"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0fc86a27-ebc9-482e-a458-e6fb73641914@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> There has been a recent article in the Sunday Mail bemoaning the
> enforcement of what is probably a Crown Copyright imposition on
> Registry Office wedding protography not to shoot the actual signing of
> the register. Various reasons have been given by minions including
> DPA, privacy. Here is a summary on FreelanceUK
>
> http://www.freelanceuk.com/news/2670.shtml
>
> I can recall that it was always this way at church weddings for as far
> back as I can remember. And wondered if anyone could shed some light
> on the legal basis of why the actual signing is not to be
> photographed.
>
> And as a side issue whether photographing the register itself in a
> fashion that gives a legible copy infringes Crown Copyright - my
> instinct is that it would. What redress does the Crown have if it is
> feeling bolshy?
>
> I suspect in churches it may date back to the days when film was slow
> and flash photography was extremely intrusive and distracting with
> magnesium wire bulbs that sometimes exploded and before that flash
> powder.
>
>
My own experience is that they don't allow photographing the actual signing,
but do allow the photographing of a staged signing afterwards (i.e. the
subject holding the pen over the register).
|