Lough Dan entanglements

DaireQuinlan

Anyone have shots of the environs of Lough Dan on their stream, and get comments asking them to be removed ?!?

These were from a hike to Lough Dan over the summer. We walked down the normal way, through the valley of the cloghoge until we came to the L. Dan shore. We came back by crossing the stepping stones over the Cloghoge River and walking up the hill along a path until we hit that track that continues along the top of the ridge until it reaches the main road just down from the gates. I'm almost completely certain that entire trek back is publicly accessible, although the landowners around there have blocked off access by locking the gates at the top end. Anyone familiar with that walk ?

Obviously if that road IS private then I'd guess I'd best remove the pictures.

Here are the two shots, comments below them.

http://flickr.com/photos/dairequinlan/569720865/
http://flickr.com/photos/dairequinlan/569257972/

Rojo

don't tag your photos next time.. :P

Fajitas!

You should have been there for TJM's talk on Saturday

Borderfox

Very strange, the person that requested the removal has one picture of lough dan taken with a camera phone. From their tone they seem to live/own land around there.

thebaz

why ????

its only a harmless image of nature -- i hate when people think cause they own a bit of land , they can bully / look down on others -- God if this country gets much worse , i'm leaving to some where more freindly , or should we let the bullies win

trooney

Some of the area around the Cloghogue valley is owned by the Guinness estate. There's some very nice rock climbing/bouldering about the place there, but we have to be somewhat careful in regards to access when we climb in the area.
Don't understand why they would want photos removed though. There are many places where you could get their land into a shot whilst not actually on the land.

nilhg

thebaz wrote: »

why ????

its only a harmless image of nature -- i hate when people think cause they own a bit of land , they can bully / look down on others -- God if this country gets much worse , i'm leaving to some where more freindly , or should we let the bullies win

Thats not quite fair Baz, I don't want to get into the whole ramblers rights debate here, but I would have to say that on my own little bit of land here I have no problem giving access to people who ask, but those who feel they have a god given right to do as they wish, no matter what the consequences for others are a different matter.
Don't forget there are issues with livestock and/or dogs and that also the land owner has legal duties towards those on his land .

PaulieC

I would be very interested to know the legal ins and outs of this guys request. I doubt very much if he is within his rights to make you remove the shots. He can ask, but given the way he has asked, I would be more inclined to leave them up than take them down.

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

We came back by crossing the stepping stones over the Cloghoge River

i'd be too scared to cross those carrying camera gear.
assuming you're referring to the ones down within a hundred yards or so from the lake.

jubi lee

when we tried to get to loguh dan we couldn't. not allowed to park anywhere and big signs up saying no trespassing.

don't think anyone actually OWNS the lough though right? so they shouldn't be able to ask you to take em down. they prob have tourist photos themsleves and don't want anyone else supplying them.

AnCatDubh

keeping on topic i.e. i don't own land other than me back garden and i don't walk on anyone else's that i'm aware of - would this be worthy of discussion at flickr central - http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/ I mean they won't have an Irish legal interpretation but you may get some reaction to the flickr aspect of hosting your image and their approach should the individual complain to them?

Covey

I would have thought that if the path that you took it from is public, even though the lough may be private, your fine. If not I'd remove them.

Bearing in mind also that Flickr.com is probably subject to US law and not Irish law.

T.

Alun

It's known as the Ballinrush track, and was used by walkers for years, if not centuries, without any problems until probably a year or two ago when some rather hostile notices were placed on the gate at the top of the Pier Gates, which was also locked. Also on the other side of the river where you cross the stepping stones there are some notices too. It is private land as far as I know, but I'm not sure who actually owns it. I think it might be the owner of the house that's situated right down by the shores of Lough Dan, just around the corner to the right there as you cross the stepping stones.

Don't get me started on the subject of rights of way in Irish law, it's a right royal mess.

