School for Girls

Is there any kind of Historic Preservation push to restore and "repurpose" it? There should be! I wonder if any of the (old)girls who went there are still alive and want it saved?

(Ah, you probably get tired of that kind of question from people. Its decay and solitude are beautiful. But I just don't want it to be gone, is all.)

StephenReed (25 months ago | reply)

This is beautiful!
Seen in:

What you see is what you are!!
Remember we expect for 1 post 2 awards!

Soggyfoot (25 months ago | reply)

Really dreamy quality, love it

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

@HannahLa: from your profile: "One other thing-- Copyright, All Rights Reserved means exactly that." Hmmm. Trespassing laws are akin to intellectual property laws, i.e. copyright - they protect your property. Not sure what you don't understand? While we photographers mostly have the best intentions, it is still breaking the law. Luckily, there are usually ways to obtain permission to gain access to a site - save that, stay out. Trespassing is trespassing and no amount of artistic rationalization can change that.

HannahLa (back again & still backlogged) (25 months ago | reply)

@k_nelson85, I see your point-- to a degree. But respecting my copyright doesn't mean people can't look at the photos where I post them. In fact I want people to look at them. It means they can't copy them and use them elsewhere or alter them without my permission. They are allowed to link to my stream from other sites so more people can see them, and I'm happy with that. I see that land property laws are there to protect the owner's privacy as well as physical belongings-- and for the safety of outsiders/ owner's liability issues, which would certainly apply to risks of walking in decaying buildings. So, true, even walking there respectfully, carefully, altering nothing-- it is breaking the law. Indeed, obtaining permission is preferable. The only problem is, for photographers, the light, which made those interiors sing. You can't schedule the weather to cooperate with a scheduled photo shoot. So, while I myself don't go into obviously forbidden or possibly risky places to shoot, I'm disinclined to slam those who do so benignly and tread sensibly. I'd concentrate on keeping out the graffitti-ists (even the so-called "art-level" ones-- who would certainly alter the property).

It would be a wonderful world if everyone respected eachother's rights and needs and behaved responsibly. But if everyone colored only inside the lines, never pushed a boundary? I'm not so sure.

I'm curious, also-- are you so firm on this point more for the protection of the owners, or for the photographers own best interests such as avoiding legal battles,etc.? Or simply because Law is Law? I admit, there's something to be said for each of those aspects.

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

As I mentioned, you can't rationalize breaking the law, that's why we have laws. If I decided I wanted to use your photos to raise money for a charity, without your permission, how would you feel about that? What if I decided to use the same photo for a political cause you disagreed with? The sensible answer is that you'd like to be asked as you reserve the right to decide.

IMHO, in addition to being illegal, trespassing is cheating. Sure it's a great shot, so I just went in a stole it - that's easy - the hard work is having the artistic integrity to respect your subject to the degree that you're willing to do the leg work to honor that respect. And if it doesn't work out, so be it.

I spent an entire year trying to acquire permission to cross private property to photograph this dumb covered bridge:

As I was reluctant to ask any of the homeowners whose land I had to cross for permission, I started with the town, the county, the state, I called historical societies, preservationist groups, the police department, and the PA environmental agency about right-of-way rules - all for naught. Finally, one day, I was driving in the area and noticed a homeowner in his driveway. I went up to him and simply asked permission and he said yes. And he was grateful because of all the disrespectful people that simply trespassed. In the end I felt great because I had done the right thing, and yes, I wasn't looking over my shoulder as I was happily snapping away, because I had permission.

Not directly related to this issue, but 2 links to info you may find useful:

www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-P hotographers...

Photos by ~dee (25 months ago | reply)

Perfect!

Martino ~ NL (25 months ago | reply)

Thanks everyone!!

As far as the discussion between k_nelson & HannahLa: I just want to state here that normally, i don't run away - ever! In several occasions while trespassing and meeting security and or owners, i just put out my hand and say hello. I try to explain why i'm there and what i'm doing. This most of the time result in a nice conversation or just a "you should not be here, i have to escort you out."
I'm not an explorer who is against permission or saying that with permission is not really exploring. I have been to plenty locations where i had permission. But often it's hard to track down an owner, especially when abroad. And often there's no reply at emails or you just end up in bureaucratic BS. Besides that, most city halls, governments etc don't want photos to be taken because they refer to these places as ugly and not representative. One of the reasons i shoot these places is to let people meet up with a world they normally wouldn't see because they're off limit. But that doesn't make them any less there. I want to show how some of our historical places are treated and forgotten and before they completely disappear they deserve a last tribute by someone who still sees there beauty.

I disagree that trespassing is cheating, it's just different. And whenever i see people around an abandoned place i ask if it's possible.

I hope this is somehow relevant... ;-)

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

Hi Martino, I think I made my point, but at the risk of flogging a dead horse, cheating means not playing by the rules, for whatever reason, and trespassing, for whatever reason, is not playing by the rules.

Oh, by the way, I downloaded this image and entered it in a photo contest under my name - wish me luck!

(the previous comment was not intended as a factual statement)

Martino ~ NL (25 months ago | reply)

Hèhè good luck hope you'll win! ;-)

dididumm (25 months ago | reply)

Looks like a magic place. Must have been even more beautiful in its days.

