In a shorter-URL version that does not wrap ... http://tinyurl.com/cupqs >Well it looks like photography is well on it's way to being regulated here. "One solution, he believes, could be an accreditation system where professional photographers are given a pass — or even a brightly coloured bib - by councils to prove their authenticity, giving them a similar legitimacy on beaches to qualified lifesavers." Mmmm ... more nanny state-ism. Now let me think ... That should please the pro's on the list who are worried about "amatuers" encroaching on their territory :o) First regulation, then licencing, then the licences become a tax ... and what if parents object to even them taking photos? Could "off-limits" kids be required to wear a coloured bib so the offically sanctioned snappers would know who to avoid? Perahps Sony could use some DRM (link a GPS-type system to the onboard firmware to prevent pictures being taken in "privacy zones"? But the curiously sad fact is that real pervs (just like real terrorists) won't be the ones affected. Parents only get upset by people who look like photographers taking pictures. Use a mobile phone - to take the shots you "need" - and you look all the while just like a normal person. Use a big in-your-face SLR for the same shot and you stand out (as an outsider/threat). But the UK is way ahead of OZ on this. Remember two years ago when they started banning cameras from school nativity plays unless ALL parents agreed in writing? In TV news coverage now it's almost routine for bystander's faces to be pixellated out unless they've signed a release (or they are slimey foreigners :o) I can't help wondering all the while if the law makers are really naive or whether the reasons given are just more pretexts for reducing personal freedom? Next they will remove all films from TV containing images of children in case ... Q
