Strangers getting on my boat

[menzies]

Greet them at the door naked. Tell them, you are a nudist. Invite them in and tell them, they must get naked too AND remove your shoes...... LOL
If that doesn't discourage them, .....

Problem is they may take you up on it, then what!

 

[moparharn]

A few thoughts:

1. As a woman your situation is different than mine would be. I think you should have notified the harbor master immediately that you had trespassers onboard your vessel and let him deal with the people directly. Once they know you have seen them they are less likely to help themselves to your property.

2. Thieves are not stupid. They will have a ready made excuse for why they are on your boat. It is common, sadly, to use children as part of a criminal enterprise. Never let your guard down because you see another woman or children involved.

3. As a man, I would have returned to the boat and asked the father to take a walk with me. I would make it clear to him the danger he has put all of us in and that he should move along and not return. I would then go see the harbor master. I would photograph each of them and give the photos to the harbor master.

4. I could not imagine having to dock in cities where there is currently a lot of unrest. As a "yacht owner" you could be identified as a prime antagonist in whatever struggle it is they think they are involved in. Be conscious of the image you might be projecting. Wealth or weakness are two I would avoid.

5. My dog goes with me unless we are eating inside or where dogs are not allowed. Had I returned with my dog and trapped them on the finger dock it would have been a terrifying experience for those kids. Kids (part of the plot or not) should not have to suffer for the sins of the parents. If he were on board this situation would not have happened. Some type of alarm/monitoring system with obvious photographic equipment is a good crime deterrent. For the picture takers and drunks there likely is no cure that would be acceptable to you.

6. Society is changing, and not for the better. Have a plan. Assume nothing. Enjoy yourself because you know you have a plan and its is in place.

 

[High Wire]

Beware of Pit Bull sign ok?

 

[OldDan1943]

Problem is they may take you up on it, then what!

You gotta ask? You failed sex ed in school?

 

[moparharn]

Beware of Pit Bull sign ok?

My boy is the sweetest 110 pound German Shepherd you will ever meet. Unfortunately for the ill intended he can read your mind from 50 yards away.
He is the bell of the ball at farmers markets and other public gatherings, but when it comes to gauging others intentions towards his herd he is no joke. It is strange how he can sense a normal flow of human behavior, but once someone starts to act differently (looking around, trepidation, fear, moving too quickly, etc) his starts to change his attitude towards the circumstance. He NEVER lets his guard down. How this was bred into these dogs I will never know.



In my friends Tesla trunk.

 

[SteveK]

My boy is the sweetest 110 pound German Shepherd you will ever meet. Unfortunately for the ill intended he can read your mind from 50 yards away.
He is the bell of the ball at farmers markets and other public gatherings, but when it comes to gauging others intentions towards his herd he is no joke. It is strange how he can sense a normal flow of human behavior, but once someone starts to act differently (looking around, trepidation, fear, moving too quickly, etc) his starts to change his attitude towards the circumstance. He NEVER lets his guard down. How this was bred into these dogs I will never know.

View attachment 108947

In my friends Tesla trunk.

Bad example, did the dog ask to sit in the trunk?
Very nice looking shephard.

 

[moparharn]

My friend put him in there. He was more than reluctant to do it. She posted it on the Tesla owners page. I guess they have a monthly competition for pets posed in Teslas. He only took third so maybe he is not everything I made him out to be. He is to me though. Love my puppy. He just turned two and is still puppy skinny. Can move like a movie on fast forward, you only touch him if he lets you.

 

[denverd0n]

I used to have a friend who bred black german shepherds. Man, those were beautiful dogs. And they very definitely had ALL of the protective instinct bred into them!

 

[Lazero]

Strange situation, I hate it when strangers are even next to my boat

 

[Barabus]

As a boat owner, I have never and never had another boat owner just jump on someone’s boat. Always invited. I am not sure non boat owners understand this. At our Marina by a university had some kids jump in a bow rider to take pictures. You know “I’m on a Boat” selfies. They did this right in front of me so clearly they did not understand it wrong.

