Re: Photography and the Law

"Marcus Fox" <please-reply-via-newsgroup-th@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
message news:NYmdnVm_IM_8vr7VnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm referring to English Law.
>
> I'm aware that the current laws on photography permit anyone to
photograph
> anything as long as it's in a public place (subject to the exclusions on
> photos of children at the beach and security installations.
>
> What is the case as regards photography in places where the public are
> generally permitted, but may or may not have to pay entry, or have the
> owners refuse to admit them for any reason. Assume that photography is
not
> expressly prohibited, what is the situation should someone end up being
in
> your photo but object to having their picture taken? Places like
> supermarkets, hotels, swimming pools, museums, down at your local pub,
etc
>
> What is the situation regarding "model releases"? I understand that they

> are
> required for commercial photography, but aren't newspaper photos 
> considered
> as such? I'm sure Fred West (and other infamous individuals) didn't have

> to
> sign permission before the Sun could publish his "perp. walk".
>
> Marcus
>

Generally in public places, people can F off, its my camera I can take
what 
I please with it. If people don't like it then they have every oportunity
to 
stay inside all day, or run for cover when they see my lens. I use the
right 
to roam laws fully, often jumping into farmers fields at dawn, as far as
i'm 
concerned they can sod off.

I've been to numerous catherdrials which insist of you paying a copyright 
fee, for photographing inside. Again I never pay and take photos anyway. 
There is no such thing. A church albeit sacred is a public place so again 
they can sod off.