On May 14, 3:58=A0pm, "M.I.5=BE" wrote:
> "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. =A0Here 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 signin=
g,
> but do allow the photographing of a staged signing afterwards (i.e. the
> subject holding the pen over the register).- Hide quoted text -
That has always been my experience. But given this outcry I did wonder
what the legal position actually was and why the actual signing is not
supposed to be photographed. Is it a legal restriction (a bit like not
being allowed to say the exact invocation of the marriage ceremony at
the practice) or something else?
I have also videoed one wedding including the signing from a long
distance with 10x zoom and the church seemed to turn a blind eye (or
perhaps not to notice at all).
It has become a heated debate on soc.genealogy.britain so I thought I
would ask if anyone knew why?
Perhaps the Sunday Mail was short of real news so they rehashed this
old chestnut.
Regards,
Martin Brown |