In article <0fc86a27-ebc9-482e-a458-e6fb73641914
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
> 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.
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
Don't know where you've encountered this, but the position round here is
thus:
1) No flash photography during the service - we may take as many as we
like during the service, except no closeups as they actually sign the
book, though we can video this.
2) A "fake" signing is then held with the photographer getting first go,
they normally cover the entries above the current one with a piece of
paper to protect the privacy of the previous couple. Then everyone else
gets a go.
--
Alex Threlfall
Cyberprog New Media
www.cyberprog.net |