 

[denverd0n]

I remember seeing a boat on a dock in St. Petersburg that was not gated (most of them seem to be). It had a sign on it that said, "This boat is private property. Trespassers will be prosecuted."

 

[OldDan1943]

I remember seeing a boat on a dock in St. Petersburg that was not gated (most of them seem to be). It had a sign on it that said, "This boat is private property. Trespassers will be prosecuted."

A. you are working on the assumption the person can read.
B. needs to be in Spanish too
C. maybe a skull and cross bones will give them an idea.

 

[AusCan]

Ostensible differences in culture on how people perceive strangers and regard possessions.

I've found a family of four sitting on the gunwhale of Spy eating ice cream. I smiled and nodded towards the boat. They quickly apologized and got up and walked away.

Saw a young couple in love sitting on the trunk cabin posing for a photo once.

Many people taking photos of it while we're obviously on board (even in the cockpit). Occasionally they ask.

None of these people are boaters. They see it as more of a fancy car rather than a RV. A vehicle as opposed to a residence. For the ice cream eaters, it was a park bench in the shade.

It's always been a case of no harm, no foul for me. Shrug.

Next time. Buy an ugly boat.

Agree 100%.

Even though our marina access is gated, I often see people gazing at the boats from the shore. Occasionally I'll start up a conversation, and invite them in to look at the boats. I've even taken a young couple who were dreaming of getting a boat one day, out for a quick cruise. It absolutely made their day.

You get what you reap if you start building walls between the haves and the have-nots.

 

[ABfish]

I talk to my dock neighbor every weekend, but I do not step on board his boat without permission.

Looking in windows is rude and intrusive, regardless of whether the owners are on board. Even when dock walking and sightseeing, I don't intentionally look in windows.

But I will ask folks aboard who are polite and inquisitive.

 

[OldDan1943]

I talk to my dock neighbor every weekend, but I do not step on board his boat without permission.

Looking in windows is rude and intrusive, regardless of whether the owners are on board. Even when dock walking and sightseeing, I don't intentionally look in windows.

But I will ask folks aboard who are polite and inquisitive.

LOL, so if you have a peeping tom at your land home, you invite them in so they can see how you decorated your home and let them scope it out for later?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

In Lund B.C. we went out to eat and when we got back there were two young adults sitting on my bow drinking beers. Not a happy camper and they knew it.

 

[slowgoesit]

Nothing prevent you to take a photo but publishing it with comments is a different matter especially when it is not a public event like with a group of people but targetting one in particular.
L

Just post a picture of YOUR BOAT, and casually state, "Here's a picture of my boat. Not sure who the people are who are included in the photo, as they were on my boat without permission. Some people might consider them trespassers. . . . Anyone know them?"

 

[BandB]

Ostensible differences in culture on how people perceive strangers and regard possessions.

I've found a family of four sitting on the gunwhale of Spy eating ice cream. I smiled and nodded towards the boat. They quickly apologized and got up and walked away.

Saw a young couple in love sitting on the trunk cabin posing for a photo once.

Many people taking photos of it while we're obviously on board (even in the cockpit). Occasionally they ask.

None of these people are boaters. They see it as more of a fancy car rather than a RV. A vehicle as opposed to a residence. For the ice cream eaters, it was a park bench in the shade.

It's always been a case of no harm, no foul for me. Shrug.

Next time. Buy an ugly boat.

So I assume since your defense of them is they see it as a car, you have no problem if they open your car door and get inside if it's unlocked while you're carrying stuff from it or if they sit on your hood or trunk?

It's simple respect for the property of others and it's a place where parents shouldn't be teaching their kids that it's alright. If they asked, we'd invite them on and over this not going to toss them in the water but we would use it as a teaching moment. I would not have them arrested, but in some states they could be and some would call the police on them. In the gun happy US I'd also advise them that there are some all too quick to come out firing, whether coming out of a house or boat and they could be putting themselves in danger. There are people all too quick to take action under the Castle Doctrine, whether legal or not. We read people here who spoke of hearing someone on their boat and emerging with a gun.

