The DC bits of itchiness about photography are security-based. I attracted some fair attention on the Mall in trying to make an image with a very large very black red-taped pinhole camera...I had a sign on the camera saying, yes, "camera", but I thought that the activity would be highly problematic, and it was. John Ptak
>
> From: Jim Strain <jstrain@iquest.net>
> Date: 2005/03/31 Thu PM 05:13:20 EST
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: copyright
>
> Encountered the same sort of thing attempting to photograph certain exteriors of well known London sites such as the Tower of London and the Tower Bridge. The tripod is a tipoff that a person making a photograph might be more serious than the average bloke.
>
> Have run into problems around our nation's capitol as well - mostly in the Capitol Hill area. There the issue may be less protection of the franchise and more security. Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ender100@aol.com
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: copyright
>
>
> nothing....I just took photographs ;)
>
> In a message dated 3/31/05 5:13:23 AM, bkleider@sihope.com writes:
>
>
>
> And? Don't leave us hanging! What did you say?
>
> Barry
>
> Ender100@aol.com wrote:
>
> I ran into a similar situation a few years ago at Torrey Pines State Park in California. The Park Ranger noticed all the camera equipment in my car and told me that the State/Park retains the "copryright" on the trees there (they only grow in this one tiny coastal area of California) and that photographers are not allowed to take photographs of them for any type of commercial work, including art work they would sell without paying a licensing fee.
>
>
> Mark Nelson
> Precision Digital Negatives
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Nelson
> Precision Digital Negatives
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 31 19:33:24 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:02 AM Z CST