner's permission to take a picture of their horse. It's polite. 

I don't want people taking pictures of my horses and posting them online. I know a lot of people who feel the same way.


----------



## Amba1027

This thread got started because someone posted a picture and people got worked up because she didn't have permission. So it's really not hard to believe that others might end up with similar comments on their picture threads.

People claiming someone elses horse is there own really has nothing to do with them taking pictures of someone elses horse. The one time I have seen that happen, the person took pictures that the owner had taken and posted themselves. So if you don't want that happening you (general you, not anyone specific) you better not post any pictures of your horse either. If you are fine with pictures of your horse being on the interenet why does it matter who took them?


----------



## Solon

Me taking a picture of my horse is way different than someone else taking a picture of my horse and posting it online.


----------



## Amba1027

How? It's still a picture of your horse on the interenet. Why does it matter who took it? Once it's on the interenet it can be seen/taken/used by anyone so it's not like you taking it and putting it up gives you any more control over the situation than if it was someone else doing it.


----------



## Solon

Because I think it's wrong. Period.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Amba, you are the one who is having a hard time with the agree to disagree theory.

It is shocking that you can not see the difference between someone else, who does not have permission, taking and posting photos of a privately owned horse, and the owner of that horse taking photos and posting them.

Let me give you a hypothetical example. Bob is a crappy photographer and has a strange sense of a good photo. You have Dobbin for sale, with well done professional photos that were hard to get and hand picked in all your sale ads. Dobbin is not the most photogenic horse. A good boy, but does not have the best conformation so you were careful at photos you posted in your ads and what photos you post to friends on the internet BBs you belong to. Bob on the other hand likes to point and shoot and posts albums all over the place with random bad shots of Dobbin in them. He even, at times, labels the photos with "here is a shot of Suzy Q's horse Dobbin in the pasture". People horse shopping do an internet search using Dobbin's name and Bob's photos are right there for them to see, showing off all of Dobbin's faults to an extreme. Instead of checking Dobbin out themselves, horse shopping people assume your nice pro photos are photo shopped and move on to another horse.

Hypothetical example number 2. Mary just finished up with a very nasty divorce. Her X is abusive and had threatened many times to take out his frustration on her horse. Mary moved Star to a nice private facility with just a few boarders on a back road. Not some place her X would ever seen Star. X is trolling various horse web sites looking for her though. Then one of the other boarder's at the facility Mary has Star at posts a bunch of photos. The photos include lots of shots of Star. Mary's X sees them and knows right where Star lives now.

The long and short of it is, why is being polite wrong? If you know the other people that board at your place, ask them before you post photos of their horses.

PS - This is an older thread that was bumped back up.


----------



## Yvette

Being a photographer myself, I have encountered these situations as well. I respect privacy of others as being morally right. I believe it isn't illegal to photograph from public locations. Each state can vary with their laws though....but generally photographing something without consent isn't illegal at all even with commercial use unless it has a distinguishable face of someone or a trademark. You would then need permission to use such photo with their face or trademark in it.
As far as privacy questions....
A person has a right to privacy that the law protects...

Quoting Wikipedia....

The "expectation of privacy," as a legal concept with a precise definition, is found _only_ in U.S. case law. It is related to, but is not the same thing as a _right of privacy_, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems (see privacy law).
There are two types of expectations of privacy:


A *subjective expectation of privacy* is an opinion of a person that a certain location or situation is private. These obviously vary greatly from person to person.
An *objective, legitimate* or *reasonable expectation of privacy* is an expectation of privacy generally recognized by society.
 Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are person's residence and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[1] or a phone booth.[2][3]
In general, one cannot have an expectation of privacy in public places, with the exceptions mentioned above. A well-known example is denial of privacy for garbage left for collection in a public place.[1]
While a person may have a subjective expectation of privacy in his car, it is not always an objective one, unlike a person's home.[4]
The privacy laws of the United States include the notion of a person's "open fields"; that is, places where a person's possessions do not have an objective expectation of privacy

But with all else...why not just ask?


