In message <482afa07$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, M.I.5¾
writes
>
>"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).
>
>
I recently attended my brothers wedding, at which the signing of the
register took place in the main church hall in full view of the
congregation and fully open to all photographers present.
--
Mike_B |