«

dmaster <> wrote:

>On Mar 27, 11:36*am, John Ferguson <j.ferguson...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Welcome To The Gulag wrote:> This is scary stuff - seriously, what has *happened to a once proud and free
>> > nation?
>>
>> >http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...tographer/2008...
>>
>> > [click to play video]
>>
>> I reckon I'll avoid London if I ever get to GB.
>
>Well, I spent several weeks in London immediately after the
>Underground bombings. Parts of the line were still blocked and
>security was quite heavy. My wife and I were carrying a camcorder, my
>none-too-inconspicuous Panasonic FZ20, and another digital camera. We
>took photos and video everywhere we went, including in the
>underground. Not once were we stopped, questioned, or harrassed. We
>did *ask* security personel if we could take their pictures before
>doing so, and we were never refused.
>
>My suspicion is that unless you are purposely trying to annoy someone,
>or taking pictures in an obviously restricted area, you won't have any
>trouble.


That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.

But that is a commercial, not a security issue.

Tony Polson wrote:
>
> That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
> in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
> to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
> owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
> from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.
>
> But that is a commercial, not a security issue.
>

Does that cover shooting from the north bank of the Thames? I've seen it
in so many photo mags and even books.

Cynicor <> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
>> in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
>> to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
>> owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
>> from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.
>>
>> But that is a commercial, not a security issue.
>>
>
>Does that cover shooting from the north bank of the Thames? I've seen it
>in so many photo mags and even books.


Shooting from the north bank is not a problem. The area claimed by
the London Eye extends 200 metres along the south bank (I think in
both directions) and 200 metres away from the south bank.

While they have always been proud to the point of arrogance.
They always have been, and will remain, subjects of the crown.
Like sheep.

John

"Welcome To The Gulag" <> wrote in message
news:...
> This is scary stuff - seriously, what has happened to a once proud and
> free nation?
>
>
> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...nt-pictur.html
>
>
> [click to play video]
>

Tony Polson wrote:
> Cynicor <> wrote:
>
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>> That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
>>> in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
>>> to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
>>> owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
>>> from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.
>>>
>>> But that is a commercial, not a security issue.
>>>
>> Does that cover shooting from the north bank of the Thames? I've seen it
>> in so many photo mags and even books.
>
>
> Shooting from the north bank is not a problem. The area claimed by
> the London Eye extends 200 metres along the south bank (I think in
> both directions) and 200 metres away from the south bank.

Do they own the land? Or is it like the security guard in Los Angeles
who ran to get her supervisor because I was shooting another building -
from the public street next to the sidewalk of the building she was
guarding?

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
On 2008-03-28, jaf <> wrote:
> While they have always been proud to the point of arrogance.
> They always have been, and will remain, subjects of the crown.
> Like sheep.

You've had three days to think about it and that's the best racial slur
you can come up with?

If you're going to be offensive with style you need to at least be
logically consistent. The only part of the animal kingdom the
Saxe-Coburg-Gothe-Windsor-Mountbattens claim sovereignty over is swans.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

"Roy G" <> wrote

> As for the other story, I can think of a lot more reasons for avoiding
> London than the chance of being harassed by some foreign accented moron,
> who has less authority than the average traffic warden.

If you ever get the chance, watch a British documentary-style film made in
1984 called 'Threads' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/) It is a
fictional account of what would happen in a medium-sized city (Sheffield) if
a nuclear war broke out and 200 Megatons of devastation fell on the UK. A
very telling scene some time after the holocaust shows a ragged traffic
warden, holding an automatic rifle, is patrolling the barbed wire behind
which looters were held. I found that a very disturbing image (even though
it was only fiction) because it illustrated how society would fragment if
the leadership (poor as it is!) was decimated early in the piece.

Paul

In article <47eded52$0$13087$>, says...

> a nuclear war broke out and 200 Megatons of devastation fell on the UK.

Wouldn't that be sufficient to annihilate all life in the UK? The bomb
which fell over Hiroshima was only 15 Kilotons and was sufficient to
destroy the entire city.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Cynicor <> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> Cynicor <> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>>> That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
>>>> in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
>>>> to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
>>>> owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
>>>> from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.
>>>>
>>>> But that is a commercial, not a security issue.
>>>>
>>> Does that cover shooting from the north bank of the Thames? I've seen it
>>> in so many photo mags and even books.
>>
>>
>> Shooting from the north bank is not a problem. The area claimed by
>> the London Eye extends 200 metres along the south bank (I think in
>> both directions) and 200 metres away from the south bank.
>
>Do they own the land? Or is it like the security guard in Los Angeles
>who ran to get her supervisor because I was shooting another building -
>from the public street next to the sidewalk of the building she was
>guarding?


They lease only a part of the land over which they claim image rights.
But because the London Eye owners can afford expensive lawyers,
ordinary citizens (and professional photographers) are discouraged
from questioning the London Eye's claims.

Tony Polson wrote:
> Cynicor <> wrote:
>
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>> Cynicor <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>>>> That's a pretty accurate analysis of the situation. I shoot regularly
>>>>> in London and have never had the slightest problem - except for trying
>>>>> to get a shot of the London Eye. I found out very quickly that the
>>>>> owners of the London Eye have asserted image rights to all shots taken
>>>>> from within 200 metres (220 yards) in any direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is a commercial, not a security issue.
>>>>>
>>>> Does that cover shooting from the north bank of the Thames? I've seen it
>>>> in so many photo mags and even books.
>>>
>>> Shooting from the north bank is not a problem. The area claimed by
>>> the London Eye extends 200 metres along the south bank (I think in
>>> both directions) and 200 metres away from the south bank.
>> Do they own the land? Or is it like the security guard in Los Angeles
>> who ran to get her supervisor because I was shooting another building -
>>from the public street next to the sidewalk of the building she was
>> guarding?
>
>
> They lease only a part of the land over which they claim image rights.
> But because the London Eye owners can afford expensive lawyers,
> ordinary citizens (and professional photographers) are discouraged
> from questioning the London Eye's claims.

I am looking at the guidelines now, at
http://www.londoneye.co.uk/NewsAndEv...s/Default.aspx.

They are "unable to support projects which. . .relate to security or
terrorism." Wasn't the London Eye used as a terrorist alien transmitter
in a Doctor Who episode?

Anyway, it doesn't mention what we'd actually be interested in here.