DaireQuinlan

nilhg wrote: »

Thats not quite fair Baz, I don't want to get into the whole ramblers rights debate here, but I would have to say that on my own little bit of land here I have no problem giving access to people who ask, but those who feel they have a god given right to do as they wish, no matter what the consequences for others are a different matter.
Don't forget there are issues with livestock and/or dogs and that also the land owner has legal duties towards those on his land .

I absolutely understand this, I'm very respectful in general while out and about in the country, no dogs, close gates behind me, clean up after ourselves etc etc, and I certainly wouldn't wilfully trespass without permission. The whole issue with this is that I'm pretty certain that IS a public access, not withstanding the fact that they've locked off the road end of it and put up private property signs.

magicbastarder wrote:

i'd be too scared to cross those carrying camera gear. assuming you're referring to the ones down within a hundred yards or so from the lake.

Yeah the same ones. I'm pretty sure-footed :-)

DaireQuinlan

Alun wrote: »

It's known as the Ballinrush track, and was used by walkers for years, if not centuries, without any problems until probably a year or two ago when some rather hostile notices were placed on the gate at the top of the Pier Gates, which was also locked. Also on the other side of the river where you cross the stepping stones there are some notices too. It is private land as far as I know, but I'm not sure who actually owns it. I think it might be the owner of the house that's situated right down by the shores of Lough Dan, just around the corner to the right there as you cross the stepping stones.

Don't get me started on the subject of rights of way in Irish law, it's a right royal mess.

Ah, just saw this now. Is there any references to this ? The fact that its private ? I was aware most of the land around was private, I was pretty sure the access road and path up from the river were public however.

D.

DaireQuinlan

Covey wrote: »

I would have thought that if the path that you took it from is public, even though the lough may be private, your fine. If not I'd remove them.

Until I read Alun's comment above I was sure the access was public, nothing wrong with taking pictures of private property from a public place. If the path itself is private then If he's the landowner or an agent acting for the landowner then he's well within his rights to request their removal.

Alun

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

The whole issue with this is that I'm pretty certain that IS a public access, not withstanding the fact that they've locked off the road end of it and put up private property signs.

All the land around there is privately owned, and is outside of the official boundaries of the Wicklow Mountains National Park unfortunately. Whether the path is an official right of way is anyone's guess, considering the parlous state of both the legislation surrounding such matters and the historical records, or rather lack of them.

EDIT: Boundaries of National park here ... http://www.wicklownationalpark.ie/downloads/park_boundaries_map.pdf

magicbastarder

couple of references to lough dan and rights of way here:
http://www.keepirelandopen.org/newsletter0401.htm
http://www.keepirelandopen.org/newsletter_10_2006.htm

Monasette

Regarding the comment to remove, it is up to yourself. I doubt if either picture could be construed as an invasion of privacy, so you would not be legally bound to remove them. On the other hand, do you think the pictures might encourage others to trespass to get similar shots/enjoy the same views.

I've wondered about this myself when taking pictures in Connemara. Usually, if I'm unsure of the land ownership , I don't identify the location.

Alun

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Ah, just saw this now. Is there any references to this ? The fact that its private ? I was aware most of the land around was private, I was pretty sure the access road and path up from the river were public however.

I'm not sure as to the exact status of the path, but then again, I'm not sure anyone bar a High Court judge could give you a definitive answer. The path has definitely been in constant use for many, many years and until recently there were no problems with it. The thing is that the whole legal situation surrounding public rights of way in Ireland is one huge can of worms, plus the fact that no-one seems to feel responsible for administering and documenting them (although I believe it is the County Council's responsibility to do so). In fact the situation is, as I believe it, that there is in fact no fully binding definition of a right of way in Irish law.

m_stan

Really dont know the ins and outs myself, but it seems odd for someone to make such a request and very unlikely that there's any legal grounds to force you to take the shots down.

Either way, a bit of comment spam on his account might shut him up.

Fenster

From experience, you're within your rights to (politely) ask him to kiss your arse. This is turn would be excellently followed on your part by you blocking him from your photostream.

