Posted by atothe To the person who create this post: Your friend published an article (not atlast obscura, i believe dailyuk?) that made tons of people go to this location and destroy it. The explorers who went werent stealth, sometimes parking directly in front of the property on a private course. There had since been several fires at the property since the article was posted, and it has now been boarded up much tighter (even though people still can get in). Said noobs even got busted and arrested at the property! That is the reason why you friend was charged, because its easily apparent that he was inside the property, and I'm pretty sure dropped almost the name and location of the property (if not hints). Mansion sat for years with no issues until this article ended up blowing the spot up for some internet click bait. The art of sitting on your photos is long gone unfortunately...

It was on AO too. Since his legal trouble a lot of the info has been pulled from it. But he dropped the name and the exact location, alongside his full name.

This kind of thing is exactly the reason I don't post any of my photos on an account that has my name. I made a separate account exactly for this. I've heard too many of these stories.

Posted by NellA_NiveD This kind of thing is exactly the reason I don't post any of my photos on an account that has my name. I made a separate account exactly for this. I've heard too many of these stories.

Ummm, you aren't as invisible as you might like to be. Don't delude yourself.
If they want to (federal level especially), they will find you.

In 10 years here I've heard a few stories like this. Most times it's because another crime was committed and/or the site wasn't abandoned.

Case finally dismissed a few weeks ago.

Posted by atothe To the person who create this post: Your friend published an article (not atlast obscura, i believe dailyuk?) that made tons of people go to this location and destroy it. The explorers who went werent stealth, sometimes parking directly in front of the property on a private course. There had since been several fires at the property since the article was posted, and it has now been boarded up much tighter (even though people still can get in). Said noobs even got busted and arrested at the property! That is the reason why you friend was charged, because its easily apparent that he was inside the property, and I'm pretty sure dropped almost the name and location of the property (if not hints). Mansion sat for years with no issues until this article ended up blowing the spot up for some internet click bait. The art of sitting on your photos is long gone unfortunately...

+100

I'm glad your friend got fucked; he deserved it.

Posted by blackhawk Ummm, you aren't as invisible as you might like to be. Don't delude yourself. If they want to (federal level especially), they will find you. In 10 years here I've heard a few stories like this. Most times it's because another crime was committed and/or the site wasn't abandoned.

Nobody is ever completely invisible but at least precautions are taken to cover myself in most situations.

Posted by NellA_NiveD Nobody is ever completely invisible but at least precautions are taken to cover myself in most situations.

Yes, well... it's not enough.

Posted by atothe To the person who create this post: Your friend published an article (not atlast obscura, i believe dailyuk?) that made tons of people go to this location and destroy it. The explorers who went werent stealth, sometimes parking directly in front of the property on a private course. There had since been several fires at the property since the article was posted, and it has now been boarded up much tighter (even though people still can get in). Said noobs even got busted and arrested at the property! That is the reason why you friend was charged, because its easily apparent that he was inside the property, and I'm pretty sure dropped almost the name and location of the property (if not hints). Mansion sat for years with no issues until this article ended up blowing the spot up for some internet click bait. The art of sitting on your photos is long gone unfortunately...

^this^

Spot on. Destroying a site just because you need to be a attention whore is despicable.
Giving the location away is not needed nor desirable.

I know of a real killer cold war bunker.
Q: Can you keep a secret?
A: So can I...

A site is not a tourist place...Many Asian Uers I knows never or regret telling someone the location. If you tell someone a "beautiful" site, be prepare the next time you go back and see 50 Canons and families flooding the place. The next thing you know is the place will be destroyed. Signature carved on walls, graffiti, garbage, urine, and did I mention stealing little pieces from the place as a souvenir?

I'm super late to the party on this but to the OP who said "He's a professional photographer"

No he isn't. A real pro has an agent/rep, a studio manager, a producer and enough clout to gain access legally. At the very least a real protest calls from clients to shoot, they don't shoot and then try and sell their shit to a web site.

He is at best an amateur who sells his product to a bunch of middle of the road rags. No one is hiring him, he has no commercial clients. His images are a shade better than most first year photo students at Art Center.

What he does is photojournalism. I mean, his "product" category is an obscene joke. No lighting, no post. It looks like he walked into a mall with a point and shoot.

And his people shots.... stahp already.

If he was a real pro, he wouldn't have to broadcast and sell out the locations he shoots.

You don't see Kurt Iswarienko, Jeff Reidel, or any other real pro's blabbing about their locations.

Sorry to the other members for this rant, but I'm tired of these "fake" pro's and also tired of people blowing out good spots for some click bait.

Probably doesn't help that he entered the home of an ex-governor's brother....who happens to be pretty rich.

Posted by OnlyFootprints I'm super late to the party on this but to the OP who said "He's a professional photographer" No he isn't. A real pro has an agent/rep, a studio manager, a producer and enough clout to gain access legally. At the very least a real protest calls from clients to shoot, they don't shoot and then try and sell their shit to a web site.

Well that was thoroughly elitist. I am not, nor do I aspire to be a "professional" photographer, but I know several, and their accomplishments and degrees of success (monetary and otherwise) vary dramatically, as with almost every single other profession on the planet. Not every "professional" photographer has a studio manager or a producer. Lots of "professionals" don't shoot inside studios.

As far as I'm concerned the only real qualifier for being a "professional" photographer is that it be your primary source of income. Some people might make a million dollars a year at it, some might pull in poverty-level wages. They're both "professionals" in their own right. Nikon "Professional Services" tends to agree with my rationale too, for what it's worth....

