Re: Photography and the Law

In message <48246098$0$13867$8f2e0ebb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Peter 
<peternew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>"Cynic" <cynic_999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:81p8241ako51tgeh8ropkmqbdekrlb0uo6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:20:00 +0100, "The One" <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> It is NOT a public place at all. It is private property . They have 
>>>>every
>>>> right to prosecute you. It is your sort of attitude that ruin's it 
>>>>for  the
>>>> rest of us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The church my friend is open.
>>
>> So is a supermarket.  That doesn't mean that it is a public place.
>>
>> --  Cynic
>
>Uhm!
>
>While definitions may vary, for most purposes a "public place" is defined
as

Definitions in LAW do not vary and "what most people think" is usually 
wrong.

>including any place to which the public have access as of right or by 
>invitation, express or implied.

But for THIS  Purpose a public place is somewhere that is not owned  by 
some one who can state a preference for photography..

The Churches are MOST DEFINITELY  private property and can not permit 
the taking of photos.

Actually I am cheating as the March  2009 Digital Camera Magazine  have 
a many page article on UK law and photography and I am referring to 
that. So it is not idle speculation on my part.

Churches and their grave yards are most definitely not public and they 
do not have to give you permission to take photos.

You are confusing the state laws of ownership with the spiritual 
openness of a religion.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/