There are really only restrictions on photographing people (even if in public) when they're in a situation where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Simply taking a photo of someone's property is perfectly legal. If it wasn't you would never see any photos on Flickr; when you walk around town and take photos you're photographing someone's private property.

"Richard Hie" is either a troll or someone completely ignorant of the realities of both media rights and the nature of the internet.

I think he may have the upper hand here.If you don't remove them he might try and get you done for trespassing.I have looked into this a bit in the past.There was some sort of act to do with travellers introduced a few years ago you might remember.The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 if you want to look it up.It was introduced to stop travellers camping on private property but it still has something to do with everyday trespassers. "This act criminalizes trespass on public and private land".In the past this was a civil offence but now it is a criminal offence meaning you can be arrested or fined €3000 or both!It was despicable of the government to sneak this law in.We're the only country in the British Isles with such a law.In England it's a civil offence and in Scotland there's no such thing as trespassing.But to get back on topic I think it may be best to remove them just so you don't piss him off.If I was you I wouldn't want to take them down either but weighing up the options it might be the best idea.

thebaz

that was my first thought - troll -- how does a bit of old iron in the middle of the Wicklow countryside (private or public) , disturb someone ?

Fenster

Trespassing is legally defined being on someone's property after they ask you to leave. Criminal damage is held separate to this. Being asked to leave also includes ignoring any posted "No Trespassing!" signs. If there was nothing posted and the path was a de-facto public right away, "Richard Hie" has very little to legally stand on.

If you're simply on someone's property and do no interfere with any item of theirs, there's relatively few courses of action they can take outside of a costly civil suit.

Alun

Here's another thread on the same topic ...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055148923

Seems like Richardhie (or is it Richard H IE) is making himself a bit unpopular!

Fenster

Fenster wrote: »

Trespassing is legally defined being on someone's property after they ask you to leave. Criminal damage is held separate to this. Being asked to leave also included ignoring any posted "No Trespassing!" signs. If there was nothing posted and the path was a de-facto public right away, "Richard Hie" has even less to stand on.

If you're simply on someone's property and do no interfere with any item of their, there's relatively few courses of action they can take outside of a costly civil suit.

Thanks for the info.I'll have to look into this.I've had a few lets say "run in"s with farmers before who weren't too impressed with me being there,there were no signs but a couple of gates and fences.I wonder where I stand legally there.

Fenster

I forgot the "IANAL" part. It's important.

Ha fair enough it probably wouldn't hold up in court but it could be used to blag your way out of a situation.It does sound semi-realistic.

Fenster

Actually it probably would stand up, but again, IANAL.

I had a fetish for crawling around ruined castles and ruins in general; it helped me in a lot of situations to know exactly what my rights were.

Richard Hie would have an interesting time trying convincing a judge that photos of a rusty old fence had caused him material damage. He as absolutely no other proof to substantiate notions that you may have caused (hypothetical) harm to his property.

TelePaul

The walking trail is certainly open to the public. The game keeper there is quite strict on who does what while on the land - I tried camping there once, nightmare situation! But seeing as if it were private property, the thousands of walkers who visit the lake would also be breaking the law. It seems like a no-brainer to me; either the land is private property and you can't enter (which is not the case, right of way is encouraged) or you have the right to enter and therefore photograph as much of it as you want. I'd take this to the legal discussion forum, very interested in this as I happen to like the area.

nilhg

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for the info.I'll have to look into this.I've had a few lets say "run in"s with farmers before who weren't too impressed with me being there,there were no signs but a couple of gates and fences.I wonder where I stand legally there.

Well, unless you had asked or been invited in I would think that you were in the wrong place, and in the wrong legally. Even if we leave the legal part aside surely common manners has to play a part.

All this is totally separate to the OP's original question, my feeling would be that until the situation becomes clearer, the best thing to do would be to restrict access to the two photos concerned to your contacts.

joolsveer

nilhg wrote: »

All this is totally separate to the OP's original question, my feeling would be that until the situation becomes clearer, the best thing to do would be to restrict access to the two photos concerned to your contacts.

