There seems to be an ever-increasing trend of photography bashing. I seem to remember not so long ago reading an article of the grief someone got for trying to photography different aspects of the Docklands. This apparently is all private land and you have hard job trying to get any shots in around the area. The laughable thing is the extreme length they will go to make life as difficult as they can for people. As for the National Trust, strange how they keep putting in their club details, in photography magazines trying to get us all to join.
Very strange times we live in!! IAN MARLOW -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Wilkinson Sent: 03 August 2003 10:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PRODIG] Restrictions on photography Try taking a photograph of National Trust property and you will be in deep doo doo if you are caught. It seems strange that we,the population of Great Britain, own the national trust and it allegedly works on our behalf to preserve our heritage but it can stop us photographing buildings and areas of land that belong to us. Regards Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Rd, Ketley, Telford, Shropshire. England .TF1 5DJ 44 (0) 1952 618986. www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Negatives & transparencies from digital files ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shangara Singh" < Subject: Re: [PRODIG] Restrictions on photography > Will read the article later but I have to say I personally find this one of > the most insidious bylaws and am surprised major photographic institutions > and organisations haven't got together to repeal it. It makes a mockery of > the word Copyright: the right to copy. > > If you are photographing a building, a monument or a landscape, you are NOT > copying the effin' thing, you are PHOTOGRAPHING it and in the process > creating something that is unique and THAT's what should be copyrighted. If > I was to build a replica of the Sydney Bridge/Opera House on the banks of > the Thames, I would be infringing the architect's copyright (or whoever > he/she's assigned it to). > > If someone doesn't want their precious baby photographed, they should build > the effin' thing in a private ground and NOT in public view. The view should > surely be owned by ALL the citizens. If you take a photograph of it, that > should be owned by the photographer. If the view is in a National Park, it > should belong to all the visitors. > > I would happily join a movement to repeal the law... =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
