Re: Photography and the Law

On 2008-05-11 11:54:19 +0100, Chris H <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:

> 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

IIRC it is mainly to do with trespass and "harassment".

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

And they wonder why the clamour for independence is growing, it's down 
to you and Radio 2. :)

> 
> 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.