Re: Photography and the Law

In message <48247634$0$13860$8f2e0ebb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Peter 
<peternew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>"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 
>>>>>>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.

To quote the OP

>I'm referring to English Law.

Which is what Iwas discussing

> But here in the States, laws and definitions, within limits, (legally 
>called preemption,) can vary even between different villages and towns.

Fortunately the UK being smaller we have less variation.  England and 
Wales have law and Scotland is separate but that is generally about it.

>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.

We cant afford the advice anyway :-)

>>>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.

A Church is usually a privately owned space.

>Publically owned properties may have similar restrictions imposed.

People don't realise that.  A Town hall belongs to  "the people"  but 
the town council who administer it can pjut a ban on photography on this 
"public" space.

>That is not the same issue as what rights I have to use a photo taken 
>in a public place as defined above.

That is a different question



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