It would really seem common sense not to get on a boat that wasn't yours without the owner's permission.

 

[hollywood8118]

So I assume since your defense of them is they see it as a car, you have no problem if they open your car door and get inside if it's unlocked while you're carrying stuff from it or if they sit on your hood or trunk?

It's simple respect for the property of others and it's a place where parents shouldn't be teaching their kids that it's alright. If they asked, we'd invite them on and over this not going to toss them in the water but we would use it as a teaching moment. I would not have them arrested, but in some states they could be and some would call the police on them. In the gun happy US I'd also advise them that there are some all too quick to come out firing, whether coming out of a house or boat and they could be putting themselves in danger. There are people all too quick to take action under the Castle Doctrine, whether legal or not. We read people here who spoke of hearing someone on their boat and emerging with a gun.

It would really seem common sense not to get on a boat that wasn't yours without the owner's permission.

There is a big difference in #1 being armed or emerging with a gun.. and #2-pointing a gun at someone or shooting them .
In some cases #1 is smart or cautious and #2 is just plain stupid.
Hollywood

 

[BandB]

There is a big difference in #1 being armed or emerging with a gun.. and #2-pointing a gun at someone or shooting them .
In some cases #1 is smart or cautious and #2 is just plain stupid.
Hollywood

And you do know there are a lot of stupid people who are armed? An unnecessary and unwise risk.

 

[BrianG]

My boy is the sweetest 110 pound German Shepherd you will ever meet. Unfortunately for the ill intended he can read your mind from 50 yards away.
He is the bell of the ball at farmers markets and other public gatherings, but when it comes to gauging others intentions towards his herd he is no joke. It is strange how he can sense a normal flow of human behavior, but once someone starts to act differently (looking around, trepidation, fear, moving too quickly, etc) his starts to change his attitude towards the circumstance. He NEVER lets his guard down. How this was bred into these dogs I will never know.

View attachment 108947

In my friends Tesla trunk.

All fine and dandy but what I want to know is he a good boy?

 

[O C Diver]

Looking in windows is rude and intrusive, regardless of whether the owners are on board. Even when dock walking and sightseeing, I don't intentionally look in windows.

I wonder if these people look inside other people's parked cars? It just seems so odd that people would think nothing of looking inside a closed boat.

Ted

 

[boathealer]

And you do know there are a lot of stupid people who are armed? An unnecessary and unwise risk.

There are stupid people everywhere, in all situations. You shouldn't penalize 99.9% of the population because of those 0.1%.

 

[twistedtree]

According to a 1998 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, publishing a photo of a private individual may violate his or her privacy if the individual is not personally in the news and was not photographed as part of a crowd at a public event like a demonstration or sporting event. In that case the court awarded $2,000 in damages to a young woman who was photographed sitting on a doorstep and the photo used as an illustration of a story that had nothing to do with her personally. “You can’t just go and take a photo of someone and use it for art purposes,” says Jacobsen.

However, it was originally suggested to post the trespasser's picture, so in this case they may be the story, so fair game.

I think this is pretty much the same as in the US. In the US you can't use a photo of someone who is identifiable for commercial purposes without their permission. So you couldn't use the picture of the woman in the doorway in a catalog, for example. Or even in a newspaper or magazine. And I think "art" would be the same since it's presumably trying to sell the artwork. So as an example, by current standards all of the subjects in Edward Weston's photos who have needed releases.



Where it becomes fuzzier is if you post the picture on something like facebook. It may not be commercial from your perspective, but it certainly is for facebook. And who is publishing it? You, or Facebook? I'm not sure how that would shake out, or whether there are already any precedences.

 

[twistedtree]

Thanks, interesting how it conflicts with US law....I wonder how many tourists , even professionals traveling there know that.

How do you see it as conflicting? It seems pretty much the same to me?

 

[angus99]

I think this is pretty much the same as in the US. In the US you can't use a photo of someone who is identifiable for commercial purposes without their permission. So you couldn't use the picture of the woman in the doorway in a catalog, for example. Or even in a newspaper or magazine. And I think "art" would be the same since it's presumably trying to sell the artwork. So as an example, by current standards all of the subjects in Edward Weston's photos who have needed releases.



