Re: Photography and the Law

"Chris H" <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:DjO2+OZIRHJIFAwa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 <SNIP_



Possibly in the UK things are different. But here in the States, laws and 
definitions, within limits, (legally called preemption,) can vary even 
between different villages and towns.
A definition of a term can have one meaning for one statutory purpse, but
a 
totally different meaning for another. That is precisely why sell crafted 
statutes include defined terms. I could give you specific examples learned

in my over 37 years of practising law,  but would rather stick to 
photography.


>>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.
>


Not at all. A privately owned establishment may impose an outright ban on 
any photography, or impose conditions on photography. Publically owned 
properties may have similar restrictions imposed.
That is not the same issue as what rights I have to use a photo taken in a

public place as defined above.


-- 
Peter