I would not take the photos down or make them private. In my opinion if you take photographs from a public right of way you have every right to have them up on the web or to publish them. Of course I have to point out that I am not a lawyer. I have been taking photos for over 30 years and never came across this high handed approach.

I seem to have the ruin fetish aswell!I only enter private property to visit an old manor,mill,castle etc.If the land is near a house I will obviously ask permission,as you say common manners.Most of the time the owners have no problem.However if there is no clear landowner I will jump the fence.All I am doing is visiting a part of our national heritage.I don't believe that our heritage should be barred from us.The only castles in this country we are allowed to legally visit are national monuments and from experience at least 90% of these are locked up.I don't see the harm in crossing a field just to visit these places.

Fenster

joolsveer wrote: »

I would not take the photos down or make them private. In my opinion if you take photographs from a public right of way you have every right to have them up on the web or to publish them. Of course I have to point out that I am not a lawyer. I have been taking photos for over 30 years and never came across this high handed approach.

Agreed. You've done absolutely nothing wrong at this stage and restricting the photos would have a chilling effect, which is something we really don't want to promote around here.

nilhg

Deleted User wrote: »

I seem to have the ruin fetish aswell!I only enter private property to visit an old manor,mill,castle etc.If the land is near a house I will obviously ask permission,as you say common manners.Most of the time the owners have no problem.However if there is no clear landowner I will jump the fence.All I am doing is visiting a part of our national heritage.I don't believe that our heritage should be barred from us.The only castles in this country we are allowed to legally visit are national monuments and from experience at least 90% of these are locked up.I don't see the harm in crossing a field just to visit these places.

Thats OK till there's an accident, then the s*** hits the fan, and the land owner can be held (at least partially) responsible.

Just because there is no visible landowner about doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do as you like.

If I fall and hurt myself or something collapses under/on me it is clearly my fault.I am not going to sue the land owner for emotional and physical damages because of my stupid mistakes,this country hasn't turned into America just yet.Legally no I am not allowed to visit these places but ethically as long as I'm harming no one but myself I don't see the problem.

nilhg

Deleted User wrote: »

If I fall and hurt myself or something collapses under/on me it is clearly my fault.I am not going to sue the land owner for emotional and physical damages because of my stupid mistakes,this country hasn't turned into America just yet.Legally no I am not allowed to visit these places but ethically as long as I'm harming no one but myself I don't see the problem.

We've gone way off topic so I'll just say that unfortunately you are more honest than most.

stcstc

ignoring the right of way for a min

if you take pictures of someones private property, if the owner objects dont they have the right to request the pictures are not published apart from as part of a news story??

like if you go to some of the opw visitor sites for example your not allowed to take photos


maybe I am wrong but that was my understanding of it

TelePaul

stcstc wrote: »

ignoring the right of way for a min

if you take pictures of someones private property, if the owner objects dont they have the right to request the pictures are not published apart from as part of a news story??

like if you go to some of the opw visitor sites for example your not allowed to take photos


maybe I am wrong but that was my understanding of it

What's opw?

templeathea

Its pure bull**** frankly. Regardless of the Irish legal situation, Flickr is without the jurisdiction and so technically the offence of posting the photograph has happened in the US. Taking a photograph (as has been said) is not in itself an offence here so he'd have to prove that you were trespassing when you took it. Given the costs of going to court and the fact that you did no damage the Judge would doubtless give him a bollocking for wasting the court's time.

nilhg

Office of Public Works

stcstc

office of public works


they run quite a few of the historic sites around the country

amcinroy

This will never go to court. Now way.

And if it does, take him on and you'll be front page of Amateur Photographer magazine and become a hero.

I have written a little more in Olivier's thread.

Don't be bullied by this man. His actions will do little more than wreck his photographic profile in Ireland.

