In message , Phil Stovell
writes
>On Thu, 15 May 2008 10:46:44 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> In message , Phil Stovell
>> writes
>>>On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:49:55 +0100, Les Invalides wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> posted
>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>> Certainly the custom pre-dates the Data Protection Act even in its 1984
>>>> version, so it can't be that.
>>>>
>>>> Very often these things are not allowed because, er, they're not
>>>> allowed. 'Ere, we can't let you photograph that there register, or 'oo
>>>> knows where it would all end. My father afore me never allowed that
>>>> sort of thing, nor his father afore him. Etc etc.
>>>
>>>I tried to video a friend's child being christened. I wasn't allowed -
>>>the reason given was that it is a sacrament. I didn't bother to ask what
>>>that is.
>>>
>> Surely, whether you can - or can't - photograph weddings, christenings and
>> the like, purely depends on the whim of the person in charge of the event.
>> Maybe a generous donation to the church roof restoration fund (prior to
>> the event, of course) might help?
>
>This was a high church - whatever that means. The priests seemed to get
>stuck into the blood of christ, so I guess that's it.
>
There's nothing in the bible (even in the 10 Commandments) which
prohibits photography. You can take my word for it.
--
Ian |