[[User:Unforgettableid]] wrote:
On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com>
wrote:
In English law, if you go into a Royal Park to
film you
have to obey their terms and conditions - no commercial
use without permission.
Similarly, it is illegal to film on British Rail property
without consent, which is often refused or charged
for. The Railways are covered by their own bylaws.
Here's a link for more info:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/
uk_photographers_rights_guide
OK, point taken. However, it seems to me the UK has stricter copyright
laws than other countries. For example, in the UK, modern
skillfully-made photos of two-hundred-year-old paintings are
automatically copyrighted to the author. On the other hand, I do not
know of any other country with such strict laws regarding old
paintings.
I have just reviewed the pamphlet, and it seems that Stephen has done an
excellent job of mireading and distorting the material. The question of
old paintings has often been discussed before, so I don't need to go
into that.
The restrictions relating to Royal Parks, British Rail or Trafalgar
Square have nothing to do with copyright. In the case of British Rail
the pamphlet declares it a trespass to enter such property without
permission. This alone does not make the pictures that you take while
there illegal.
For the Royal Parks and Trafalgar Square the pamphlet speaks of
restrictions of photography for business or commercial purposes. It
does not restrict amateur or personal photography. Overtly commercial
photographic activities are not the same as amateur photographs that are
subsequently used for commercial purposes. The restriction applies to
the activity, not to the product.
Ec