[PRCo] Re: Photography__From__Public__Property

[Fred Schneider]

I saw two parts of a three part series on BBC World when I was in Europe ... about St. Pauls
Cathedral in London.  One thing that would intrigue some of you was the cathedral warden
stopping a commercial enterprise from taking pictures of the cathedral from the public street,
because they would make money on illustrating church property.  The promoter walked off
grumbling about an easy day going wrong.

And before you say that is England and different laws ... be advised that, unless our laws
have changed,  I have no freedom in this country to make money selling pictures of your house,
even if I do photograph it from the street.   I could probably get away with it if you didn't
know any better.  Most people probably don't know better.

I would like to see a complete copy of the laws on that website, without forcing someone to
illegally make copies.

Ken & Tracie wrote:

> Heck, Jim, they don't even let you into the photo section of their web site unless you
> provide your name and the name of a media outlet as your employer.
>
> While I do not know what legal rights a private sector security officer has as far as
> confiscating property from a member of the public on public land, I do know that a photo
> of a stategic facility posted on the internet could present some sort of security risk due
> to the continuing threat of terrorism. I would believe the secuirty officer was within his
> rights on their land, but not if Mike shot the picture from the highway. The question is
> whether or not the access road was really public or plant owned.
-- Trailing quotes stripped by Listar --