On 24 Mar 2005 07:06:37 -0800, "EorJames"
wrote:

So please if you live up north or cant get near london please use my
service my website which is now up and running.
www.londonundergroundphotostop.bravehost.com

Jesus, you are just _so_ going to get ****ed up the arse by London
Undreground for this....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

I think there on holiday now so it will be a wait.
If i dont get it or have to pay loads i will forget it.
But hey they havernt said yes or no yet.
Cheers
James

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:57:57 +0000, Arthur Figgis
] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:19:38 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/filmingfaq.asp writes:
"in accordance with our Bylaws we do not permit the filming of [...]
Misuse of escalators"
James Farrar asks:
Misuse of escalators?
Presumably referring to dangerous stunts like sliding down between two
escalators, or trying to ride on the handrails.
Or not carrying a dog?
Funnily enough, getting off at Wood Green the other day,
Hmm, and you used the escalators for this? I wonder what the blokes
and blokettes behind the CCTV screens were thinking......
there was a
bloke ahead of me on the escalator with a Jack Russell (or similar)
perched across his shoulders. Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera
with me, but a picture of him just passing the "DOGS MUST BE CARRIED"
sign would have been priceless!
Seriously though, one would wonder if this guy actually knew if you
usually wear pelts of DEAD animals

--
Lars Elmvang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min mailadresse finder du ved kun at skrive det overeksponerede
domænenavn én gang

Lars Elmvang ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

bloke ahead of me on the escalator with a Jack Russell (or similar)
perched across his shoulders.

Seriously though, one would wonder if this guy actually knew if you
usually wear pelts of DEAD animals

Did Nick say it wasn't?

Adrian wrote:

Lars Elmvang ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :


bloke ahead of me on the escalator with a Jack Russell (or similar)
perched across his shoulders.


Seriously though, one would wonder if this guy actually knew if you
usually wear pelts of DEAD animals


Did Nick say it wasn't?
double-ewwwww

--
Lars Elmvang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min mailadresse finder du ved kun at skrive det overeksponerede
domænenavn én gang

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:43:13 +0100, Lars Elmvang
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:57:57 +0000, Arthur Figgis
] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:19:38 -0000, (Mark Brader) wrote:
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/filmingfaq.asp writes:
"in accordance with our Bylaws we do not permit the filming of [...]
Misuse of escalators"
James Farrar asks:
Misuse of escalators?
Presumably referring to dangerous stunts like sliding down between two
escalators, or trying to ride on the handrails.
Or not carrying a dog?
Funnily enough, getting off at Wood Green the other day,
Hmm, and you used the escalators for this? I wonder what the blokes
and blokettes behind the CCTV screens were thinking......
there was a
bloke ahead of me on the escalator with a Jack Russell (or similar)
perched across his shoulders. Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera
with me, but a picture of him just passing the "DOGS MUST BE CARRIED"
sign would have been priceless!
Seriously though, one would wonder if this guy actually knew if you
usually wear pelts of DEAD animals

I suppose that might have made sense in Danish, but it seems to have
lost something in translation....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Lars Elmvang wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 26 Mar 2005:

double-ewwwww

Eggs. Why? 's head!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 20 March 2005

Nick Cooper wrote:
Funnily enough, getting off at Wood Green the other day,
Hmm, and you used the escalators for this? I wonder what the blokes
and blokettes behind the CCTV screens were thinking......
there was a
bloke ahead of me on the escalator with a Jack Russell (or similar)
perched across his shoulders. Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera
with me, but a picture of him just passing the "DOGS MUST BE CARRIED"
sign would have been priceless!
Seriously though, one would wonder if this guy actually knew if you
usually wear pelts of DEAD animals
I suppose that might have made sense in Danish, but it seems to have
lost something in translation....
The upper or the lower of my answers?

--
Lars Elmvang
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min mailadresse finder du ved kun at skrive det overeksponerede
domænenavn én gang

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:51 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:

You might want to think about your charging policy: will you charge
the same amount of money to take a new photo as you would to use an
exsiting photo that you took for another customer, for instance?

Well, if I was a customer of his, I would expect that if *I* had
specified which photographs should be taken, and had paid for them, a
process known formally as "commissioning", then *I* would own the
copyright on them, so he wouldn't have the right to duplicate them.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767309.html
(One of the protoype PEP units at Derby in an interesting livery, 1980)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:05:38 +0000, Chris Tolley
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:51 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote:

You might want to think about your charging policy: will you charge
the same amount of money to take a new photo as you would to use an
exsiting photo that you took for another customer, for instance?

Well, if I was a customer of his, I would expect that if *I* had
specified which photographs should be taken, and had paid for them, a
process known formally as "commissioning", then *I* would own the
copyright on them, so he wouldn't have the right to duplicate them.

AIUI that is the sickening part of the copyright law.

The copyright stays with the producer of the works, all you have
bought is a licence to use for personal usages. If you want to use
commercially then you need to have that agreed, as with any further
change of commercial use.

Your wedding photos are not yours to copy. By law you have to buy
further copies from the originating photographer. He owns the
copyright and can do what he damn well pleases with it and your
pictures.

When my server is up (presently awaiting a new mb) then I have several
photographic web sites.
Because of my job amongst other things - see www.unseenlondon.co.uk as
an example, which is up ATM, a lot of my material is not obtainable
from anywhere else.
The copyright of all material is mine and remains so. As I have a
strong dislike of the draconican laws in this field I have a waiver on
most of the sites allowing a free licence for personal and educational
use along with a further waiver for the geographical site owners where
they were taken and their employees. I only reserve for commercial use
by others and a chance for attributation by the authors of other 3rd
party private or free web sites.

Keith J Chesworth


www.unseenlondon.co.uk
www.blackpooltram.co.uk
www.happysnapper.com
www.boilerbill.com - main site
www.amerseyferry.co.uk