In message <48246098$0$13867$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
writes
>"Cynic" wrote in message
>news:81p8241ako51tgeh8ropkmqbdekrlb0uo6@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 12:20:00 +0100, "The One" 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 /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|