Meh, if was a pro he wouldn't have been arrested.
Furthermore none of those shots can be used commercially.
I doubt very much the owners will sign a photo release... amateur.

Posted by Impfac Case finally dismissed a few weeks ago.

So did anything come of it, or completely dropped? Court appearances, etc.? I find this stuff fascinating actually.

Posted by blackhawk Meh, if was a pro he wouldn't have been arrested. Furthermore none of those shots can be used commercially. I doubt very much the owners will sign a photo release... amateur.

Since when did you need to have owners sign a release to use images of their property in commercial photographs? maybe things are different in Canada, but up here at least, my understanding is that only people need to give permission. Buildings and other such inanimate objects have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I can be asked to leave private property for setting up a commercial shoot inside of a mall, for instance, but they couldn't prevent me from using whatever photos I took of their building before I was asked to leave. Individuals photographed have a valid claim preventing me from using their likeness, but the building has no such recourse...It's a building, not a person.

Posted by terapr0 Well that was thoroughly elitist. I am not, nor do I aspire to be a "professional" photographer, but I know several, and their accomplishments and degrees of success (monetary and otherwise) vary dramatically, as with almost every single other profession on the planet. Not every "professional" photographer has a studio manager or a producer. Lots of "professionals" don't shoot inside studios. As far as I'm concerned the only real qualifier for being a "professional" photographer is that it be your primary source of income. Some people might make a million dollars a year at it, some might pull in poverty-level wages. They're both "professionals" in their own right. Nikon "Professional Services" tends to agree with my rationale too, for what it's worth....

You're right. I was just pissed by the OP's statement and didn't iterate myself clearly. Mostly because I am so sick of these jag-offs exploiting the crap out of a place and ruining it for the die hards out there.

Yes, you are 100% right, technically a pro does make their living primarily by their photography no matter what that wage is.

I guess my angle was as a "professional" he should have taken the proper steps to get his shots. Cutting corners is freshman year antics.

P.S.- A studio manager is the person who manages the office of the photographer, not necessarily an actual studio.

Posted by terapr0 Since when did you need to have owners sign a release to use images of their property in commercial photographs? maybe things are different in Canada, but up here at least, my understanding is that only people need to give permission. Buildings and other such inanimate objects have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I can be asked to leave private property for setting up a commercial shoot inside of a mall, for instance, but they couldn't prevent me from using whatever photos I took of their building before I was asked to leave. Individuals photographed have a valid claim preventing me from using their likeness, but the building has no such recourse...It's a building, not a person.

It is common practice to obtain a release from the owner of a property (home, car, pet, artwork, etc) before the image can be used by a third party for an advertisement.

This usually applies when shooting on private property, when shooting in a public area (like a sidewalk) but prominently featuring a private property, or when shooting in public where a film/photo permit is required for your shoot (advertising and most editorials).

I had AT&T (their ad agency) want to use an image I took inside a home, but since I did not have the owners permission in writing, only the talent had signed a release, they passed on licensing my photo.

Here is a quote from an entertainment attorney on the issue:

"A property release is advisable and may be needed from each property owner whose property appears in a photograph that is used for advertising or trade (business) purposes when the property owner is clearly identifiable by the property. (Note that the owner can be a corporation as well as an individual.)"

Posted by terapr0 Since when did you need to have owners sign a release to use images of their property in commercial photographs? maybe things are different in Canada, but up here at least, my understanding is that only people need to give permission. Buildings and other such inanimate objects have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I can be asked to leave private property for setting up a commercial shoot inside of a mall, for instance, but they couldn't prevent me from using whatever photos I took of their building before I was asked to leave. Individuals photographed have a valid claim preventing me from using their likeness, but the building has no such recourse...It's a building, not a person.

While you could publish the images as art without written release you couldn't use them commercially as for say advertising.
He was also inside private property, trespassing as oppose to shooting the exterior from a public place.

Posted by OnlyFootprints I'm super late to the party on this but to the OP who said "He's a professional photographer" He is at best an amateur who sells his product to a bunch of middle of the road rags. No one is hiring him, he has no commercial clients. His images are a shade better than most first year photo students at Art Center.

Uh ok.

He just got hired to shoot a movie and was paid to be flown around the country shooting. He's done commercials, and fashion shows. He's had commercial clients and is traveling now doing some commercial work, although I haven't talked to him in awhile as he's busy working. His job. As a photographer.

The UE stuff is his hobby. As in something he enjoys but does not make a living from. Just like its my hobby, but with far better pictures to show off after. Also, he doesn't take his best equipment when he shoots abandoned buildings, which may account for why you are not impressed with the quality of the shots. Or because you're just worked into a tizzy because someone pressed your buttons.

So yes, he's a professional, stow your butt hurt.

Posted by CatAndTie So did anything come of it, or completely dropped? Court appearances, etc.? I find this stuff fascinating actually.

He had to appear 3-4 times and it was adjourned each time before being dismissed completely.

Posted by Impfac Uh ok. He just got hired to shoot a movie and was paid to be flown around the country shooting. He's done commercials, and fashion shows. He's had commercial clients and is traveling now doing some commercial work, although I haven't talked to him in awhile as he's busy working. His job. As a photographer. The UE stuff is his hobby. As in something he enjoys but does not make a living from. Just like its my hobby, but with far better pictures to show off after. Also, he doesn't take his best equipment when he shoots abandoned buildings, which may account for why you are not impressed with the quality of the shots. Or because you're just worked into a tizzy because someone pressed your buttons. So yes, he's a professional, stow your butt hurt.

I expanded on my earlier rant to clarify my butthurt origin. I'm just pretty over people exploiting urbex for some click bait.