The way I look at it:
Just because a route, location, trail, etcetera has been covered before doesn’t make it exclusive; otherwise every documentary, TV travelogue, book, magazine article, website with focus on a region, etcetera would be technically illegal or at least unethical because there’s likely no place on earth that hasn’t been covered before. Each person’s experience will be different and their perspective shared will add to the overall appeal. There is simply no way everything there is to reveal can be revealed in a single trip report, book or documentary about any topic. Each writer adds their own unique flavor to subsequent writings, revealing something new to the enlightenment of others.
In the days I had my website, as well as in my published writings, if my sources were from copywrited writings, I cited them. There are publications available that have cited my works as well.
Occasionally DVNP and other government agencies would contact me to request changes, especially when route closures were made, and I made those changes. There were instances that while in the field doing photography in preparation for a web page there was no signage indicating closure that was in progress.
I’ve been taken to task or threatened with legal action by others who felt that they exclusively owned the rights to cover something. Or attempts were made to censure me because they were engaged in nefarious activities and felt I was a threat to their exposure. The few times someone contacted me and explained that what I published had the potential for negative effects, if I felt was valid I would accommodate that with changes or removal.
Though I’m not versed in copywrite laws, I always watermarked my online photos to identify myself as the photographer. I’ve seen a few of my photos on other websites that I didn’t give permission to use, with the watermark, or it cropped out.
In handling sensitive locations I seen it all online. Some openly blurted out coordinates for the world to see, others changed names, others kept mum. My practice was and is to treat each location specifically with reason, logic and observation. Highly sensitive artifacts or locations I either didn’t mention or did in vague terms. Other places I would, especially if well known, that I saw discussion of online or elsewhere, mentioning it on my website with a disclaimer. Especially if I observed over time more visitation and/or vandalism. When people inquired of me if I knew of something or where it was, if I knew the individual and trusted them, then I would share what I knew. Others whom I didn’t know I’d just tell them it was in a general area and let them continue to do their own homework and discover it on their own. My thinking is that the more effort one makes to find something, the less likely one will be inclined to destroy it. But there’s always those who defy that sort of logic.
As to sites degrading or disappearing, time and circumstances have contributed to ghost towns and cabins falling down and less appealing. Many historical locations started being plundered right after abandonment due to objects and buildings taken elsewhere to be used. Escalation occurred after WW2 when military surplus Jeeps became popular and visitation increased. Publications, such as Desert Magazine, highlighted historic sites and advertised metal detectors. Roadside curio shops popped up in the 1950s, offering indigenous and other artifacts. Pilfering antiques, of course, was just as illegal then as it is now given that the Antiquities Act was passed in the first decade of the 20th century. But a lot of stuff was lost to private collections early on, not just after the invention of the world wide web. Publication can be a two edged sword. We’ve all witnessed the vandalism that has occurred with increased knowledge of sensitive sites; increased visitation also has a self policing effect as people come to embrace and make attempts to clean up and save places.
When handling the names of other people, if their names were publicly known I mentioned them in full. If not, I’d use initials to protect their privacy.
Since it’s been nearly a decade since I’ve left off writing and website ownership, I’ve probably forgotten more than I recall to add to this discussion at this point, so I’ll just leave it at that. Until something is posted that spurs my memory then I’ll add my two cents if what I have to say is relevant and helpful.
Just because a route, location, trail, etcetera has been covered before doesn’t make it exclusive; otherwise every documentary, TV travelogue, book, magazine article, website with focus on a region, etcetera would be technically illegal or at least unethical because there’s likely no place on earth that hasn’t been covered before. Each person’s experience will be different and their perspective shared will add to the overall appeal. There is simply no way everything there is to reveal can be revealed in a single trip report, book or documentary about any topic. Each writer adds their own unique flavor to subsequent writings, revealing something new to the enlightenment of others.
In the days I had my website, as well as in my published writings, if my sources were from copywrited writings, I cited them. There are publications available that have cited my works as well.
Occasionally DVNP and other government agencies would contact me to request changes, especially when route closures were made, and I made those changes. There were instances that while in the field doing photography in preparation for a web page there was no signage indicating closure that was in progress.
I’ve been taken to task or threatened with legal action by others who felt that they exclusively owned the rights to cover something. Or attempts were made to censure me because they were engaged in nefarious activities and felt I was a threat to their exposure. The few times someone contacted me and explained that what I published had the potential for negative effects, if I felt was valid I would accommodate that with changes or removal.
Though I’m not versed in copywrite laws, I always watermarked my online photos to identify myself as the photographer. I’ve seen a few of my photos on other websites that I didn’t give permission to use, with the watermark, or it cropped out.
In handling sensitive locations I seen it all online. Some openly blurted out coordinates for the world to see, others changed names, others kept mum. My practice was and is to treat each location specifically with reason, logic and observation. Highly sensitive artifacts or locations I either didn’t mention or did in vague terms. Other places I would, especially if well known, that I saw discussion of online or elsewhere, mentioning it on my website with a disclaimer. Especially if I observed over time more visitation and/or vandalism. When people inquired of me if I knew of something or where it was, if I knew the individual and trusted them, then I would share what I knew. Others whom I didn’t know I’d just tell them it was in a general area and let them continue to do their own homework and discover it on their own. My thinking is that the more effort one makes to find something, the less likely one will be inclined to destroy it. But there’s always those who defy that sort of logic.
As to sites degrading or disappearing, time and circumstances have contributed to ghost towns and cabins falling down and less appealing. Many historical locations started being plundered right after abandonment due to objects and buildings taken elsewhere to be used. Escalation occurred after WW2 when military surplus Jeeps became popular and visitation increased. Publications, such as Desert Magazine, highlighted historic sites and advertised metal detectors. Roadside curio shops popped up in the 1950s, offering indigenous and other artifacts. Pilfering antiques, of course, was just as illegal then as it is now given that the Antiquities Act was passed in the first decade of the 20th century. But a lot of stuff was lost to private collections early on, not just after the invention of the world wide web. Publication can be a two edged sword. We’ve all witnessed the vandalism that has occurred with increased knowledge of sensitive sites; increased visitation also has a self policing effect as people come to embrace and make attempts to clean up and save places.
When handling the names of other people, if their names were publicly known I mentioned them in full. If not, I’d use initials to protect their privacy.
Since it’s been nearly a decade since I’ve left off writing and website ownership, I’ve probably forgotten more than I recall to add to this discussion at this point, so I’ll just leave it at that. Until something is posted that spurs my memory then I’ll add my two cents if what I have to say is relevant and helpful.
DAW
~When You Live in Nevada, "just down the road" is anywhere in the line of sight within the curvature of the earth.
~When You Live in Nevada, "just down the road" is anywhere in the line of sight within the curvature of the earth.