Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > photography restrictions in Churches and museums

Reply
Thread Tools

photography restrictions in Churches and museums

 
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
writes
>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 00:16:19 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>writes
>>>>
>>>>The phrase "the property can revert to public" does not, and can not, be
>>>>taken to mean "the owner losses (control over the use of their
>>>>property". In the former responsibility for maintaining the property
>>>>changes hands, in the latter it does not.
>>>
>>> Because you may still have the obligation to maintain the
>>>property, even if it is public, either originally (e.g. sidewalks in
>>>San Francisco) or through failure to exercise control.

>>
>>Are you deliberately obtuse or just hard of thinking? If my property was
>>taken from me without judicious purchase I would bring an action for
>>theft.

>
> Bring what you will -- if a part of your property is now in
>public use due to your failure to enforce your rights on it, you may
>not allow it to become dangerous for the public to use.


If it is no longer my property (your phrase "the property can revert to
public") then I have NO responsibility to prevent it becoming dangerous
for the public to use. In fact, it would be unlawful for me to make any
alterations, including repairs, unless I had permission from the owner.

If it has become a "public right of way" (this is what your befuddled
thinking seems to be coming round to) then it remains my property and I
remain responsible for maintaining it; but the only right the public
have is passage, they do not have a right to use the path for any other
purpose, i.e. photography (to return to the topic).

--
Ian G8ILZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
writes
>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:13:20 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>>The phrase "the property can revert to public" does not, and can not, be
>>taken to mean "the owner losses (control over the use of their
>>property". In the former responsibility for restricting activities and
>>maintaining the property changes hands,

>
> The ability to restrict activity may be lost without a
>concurrent loss of the obligation to maintain property.


If it has become a "public right of way" (this is what your befuddled
thinking seems to be coming round to) then it remains my property and I
remain responsible for maintaining it; but the only right the public
have is passage, they do not have a right to use the path for any other
purpose, i.e. photography (to return to the topic).

>Why don't you just admit that you made a sloppy and inaccurate claim
>which can not be substantiated instead of digging a deeper hole..


Again, because I didn't.

You clearly do not understand the distinction between public property
and a public right of way through private property.
--
Ian G8ILZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
kashe@sonic.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:32:28 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>If it has become a "public right of way" (this is what your befuddled
>thinking seems to be coming round to) then it remains my property and I
>remain responsible for maintaining it; but the only right the public
>have is passage, they do not have a right to use the path for any other
>purpose, i.e. photography (to return to the topic).


You seem finally to have gotten the point yourself. However,
if the public has a right to pass, they have a right to stop and to
take pictures if they wish. They also have a roght to laugh, giggle
and blow their noses. I have lost my right to control their
activities.

 
Reply With Quote
 
kashe@sonic.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:10:35 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>writes
>>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:13:20 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>>wrote:
>>>The phrase "the property can revert to public" does not, and can not, be
>>>taken to mean "the owner losses (control over the use of their
>>>property". In the former responsibility for restricting activities and
>>>maintaining the property changes hands,

>>
>> The ability to restrict activity may be lost without a
>>concurrent loss of the obligation to maintain property.

>
>If it has become a "public right of way" (this is what your befuddled
>thinking seems to be coming round to) then it remains my property and I
>remain responsible for maintaining it; but the only right the public
>have is passage, they do not have a right to use the path for any other
>purpose, i.e. photography (to return to the topic).
>
>>Why don't you just admit that you made a sloppy and inaccurate claim
>>which can not be substantiated instead of digging a deeper hole..

>
> Again, because I didn't.
>
>You clearly do not understand the distinction between public property
>and a public right of way through private property.


And you clearly do not understand that the law may be far
different in the US from what it is in England.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
writes
>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:32:28 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>If it has become a "public right of way" (this is what your befuddled
>>thinking seems to be coming round to) then it remains my property and I
>>remain responsible for maintaining it; but the only right the public
>>have is passage, they do not have a right to use the path for any other
>>purpose, i.e. photography (to return to the topic).

>
> You seem finally to have gotten the point yourself.


You have still failed to understand, but read on.

>However,
>if the public has a right to pass,


Correct so far.

>they have a right to stop


Wrong, they have a right of passage and to pause for a reasonable rest
period, they do not have a right to loiter on my private land.

>and to
>take pictures if they wish.


Wrong, they do not have a right to infringe my privacy by taking
pictures on my land.

>They also have a roght to laugh, giggle
>and blow their noses.


Correct, since these activates do not infringe my privacy and do not
damage my property I would not be able to prohibit them.

>I have lost my right to control their
>activities.


Wrong, I have only lost the right to prevent passage, I still have
control over my property; if they damaged my property, other than fair
wear and tear of a path, I can claim compensation from them or bring a
criminal action for damage.

--
Ian G8ILZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
writes
> And you clearly do not understand that the law may be far
>different in the US from what it is in England.