I would be tempted to point him here too.

Andy
www.andymcinroy.com

mloc

To clear this up a bit, since Flickr is based on US laws;

In the US it is permissible to take a photo of ANYTHING or ANYONE once the photographer is in a public place. The exceptions to this are breach of copyright (e.g. taking photos of trademarks, intellectual property etc) and some security issues (e.g. airport security, subways although again these aren't public places).

So really, the question is if the path is public or not. If it is, you're grand. If its not, you are not trespassing once you were not asked to leave (verbally or with signs), so the only real course for the guy to take is to sue on grounds that you photographed a non-trademarked area whilst on private property. And best of luck to that!

nilhg

mloc wrote: »

So really, the question is if the path is public or not. If it is, you're grand. If its not, you are not trespassing once you were not asked to leave (verbally or with signs), so the only real course for the guy to take is to sue on grounds that you photographed a non-trademarked area whilst on private property. And best of luck to that!

The problem is that if its not public, he may decide its not worth his while to sue, but that it is worth his while to put up a fence and keep everyone out, who wins then?

sgt.bilko

Just putting in my tuppence worth:D

The land is privately owned and therefore anyone who is present on the piece of land is trespassing and therefore is liable for prosecution if the landowner or agent thereof wishes to pursue the matter.

As a matter of interest, the complete lough is privately owned by landowners in the immediate area.

Just to clarify the matter, there is a sign at the steping stones stating that it is private property (or similairly worded) so why would anyone think that it has access to the public. This sign is visible in the picture.

I am not the landowner of the area in question or an agent but purely clarifying the situation.

Fenster

nilhg wrote: »

The problem is that if its not public, he may decide its not worth his while to sue, but that it is worth his while to put up a fence and keep everyone out, who wins then?

We don't even know if it's his land, or what rights he has, to start with. If he blocks off a public right of way that's been there for X years, he'd have a fight on his hand from other locals. If they took it to court, he would again have to document any damage to his livestock and property from the public, which can be tricksy unless he sits out there with a camera.

I remember that fencing off land like that has been successfully challenged in the past - the two cases that I vaguely recall were in East Galway and somewhere in Wicklow, respectively... One was mentioned on RTE as it took successively nasty turns.

amcinroy

What is the historical background regarding access? Does anyone know?

This will have a major bearing on any contested access for benign pursuits such as photography.

Andy

nilhg

Fenster wrote: »

We don't even know if it's his land, or what rights he has, to start with.

Very True

Fenster wrote: »

If he blocks off a public right of way that's been there for X years, he'd have a fight on his hand from other locals.

Thats if it is a public right of way, just because it has been used by locals does not mean it is.

Fenster wrote: »

If they took it to court, he would again have to document any damage to his livestock and property from the public, which can be tricksy unless he sits out there with a camera.

No, they would have to prove a right of way exists.

Fenster wrote: »

I remember that fencing off land like that has been successfully challenged in the past - the two cases that I vaguely recall were in East Galway and somewhere in Wicklow, respectively... One was mentioned on RTE as it took successively nasty turns.

Not what anyone wants though.

This whole subject is a mess in this country and needs to be sorted out, I understand things are in motion but at the usual speed.

sgt.bilko

amcinroy wrote: »

This will never go to court. Now way.

And if it does, take him on and you'll be front page of Amateur Photographer magazine and become a hero.

I have written a little more in Olivier's thread.

Don't be bullied by this man. His actions will do little more than wreck his photographic profile in Ireland.

I would be tempted to point him here too.

Andy
www.andymcinroy.com

Andy, by your wording i presume that you are familiar with "Richardhie"?

I was brought up to respect other peoples property and if there are signs up saying "private property" or similiar wording, then I respect the signs. They are there for a reason, are they not?

How would you feel if you found someone sitting in your front garden taking photos of your house and then selling the pictures of your window box on the web? Are they allowed to do so because you don't have a sign saying "Private Property"???