Jump to content

A day out "Happy Snapping", in glorious April.


algy
 Share

Recommended Posts

P1000429.jpg

St. Swithun's, Cheswardine, Shropshire. Pleasantly surprised to find a church open to the public with a welcome sign on the doorway with a message inviting you in and informing you where the light switches were, rare in this day and age.

P1000424.jpg

P1000425.jpg

P1000426.jpg

P1000427.jpg

With flash.

P1000428.jpg

Without flash.

StSwithunsChurchCheswerdine.jpg

P1000422.jpg

P1000430.jpg

Spotted on the way home, a silage fire on a farm at Whitley by the A49, the smoke could be seen miles before arriving there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really nice pictures of the church Algy.... and nice little car too :?:lol:

 

You should pop down to St Thomas's Church in Stockton Heath as that's open to the public most days too (mornings I think). Can't remember what it's like inside as I've not been in for years but it's always open when I walk past with my dog around lunchtime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovely pictures Algy, but are you aware that many churches now own the copyright to any pics taken in their churches and don't allow photos to be taken without permission, sometimes with a small fee attached? There should be a sign if this is the case - don't want you to have any problems!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there are any copyright issues at all to be honest. The Church may ask for a donation such as the Daresbury church which cashes in on the Lewis Carrol history but the photographer owns the copyright to his image.

 

"Photographing of privately-owned property that is generally open to the public is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs."

 

Nice shots Algy, but you do court controversy with your snapping :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No signs displayed prohibiting photography, & PJ I'm getting to that age where "living life on the edge" is a challenge although I try to make sure I remain legal., no doubt we will have a resident "barrack room lawyer" who will attempt to prove otherwise. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Photographing of privately-owned property that is generally open to the public is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs."

 

 

Isn't that what I said in as many words? There is a copyright issue because when people take videos at weddings they have to be licensed and any vicar or organist can refuse permission for the video. Most churches are now looking at how they can make extra money and this is one of the options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a copyright issue because when people take videos at weddings they have to be licensed and any vicar or organist can refuse permission for the video.

 

Are you sure SL as I've been to loads of weddings and christenings and never once have I, or any of the other snappers or film makers, been told we couldn't take photos or videos inside the church or had to be licenced.

 

Infact all of the vicars have welcomed and expected the recording of the happy event and even set aside moments for people to stand together at the alter/fonts for family snaps.

 

Obviously they do often request that as a sign of respect a blaze of flash photography from all the well wishers in the congregation doesn't erupt at the more meaningful moments of the services such as when vows are being taken or the water is being splashed on the babies head which is understandable. It sometimes freaks the babies out too apparently :wink::lol:

 

Must ask the bods at St Thomas's about their 'rules' next time I spot one of them as I'm walking past as I'm rather intrugued now or maybe I'll just pop in with my camera and see if I'm accosted :wink::lol:

 

I hope Algy doesn't delete his photo's though :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless what an individual vicar may think or say nobody owns the copyright to a photo except the photographer.

 

You do not have to be licenced to take photos. in a church.

 

You are in a publically accessable place and can therefore photograph what you wish. There may be an issue if a copyrighted piece of art was photographed and reproduced for profit without permission but this is clearly not the case above.

 

There are no people in the above photos so thats a moot point but if there were people in the background it still would be perfectly legal to photograph. Pick up a paper or watch the news and see how many people are photographed or filmed every day without their knowledge. I doubt the photographers or cameramen got a model release form signed by them all.

 

You carry on Algy you firebrand :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does depend on the vicar really, and they are all very different!! I've come across a number of different ones and their views on the interpretation of the law about recording and photographs in church is diverse to say the least!

 

It's not about different vicars interpretation of the law at all. It's down to different vicars attitudes to when in a marriage service photography or videography is appropriate.

 

And, unless it's re-assigned as part of a contractual arrangement, the photographer is the one who owns the copyright to the images - not the bride and groom.

 

As has been said, photographing ANYTHING whilst in a publicly accessible place is perfectly legal unless clearly and specifically prohibited by the landowner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does depend on the vicar really, and they are all very different!! I've come across a number of different ones and their views on the interpretation of the law about recording and photographs in church is diverse to say the least!

 

It's not about different vicars interpretation of the law at all. It's down to different vicars attitudes to when in a marriage service photography or videography is appropriate.

 

And, unless it's re-assigned as part of a contractual arrangement, the photographer is the one who owns the copyright to the images - not the bride and groom.

 

As has been said, photographing ANYTHING whilst in a publicly accessible place is perfectly legal unless clearly and specifically prohibited by the landowner.

 

Are we agreeing? :o:o:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than in our spelling of the words publicly and accessible, yes!

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Surprised you have time for such trivial matters, I thought you may be overrun coming up with tinpot ideas to deflect the oncoming meteorite. Perhaps impose a no meteorite zone within a mile of earth. :D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been said, photographing ANYTHING whilst in a publicly accessible place is perfectly legal unless clearly and specifically prohibited by the landowner.

 

Of course ANYTHING does NOT include taking pics in publicly accessible places of school kids sport's days, footy matches and the like :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been said, photographing ANYTHING whilst in a publicly accessible place is perfectly legal unless clearly and specifically prohibited by the landowner.

 

Of course ANYTHING does NOT include taking pics in publicly accessible places of school kids sport's days, footy matches and the like :wink:

 

There is no law against taking photos of children.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3559975/There-is-no-law-against-photographing-children.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I wish I'd read that years ago PJ :shock:

 

We have no photo's of our lad as he was growing up and joining in with many of his sports or school activities due to the so called 'rules' which don't actually seem to exist after reading that.

 

Some school ones were allowed on occasion provided EVERY parent signed a form ... if one objected then it was tough NO PICS.

 

Footy etc well unless every parent of the opposing teams kids agreed then same again and as most parents never bothered turning up anyway there was no-one to ask :twisted:

 

Lost of wonderful photo opportunities and happy memories lost forever thanks to some stupid rule that never was :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lots of photos of my little boy Dizzy..... in school plays, in sports days (they have only managed to have one in 4 years though because the other times it was either too hot or too cold....no wonder we have wussy kids these days)

 

Right back in the nursery bit, I took it upon myself that I would have these pictures because they are important. When the first letter came home telling us we couldn't film or photo the first ever school play he was in, I got onto WBC who confirmed there was no policy of non-photos.

 

They use a case based on the "wednesbury reasonableness"....which basically means that "A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it "

 

In other words, it is resonable for me to want to film my boy in his play or in his sports day or such like.....but not reasonable to want to film him getting changed with his friends for said play or sports day....makes sense!

 

Armed with this, I went back to the school, and they promptly re-sent a letter out saying there had been a "misunderstanding" and photos were allowed!!

 

Hooorah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...