I wonder what would happen if you stood outside CIA headquarters all day snapping photos. -dan c. At 04:48 PM 20-01-05 -0800, Bob Blakely wrote: >Now, it was crap similar to this that caused us to split from Merry Ol' >England some 229 years ago. Later, our English friends went through a >transformation and liberty bloomed. Now they're at it (prohibitions against >nearly everything) again. > >Regards, >Bob... > >Note: Poster's epistle, converted from HTML to Text, follows: > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >From: Chris > > >Street photography is ok if any people in the picture cannot be identified. >Except Harrods building, it is illegal the photograph that building as it is >copyright. > >I think it is also illegal to take the MI6 building just outside ****** >railway station. > >English law is be precedent and there have been some test cases. > >I was stopped by the Police(?) when I snapped the MI6 building, I had to >delete the frame. > >From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >[mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf >In a message dated 20/1/05 10:48:32 pm, eclipseagency@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > >It is already illegal over here. Looks like carrying a camera could lead to >prosecution.. English law forbids taking portraits of people without their >explicit permission, in the street you only need verbal consent. Use of >telephoto lenses is also forbidden. Even taking houses can lead to trouble. >If you take street scenes any people in the frame have to be unrecognizable. > >My figures are now simulated by my pc and are no-one. > >Looks like photography will soon be a thing of the past. > >Chris. > >It would be interesting to have chapter and verse to which law Chris is >referring. > >As far as I am aware, there is no law against street photography and nothing >top prevent anyone publishing a photograph taken on the street. No >permission is required. > >
