Agree - except the trouble is, the law can't take common sense into account. Technically, it is illegal to take a photo of an Avocet's nest from a RSPB hide window without a schedule 1 licence, because (from the photo) it is impossible to prove that you didn't disturb the bird in doing so. An individual judge might (or might not!) agree with your plea, but the law doesn't.
Its exactly the same with the peregrines here. I often take pictures of them from across the street, often on their nest site ledge. I don't disturb them, nor have I seen any of them even look down at someone passing beneath their nest.
The rule is sound in most circumstances, but as narrow-minded as a bacterium in another. I guess the solution is simply take images from a large distance- or, even better only allow this from a hide, unless distance is obvious. On my image of the WTE nest I have in my gallery, it is obvious that was from a massive distance in what might be one of the widest parts of the Volga river.
I'd say take images only if you are sure you don't disturb the birds, only from 50+ meters, higher for shy species, and at lower distances only from a hide. The above illegality is pretty stupid, to be honest, but the logic is sound. I often fume at the fact that a lovely reserve in Russia does not allow photography, and similarly wouldn't care if I visited as I know am extremely careful, but that was put into place because of recorded disturbance. It kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
And in some places it is impossible not to disturb birds. I walk in the forest near my former village often and there's this one woodpecker who I keep spooking. I never see it until it starts screaming and flying. I guess that's about intentional disturbance. the logic is sound, but is also ridiculous at times.
And with my camera at least, a significant drop in uqlity starts if I zoom in, so ti is very obvious whether I took the image at LR or SR. A lot of people have complained here about my camera on the ID forum...