----------



## Yvette

Also if you take the photograph you are able to use it in any format you choose unless it demeans the subject. Unless you sold your copyright to the photograph. Doesn't mean it is always the right thing to do though. You do have to be careful if you photograph something that could harm someone....could become a legal civil suit.


----------



## Amba1027

I don't have a problem with agree to disagree. I just like to argue unfortunately. My grandmother keeps telling me I should be a lawyer. I think when I don't understand why someone feels a certain way I keep goin at it until I understand. I don't usually get to the understanding part though. So I will leave it at that since I could keep going forever on this and that's not going to get us anywhere.


----------



## Solon

I don't think it's right. That's my reason.


----------



## Solon

Yvette said:


> But with all else...why not just ask?


Exactly my point. It's the right thing to do.

I wonder how many people would like to have pictures of their horses all over the internet? Maybe Amba is fine with it. I'm not particularly cool with that unless I am the one taking the picture and putting them up.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Or the other side of that coin, Solon. How many people would be tickled pink to have a cute photo of their horse if they knew it was out there? I mean, really, it is their horse. If you asked they would know about it, offer up their email addy so you can share the photo, or such.

Asking is not painful. That is the part I do not understand.




> I don't have a problem with agree to disagree. I just like to argue unfortunately.
> ​




They are mutually exclusive things. If you continue to argue then you are not agreeing to disagree.


​


----------



## Amba1027

Alwaysbehind said:


> They are mutually exclusive things. If you continue to argue then you are not agreeing to disagree.
> 
> 
> [/COLOR][/LEFT]


No, I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind and no one is going to change mine. We disagree and that is fine. That doesn't mean it can't still be discussed (or argued).


----------



## kmacdougall

What about when Google street view drives by and catches your horse in a field adjacent to a road? Why aren\'t you all freaking out at google, that kind of thing happens ALL the time.


----------



## ShutUpJoe

Or when your horse is at a show.


----------



## Sunny

Here is the overall point, guys. WHY NOT JUST ASK? This isn't about shows, or google. It's about random people coming to your pasture and taking pictures of your horse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ShutUpJoe

I was going off the horse's picture on the internet comment. When you are at a show your horse is bound to be in some pictures and probably posted on the internet.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Shutup, the show thing has been discussed. Going to a show you are taking your horse to a public event, etc. That is different.


----------



## AmberPick

Were you on their property? If not, how is it tresspassing? Do they have a huge privacy fence around their horses? If not, anyone who is on the road can see them! What's the difference between driving by and seeing them and taking a picture??? 

I'm huge into privacy and respecting people's rights, but taking a picture of a horse? And the people who are talking about taking a picture of a horse vs. taking a picture of a person - I'm sorry, no matter how much you love your horse they are not the same thing! And yes it is someone else's property.. Am I going to get mad if someone takes a picture of my car and puts it online? Nope, I'll be proud that they like it so much they took a picture!


----------



## EmilyandNikki

Me and my dog were on google maps. I was caught, easily identifiable, walking my dog. We were just down the road from my house, and of course, I had took my dog off the leash that day. No law against it, but I'm sure someone somewhere would give me hell for it(no one on my road, my dog is actually trained and my whole road knows and loves her) We didn't cause a fuss over it cause really, if anyone search's up my road and sees me, they probably live in the area. 

Now I'm bad, I take pictures of peoples horses...all the time. I do however, try to find out who the person is and ask if I can post pictures online. If not then they stay on my computer and I show people the pictures if they come to my house.

My only concern if someone took a picture of my horse and put it online would be people taking the picture and pretending the horse is there's and/or pretending to be me. But if someone did put a picture online, I hope they'd try to contact me because I would really like to see it!

