Filming on Public Transport
- Thread starter nonchann
- Start date
- Status
compro_1975
Senior Member
same for bus too, charted is needed
alternus
Member
If you are doing a simple shoot not involving a big crew, and no need to direct the bus driver to do any stunts, you may consider boarding those $1 SBS shuttle service that goes around town (I forgot the name of the service). Hardly anyone boards those buses. And they keep going over the same route non-stop.
I once did some filming on a double deck. Quiet and peaceful for > 30 min upstairs. At a price of $4 (i.e. 4 pax). And since you won't be bothering anyone, the bus driver won't care.
The best part is, the bus brings you back to the same place you boarded.
I once did some filming on a double deck. Quiet and peaceful for > 30 min upstairs. At a price of $4 (i.e. 4 pax). And since you won't be bothering anyone, the bus driver won't care.
The best part is, the bus brings you back to the same place you boarded.
Yup its hard to get the permits due to Counter-Terrorism Security measures. Unless the crew/ company is filming a govt project. I did a few govt corporate videos - the relavant agencies will do all the liaison and we just go and film on the set date. BTW, the crew is subjected to ISD screening etc cos I have to submit full particulars and we were bounded by Official Secrets Act.
Nowadays, anyone who holds a handycam shooting at SBS bus interchanges, MRT stations etc are subjected to checks by the SMRT security. But its ok if you're taking those tourist bus services in town.
It's not whether they care but the bus / train is a company property thus anything you do on the vehicle makes the transport company liable.
Just like shooting inside a hotel or shopping centres. :bigeyes:
Public transports are not public places, even then usage without permission of the individual makes it a violation of privacy. :nono:
It's not whether they care but the bus / train is a company property thus anything you do on the vehicle makes the transport company liable.
Just like shooting inside a hotel or shopping centres. :bigeyes:
Public transports are not public places, even then usage without permission of the individual makes it a violation of privacy. :nono:
there is no privacy laws in sg.
hmm... can i say the"do but don't get caught" rule applies?:bsmilie:
I have been thinking about doing a documentary with regards to the rat race/paper chase/rush for the riches thing in singapore. thought about filming during rush hour and maybe even interviewing people on the train in particular. Not too worried about bus...quite safe on double deck as long people don't complain. So...yeah...train would be the tricky one hor...
I have been thinking about doing a documentary with regards to the rat race/paper chase/rush for the riches thing in singapore. thought about filming during rush hour and maybe even interviewing people on the train in particular. Not too worried about bus...quite safe on double deck as long people don't complain. So...yeah...train would be the tricky one hor...
V
vince123123
Guest
V
vince123123
Guest
First time I hear that a crime is a crime only when someone complains about it. Its like saying that when a tree falls in the forest, it does not make a sound unless someone is there to hear it.
As for taking photos in a no photography area, it depends on what that no photography area is. Please elaborate.
And, does a bus/train (which is the subject of this discussion) have a no photography sign?
As for taking photos in a no photography area, it depends on what that no photography area is. Please elaborate.
And, does a bus/train (which is the subject of this discussion) have a no photography sign?
If public transports are not public, why is it called public transport in the first place? Should it than not be called Private transport/bus?
If this is a serious discussation I think this is not a wise thing to do or suggest.
If, and I mean " If ", Privacy laws do falls under a grey area, it also meands that you may have fallen fowl under the law if you do it. In other words, you may have committed a crime. And the suggestion to take pix in a place which photography is not allowed is asking people to break the law or rule. Not something we should encourage.
If all this is posted in jest, well OK, but some may take it seriously.
1. a)Yes-true they are liable but the main point it not whether the bus companies/SMRT owns theIt's not whether they care but the bus / train is a company property thus anything you do on the vehicle makes the transport company liable.
Just like shooting inside a hotel or shopping centres. :bigeyes:
Public transports are not public places, even then usage without permission of the individual makes it a violation of privacy. :nono:
buses/trains or not as stated in (1c).
b)Yes of course they also wana earn $$$ to charter for filming.
c)The main thingy is National Security issued. All public transport and utilities are national security assets. The staff authorities are the National Security Co-ordinating Secretariat (Min of Defence) and Homeland Security Office(Min of Home Affairs). Thats why now there are transit security isn't it? Filming w/o permits can constitute certain offences under "Internal Security Act, Cap 143"
2. Hotels/ Shopping Ctrs are total different ball game - its a matter of trade secrets. That is under Commercial Laws not Criminal Law. Its only a Criminal Act if we shoot the hotel logos or certain special trademarks w/o permission of the property owner which infringe the "Trademarks Act, Cap 332"
3. The only Privacy Law is stated in Sec 509 Cap 224 Penal Code stating acts that intrude the privacy of a woman e.g. those pervert peepers. Other than that we can't just take a person's foto w/o the other party agreement for publish - that is a Civil Suit. When I was young & learning during the SBC days all cam-ops are not allowed to film public in the background during LocPro(On Location Production) otherwise if the subjects' faces are broadcasted TV station can get sued because there is no "model/actor release agreement signed"
4. The word "Public Places" is defined in Singapore Statutes as having access by the public including private property that is accessed to public.[/COLOR] The word "Public" includes any member of the public or the community[/COLOR]. Thats why the buses/trains are named "Public Transport".
