Re: Photography and the Law

In message <2008051109152643042-guig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, guig 
<guig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>On 2008-05-09 16:56:56 +0100, Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>  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.
>
>I wouldn't take that article as gospel as they solely used English law 
>and forgot to mention that there are slight differences to the law in 
>Scotland. I did point this out to them but got no response.

Are there many differences to the photography law in Scotland

(BTW Is Scotland that the bit of England north of Manchester... Isn't it 
somewhere in "the Lakes? :-)

I suggested that they do a separate "summer special" just on all aspects 
of photography and the law (for the UK not just England) I am sure it 
would be a sell out.

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