(I use horse loosely here, I don't own a horse but I'm writing it as I do, because one day I will own my own)


----------



## xXEventerXx

If someone came on my property and were snapping pics of my horses in the field i wouldnt be mad id ask for copies  id take it as a compliment


----------



## equiniphile

I've only read the first 3 pages of this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating anything, but I personally think that as a photographer you have every right to photograph whatever you want IF you are not on their property. Stay on your property and photograph from a distance, go to a community park and snap shots, or take a pic from the side of the road, but don't trespass. JMO. Obviously there are exceptions to this, like photographing nude people through a window, or taking pictures of liscense plates, mailboxes, etc., and if you're going to publish a picture I would always get the owner's permission if it is something identifiable, like a house, person, etc. Horses? Click away, IMO!

ETA: peopleofwalmart is, IMO, full of people who purposefully dress like that just to be photographed and put on the site. I have no problem with that.


----------



## xXEventerXx

equiniphile said:


> I've only read the first 3 pages of this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating anything, but I personally think that as a photographer you have every right to photograph whatever you want IF you are not on their property. Stay on your property and photograph from a distance, go to a community park and snap shots, or take a pic from the side of the road, but don't trespass. JMO. Obviously there are exceptions to this, like photographing nude people through a window, or taking pictures of liscense plates, mailboxes, etc., and if you're going to publish a picture I would always get the owner's permission if it is something identifiable, like a house, person, etc. Horses? Click away, IMO!


When i do my photography i use my super zoomed in lense lol
then i dont need to tresspass


----------



## equiniphile

Yea, that's what I'm saying. Just don't, say, take pics of people through their window, for example.


----------



## xXEventerXx

that would be creepy seeing someone spying through my window haha


----------



## equiniphile

It's a violation of personal privacy, of course it's creepy! Lol


----------



## Regan7312

This thread is super old..just so you know


----------



## xXEventerXx

people are still using "clearly" so it doesnt matter


----------



## Regan7312

xXEventerXx said:


> people are still using "clearly" so it doesnt matter


That does not even make sense. I'm just saying this has been disagreed and argued over and is pretty much done.


----------



## NdAppy

Regan - I don't understand what you are getting at? The thread is not that old. There are still valid points that people can make on each side of the debate. There maybe someone who reads something earlier in the thread and wants to debate a point or have something said clarified.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

NdAppy said:


> Regan - I don't understand what you are getting at? The thread is not that old.


A thread that has had no posts for over two months is truly old. 
I believe Regan was just pointing that tid bit out to the two people who were posting on it in case they did not realize they were posting in what most people would consider a dead thread.


----------



## NdAppy

Two months old is consider a dead thread then? Wow. And that it is considered "super old" is kind of odd really. 

Pretty sad considering this _is_ a good topic and something that more people need to be aware of and should probably discuss.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

Appy, a 2 month old thread that has been going on for 2 months with posts is VERY different than digging up a thread that has not been posted on in 2 months.


----------



## NdAppy

I didn't say they were the same. To me an old thread is something that hasn't been posted on for almost a year or more. At that point I can see commenting "old thread" but not really for a thread that hadn't been posted on in two months. 

My point being there are poeple that don't frequent the forums as often as some and don't catch things right away. Like I also said their are points that can be added for and against the original topic of this thread. Getting bent out of shape because a thread is old is a little out there imo.


----------



## MsBHavin

Well gee, I guess I'll have to make sure I don't bring up any dead threads in case I have something of my own to add to it :roll:


----------



## xXEventerXx

BUT everytime you make a new thread people always say this thread was already made blah blah blah,,, so why would i go reply to a old thread when its "OLD".


----------



## Citrus

Good point eventer!


----------



## NdAppy

But on the same token you have people freaking out over a thread being old.


----------



## Regan7312

Alwaysbehind said:


> A thread that has had no posts for over two months is truly old.
> I believe Regan was just pointing that tid bit out to the two people who were posting on it in case they did not realize they were posting in what most people would consider a dead thread.


Exactly. And NdAppy, no one is "freaking out".


----------



## kitten_Val

Folks, there is no such thing as "old thread" if someone wants to share his/her thoughts on situation! The forum is PUBLIC and everyone has a right to post an opinion (given it's done nicely). _*Please, cool down! *_


----------