Where it becomes fuzzier is if you post the picture on something like facebook. It may not be commercial from your perspective, but it certainly is for facebook. And who is publishing it? You, or Facebook? I'm not sure how that would shake out, or whether there are already any precedences.

I may be misreading you, but, in the US, Fair Use doctrine does allow newspapers and magazines to use pictures of people without permission for “informational” or “educational” purposes. One could argue that publishing a newspaper is a commercial enterprise, but the law is clear that legitimate media don’t need permission if the publication falls into the the above (murky) categories. Canada’s rules may differ.

 

[Northern Spy]

So I assume since your defense of them is they see it as a car, you have no problem if they open your car door and get inside if it's unlocked while you're carrying stuff from it or if they sit on your hood or trunk?

It's simple respect for the property of others and it's a place where parents shouldn't be teaching their kids that it's alright. If they asked, we'd invite them on and over this not going to toss them in the water but we would use it as a teaching moment. I would not have them arrested, but in some states they could be and some would call the police on them. In the gun happy US I'd also advise them that there are some all too quick to come out firing, whether coming out of a house or boat and they could be putting themselves in danger. There are people all too quick to take action under the Castle Doctrine, whether legal or not. We read people here who spoke of hearing someone on their boat and emerging with a gun.

It would really seem common sense not to get on a boat that wasn't yours without the owner's permission.

Not exactly defending their actions. They are improper.

I was commenting more on the response to perceived and/or real violations to private property and methods of conflict resolution.

I believe I can recognize the difference between malice and an impropriety.

 

[psneeld]

How do you see it as conflicting? It seems pretty much the same to me?

The original post was about a person taking a picture with a stranger in it.


In the US...that is not against the law at all unless for commercial purposes if you don't have their permission. But that was not the case.


It was suggested I think to use social media...and you are correct, it is fuzzy...but I think if you took a picture of someone on your boat without permission in the US, and posted it....I don't think that is fuzzy and certainly doesn't meet the "expectation of privacy" concept.


In today's world you might get sured, but I doubt prosecuted.


That's from some pretty limited research as I used to shoot photos for a calendar company...but I think it is still "fuzzy" in many cases.

 

[twistedtree]

I may be misreading you, but, in the US, Fair Use doctrine does allow newspapers and magazines to use pictures of people without permission for “informational” or “educational” purposes. One could argue that publishing a newspaper is a commercial enterprise, but the law is clear that legitimate media don’t need permission if the publication falls into the the above (murky) categories. Canada’s rules may differ.

I think it comes down to whether it's informational, or the subject of news. So a picture of someone accused of a crime I think would clearly be news/informational. They are the news. But a picture of a person in the street in an article about homelessness I think would require a release from the person. Their image may be supportive of the news article, but they are not individually the subject of the article. Then a bit different again if it's a picture of three people in a public protest, or probably even a single person in a protest. In that case their actions are individually and collectively the subject of the news. But lots of gray area, I'm sure.


As a disclaimer, I'm not an lawyer. But I spent a fare amount of time in photography where this was a common topic, and something photographers need to be very aware of and careful about.

 

[twistedtree]

The original post was about a person taking a picture with a stranger in it.


In the US...that is not against the law at all unless for commercial purposes if you don't have their permission. But that was not the case.


It was suggested I think to use social media...and you are correct, it is fuzzy...but I think if you took a picture of someone on your boat without permission in the US, and posted it....I don't think that is fuzzy and certainly doesn't meet the "expectation of privacy" concept.


In today's world you might get sured, but I doubt prosecuted.


That's from some pretty limited research as I used to shoot photos for a calendar company...but I think it is still "fuzzy" in many cases.

I think I agree in this particular case since the person trespassing is the subject of the "news".


I was really responding to the Canadian rules, which seemed to distinguish based on the same criteria as in the US.


So I think we are all largely in agreement.