So if I am at the Superbowl and I turn around in my seat and using my wide angle lens get a shot of 800 or so people behind me, all close enough to make out their faces clearly, I have to get all of their permission before I can sell the shot to Sports Illustrated?
that's a silly comparison, if you ask me. If you are at a sports event, you are there at an organized event, and there are photographers there.
If you are walking down the street to the parking garage to go home, that's not an organized event.
If you buy a ticket to an event, or go to an event, I would almost bet that somewhere in the 'agreement' of buying a ticket or attending an event (which may not actually be written on the ticket itself, or posted publicly), there is something about photographs in there, as well as a host of other things and liabilities/non-liabilities, that if people were concerned about, they could ask and find out.
I know when I shot at drag racing a few times, I had to sign a few things, one of them stated that I *could* photograph the people (both participants, and spectators), and that no releases were required. (I asked about this, because I didn't know) Now I don't know how the people in the stands or the guys doing the racing are notified of this, but if they are concerned about it I'm sure they could ask. And if I was photographing a car or a driver, and someone there said they did not want their photo taken, I would oblige and try not to take any photos with them in the photo.
The same question can be asked of landscape photographers. Why do you feel a persons property "should be a free enterprise". You speak so loudly for "humans" rights, the same is true for property rights. Here is an example, you see this great old barn sitting in a field. The sun beams are hitting it just right thru the clouds. You capture the scene, do you compensate the owner when you sell the print in a gallery?
If it's on private property, then yes I think so. I will try to ask the owners if I can photograph their barn. I've done it many times, and 9 times out of 10 they say something along the lines of "Sure go ahead! Do whatever you like, just don't destroy it!" I've never sold any of my work, but if I did sell a photo of a barn on someone's private property, I would at least offer them a print.
I think the attitude of "if it's there, I can photograph it without question" and being all pushy about it, is what gives photographers a bad name alot of the times. Maybe I'm just a nice guy, but I like to ask first before I photograph on private property. I usually photograph on public lands or national reserve areas, parks an hiking trails or overlooks and so on, but if I go into someones back yard and shoot their house, I'm on their property shooting their property. If I decide to sell the print, I would at least offer them a print, yes.
If there is something out in the wild that is obviously left abandoned, I will most likely not attempt to find out who the owner is. If it's got a 'private property' sign, or some other sign, I will try to find out who owns it, and ask them. To me, it's common courtesy.
I don't think it's always cut and dry, black and white, but if an obvious attempt has been made to render the area private, I will ask first.
This is another example