Entering it in a contest under your name isn't the same thing - you wouldn't just be trespassing, you would claim the property.

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

@didiumm - actually, I'm just claiming the prize money, not the photo.

dididumm (25 months ago | reply)

Under your name = you say it was your photo (i.e. you took it, you're claiming all the rights). Of course that way you're also claiming the money. ;o) Your other example works a lot better for a comparison with trespassing ("If I decided I wanted to use your photos to raise money for a charity, without your permission, how would you feel about that?").

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

but, but, I gave the photo back;-)

My larger point is that I was taught you can't rationalize breaking the law. If you had a No Trespassing sign on your property, and some stranger started wandering around with a camera, and claimed to be there "in the name of art", would it be okay? Now you may be an understanding fellow and say, sure, go ahead, but what if he didn't have a camera and looked dubious, but made the same claim? Laws are laws, period, end of story.

dididumm (25 months ago | reply)

You didn't, actually. Unless once you won you admitted it wasn't yours. ;o)

I got your point, I just didn't think the (second) photo example was a good one. I'm not sure if it's always wrong to break the law - like if you disagree with the law for a good reason, and your own ethics aren't congruent with what the law says, it may be right to break the law. It's an interesting discussion, but of course it would go far off topic.

So, to stay on topic: if someone owns the property shown here in the photo and obviously doesn't seem to care for it at all - is it really that wrong if a photographer appreciates it, and that way of course cares for it? I can't tell for other countries, but I know most abandoned buildings here do have 'No trespassing' signs for liabilty reasons - idiot enters a derelict building, gets hurt and sues the owner.

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

I think you answered you own question in the second statement. Trespassing signs protect the owner (liability, damage, theft) as well as the trespasser (injury, contamination - asbestos, cancinogens).

"it may be right to break the law" Hmmm. Right in what sense? Morally? Ethically? as long as you have good intentions? well, isn't the road to hell allegedly paved with good intentions?

dididumm (25 months ago | reply)

Maybe the straight road to hell is to strictly follow (man-made) laws, no matter what. :o) Of course ethically, just imagine the dark eras of dictatorships.

In fact, I didn't answer my question, I just mentioned responsibility - no matter what you do, it's up to you to deal with the consequences. So if you enter 'forbidden' territories and get hurt, don't blame anyone but you. And if you get caught, don't complain. It's a fair deal, IMHO - nobody will get ruined or killed just because they ignore 'No trespassing' signs. The worst thing that happens will be a small fee.

But since we're talking about it, who owns a building, and what does ownership mean? We had this Google Street View discussion going on, and there are people who say that noone should be allowed to take photos of THEIR home. Not even google. Of course there are laws dealing with this problem, but to these people they aren't strict enough: "Without my (prior) permission, noone should be allowed to take photos of my property and publish them."
Another example, the photographer, exploring abandoned buildings and properties, is finding a treasure. Let's assume our photographer is a honest person and doesn't just keep it. Who owns it? Why does it make a difference if the photographer finds a treasure inside a (hidden) closet , or if he just finds some sort of treasure map there that tells him to go out in the garden and dig there?
Well, the road to hell, and the rights of people who already own something... it's complicated, not just black or white. I'd say the photographer, illegally trespassing, is walking somewhere in the grey shades.

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

Try telling that to a judge and see how far it gets you.

It's about personal responsibility and consequences. If you're willing to do the time, then go for it. However, most sensible people realize that it's not worth it and that anarchy isn't a good idea.

dididumm (25 months ago | reply)

Willing to do the time? What the heck are you talking about? Most sensible judges are very well aware of the grey areas of law. It's not just strictly following the law or anarchy, but like I said, for some people there really is just black or white. This photo, btw, was taken in the UK - are you sure the photographer's rights you were linking to are the same in the UK? Or anywhere else for that matter?

Did you even bother reading my examples? I doubt it. ;o)
Urban explorers do a great job. There are a lot of abandoned buildings close to where I'm living, and I'm happy that there are still people who care (most of the owners don't). I also think there's so much beauty in decay.

k_nelson885 (25 months ago | reply)

Your examples are absurd ("the photographer, exploring abandoned buildings and properties, is finding a treasure") huh?. If you break the law, you face consequences - what is there not to understand about this? "grey shades" - oh really! For instance, it's legal to trespaSS on days beginning with the letter S, but the rest of the week, watch out? Obviously we disagree and I'm fine with that. Best of luck!

dididumm (25 months ago | reply)

You didn't get my examples, they were about ownership - who really owns something? There are lots of grey shades, like the treasure you'll find. Depending on the country and the law, and depending on where you'll find it (in the closet, or right next to the front door in the garden, where you had to dig for it) you're allowed to keep it. You started it with mentioning copyright, a very difficult topic, in the days of the internet anyway.
So, you couldn't explain who will do time either? I guess noone will - it's just trespassing we're talking about, not robbing or killing people. Well, in some countries the owner of the property is allowed to shoot people who are 'illegally' trespassing, but we're talking about modern and civilised countries here, not the ones with medieval laws and ideas. :o)