[WikiEN-l] Would you like one of your videos posted on Wikipedia?

[Ray Saintonge]

[[User:Unforgettableid]] wrote:

>On 9/18/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at 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