A law which takes all control of a persons property away from them
whilst continuing to oblige the them to meet uncontrolled liabilities as
though they still controlled it is a very bad law and could be
challenged as unreasonable in any democratic court. Besides it sounds
very much like your lots original gripe of "no taxation without
representation".
--
Ian G8ILZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
kashe@sonic.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2004
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:49:14 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>writes
>>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:32:28 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>If it has become a "public right of way" (this is what your befuddled
>>>thinking seems to be coming round to) then it remains my property and I
>>>remain responsible for maintaining it; but the only right the public
>>>have is passage, they do not have a right to use the path for any other
>>>purpose, i.e. photography (to return to the topic).

>>
>> You seem finally to have gotten the point yourself.

>
>You have still failed to understand, but read on.
>
>>However,
>>if the public has a right to pass,

>
>Correct so far.
>
>>they have a right to stop

>
>Wrong, they have a right of passage and to pause for a reasonable rest
>period, they do not have a right to loiter on my private land.
>
>>and to
>>take pictures if they wish.

>
>Wrong, they do not have a right to infringe my privacy by taking
>pictures on my land.
>
>>They also have a roght to laugh, giggle
>>and blow their noses.

>
>Correct, since these activates do not infringe my privacy and do not
>damage my property I would not be able to prohibit them.
>
>>I have lost my right to control their
>>activities.

>
>Wrong, I have only lost the right to prevent passage, I still have
>control over my property; if they damaged my property, other than fair
>wear and tear of a path, I can claim compensation from them or bring a
>criminal action for damage.


OK, youi're obviously going to define laws as you see fit.
Conversation terminated.
 
Reply With Quote
 
kashe@sonic.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2004
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:57:31 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>writes
>> And you clearly do not understand that the law may be far
>>different in the US from what it is in England.

>
>A law which takes all control of a persons property away from them
>whilst continuing to oblige the them to meet uncontrolled liabilities as
>though they still controlled it is a very bad law and could be
>challenged as unreasonable in any democratic court.


Yet it remains the law here.

>Besides it sounds
>very much like your lots original gripe of "no taxation without
>representation".


And so we see ...?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
writes
>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:49:14 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>writes
>>>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 06:32:28 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>If it has become a "public right of way" (this is what your befuddled
>>>>thinking seems to be coming round to) then it remains my property and I
>>>>remain responsible for maintaining it; but the only right the public
>>>>have is passage, they do not have a right to use the path for any other
>>>>purpose, i.e. photography (to return to the topic).
>>>
>>> You seem finally to have gotten the point yourself.

>>
>>You have still failed to understand, but read on.
>>
>>>However,
>>>if the public has a right to pass,

>>
>>Correct so far.
>>
>>>they have a right to stop

>>
>>Wrong, they have a right of passage and to pause for a reasonable rest
>>period, they do not have a right to loiter on my private land.
>>
>>>and to
>>>take pictures if they wish.

>>
>>Wrong, they do not have a right to infringe my privacy by taking
>>pictures on my land.
>>
>>>They also have a roght to laugh, giggle
>>>and blow their noses.

>>
>>Correct, since these activates do not infringe my privacy and do not
>>damage my property I would not be able to prohibit them.
>>
>>>I have lost my right to control their
>>>activities.

>>
>>Wrong, I have only lost the right to prevent passage, I still have
>>control over my property; if they damaged my property, other than fair
>>wear and tear of a path, I can claim compensation from them or bring a
>>criminal action for damage.

>
> OK, youi're obviously going to define laws as you see fit.


That is the law in the UK, perhaps in the USA the owner of property is
prohibited from restricting how it is used, but some how I doubt it.

--
Ian G8ILZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
Prometheus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
writes
>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:57:31 +0100, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>>writes
>>> And you clearly do not understand that the law may be far
>>>different in the US from what it is in England.

>>
>>A law which takes all control of a persons property away from them
>>whilst continuing to oblige the them to meet uncontrolled liabilities as
>>though they still controlled it is a very bad law and could be
>>challenged as unreasonable in any democratic court.

>
> Yet it remains the law here.


Then it is unreasonable since I can not limit my financial liability.

>>Besides it sounds
>>very much like your lots original gripe of "no taxation without
>>representation".

>
> And so we see ...?


Perhaps you do not understand; the "taxation" is the cost of maintaining
the property which has been taken away from me and the "representation"
is the control of my former property that I am denied.
--
Ian G8ILZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Photography restrictions in London Nervous Nick Digital Photography 9 07-01-2008 04:54 PM
Re: Photography restrictions in London snapper@mailinator.com Digital Photography 39 06-29-2008 10:50 PM
Photo gallery of nature (water, mountains, waterfalls) and city (architecture, churches, door, windows) photography halexic@yahoo.com Digital Photography 1 08-05-2006 09:11 AM
How to Take Good Photos in Museums and Cathedrals Gary Hendricks Digital Photography 7 01-16-2006 09:40 AM
Try again - Fuji F10/F11- taking pictures inside churches in Europe qwert2b2 Digital Photography 13 12-15-2005 02:54 AM



Advertisments