5. The "No Photography" Sign areas are always the Protected Places. Try shooting outside a Military Base w/o clearance - the sentries will point their rifles at you warranted under the "Sec 9 - Protected Areas/Places Act Cap 256". Next thing you know you will be sitting in ISD interview room.
Lastly dun ask why I know all the law and stuff - if I let you know I will have to kill you ;p hahahaha
V
vince123123
Guest
No worries, no one is going to ask how you know about the law and stuff - it is good that people post their views with the relevant sources of law/authority so we know what they are basing their views on, not just relying on "I have so-and-so qualifications so I must be correct" type of statements.
Now, onto the points proper:
1(c) Could you point us to the section numbers which states that "Filming w/o permits can constitute certain offences"? Also, how those sections relate to filming in a bus or train, and how a permit may be obtained.
2. Can you point me to the section number which states that filiming of a hotel logo or trade mark without permission constitutes an offence under the Trade Marks Act? I am surprised to know that there are such offences under this Act but wait to hear your elaboration.
3. I quote Section 509 which you have referred to as follows:
Please note that an essential element of this offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman, mere intrusion of privacy alone is insufficient. You have left this out. Also, take note that the heading of this section suggests the main mischief is to insult the modesty of a woman, not to safeguard privacy laws. Hence, there are no privacy laws in Singapore per se.
3 (cont'd). Could you elaborate on any sources of Singapore law which states that model releases are required? And to take one more step forward, that such releases are required for incidental filiming of people in the background? Or is this just an industry perpetuated myth from reading too many Internet sources which are based on specifically legislated provisions under US laws?
5. I quote Section 9 which you have referred to as follows:
I don't see any provision here which states that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base. The provision above relates to an attempt to ENTER or failure to stop after being challenged after you are INSIDE the protected area or place. Maybe you made an error in quoting the section number?
Now, onto the points proper:
1(c) Could you point us to the section numbers which states that "Filming w/o permits can constitute certain offences"? Also, how those sections relate to filming in a bus or train, and how a permit may be obtained.
2. Can you point me to the section number which states that filiming of a hotel logo or trade mark without permission constitutes an offence under the Trade Marks Act? I am surprised to know that there are such offences under this Act but wait to hear your elaboration.
3. I quote Section 509 which you have referred to as follows:
Please note that an essential element of this offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman, mere intrusion of privacy alone is insufficient. You have left this out. Also, take note that the heading of this section suggests the main mischief is to insult the modesty of a woman, not to safeguard privacy laws. Hence, there are no privacy laws in Singapore per se.
3 (cont'd). Could you elaborate on any sources of Singapore law which states that model releases are required? And to take one more step forward, that such releases are required for incidental filiming of people in the background? Or is this just an industry perpetuated myth from reading too many Internet sources which are based on specifically legislated provisions under US laws?
5. I quote Section 9 which you have referred to as follows:
I don't see any provision here which states that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base. The provision above relates to an attempt to ENTER or failure to stop after being challenged after you are INSIDE the protected area or place. Maybe you made an error in quoting the section number?
I don't see any provision here which states that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base. The provision above relates to an attempt to ENTER or failure to stop after being challenged after you are INSIDE the protected area or place. Maybe you made an error in quoting the section numbers all ?
Hmmmm......only those who completed NS or ever worked for govt will know the procedures...sorry official secrets wun elaborate here.....As for the statutes of S'pore - its just for common Spore local knowledge....thats the law there will always be diff angles of looking at it thats why there are jobs for lawyers....
Hmmmm......only those who completed NS or ever worked for govt will know the procedures...sorry official secrets wun elaborate here.....As for the statutes of S'pore - its just for common Spore local knowledge....thats the law there will always be diff angles of looking at it thats why there are jobs for lawyers....
V
vince123123
Guest
You relied on specific statutes and when invited to quote the provisions, you say that it is an official secret? A law is a law, not an official secret.
Sure, there are different ways of interpreting the law, which is why I invite you to give your interpretation with relevant support. By dismissing someone's point of view without even providing a counter-view, is not conducive to a discussion. Unless you are saying that you have no counterviews to my views raised. A point by point answer to my post #16 rather than a blanket dismissal.
Sure, there are different ways of interpreting the law, which is why I invite you to give your interpretation with relevant support. By dismissing someone's point of view without even providing a counter-view, is not conducive to a discussion. Unless you are saying that you have no counterviews to my views raised. A point by point answer to my post #16 rather than a blanket dismissal.
LazerLordz
New Member
You are not allowed to aim your rifle at a person who is taking pictures of your base. That is disproportionate use of force in this context. You are only allowed to report him/her to the relevant authorities, as he is still outside these said premises.
If he is aiming a weapon with the aim to discharge it into the property of the camp, or attempting to gain entry, you may then carry out the SOP for people who are a threat to that protected installation.
But at no point may a sentry raise his weapon at an in-situ non-threatening subject, he may give verbal orders to desist. In fact, whether he can come out of the property and seize that subject may not even be a clear-cut case.
Anyone who has served as a guard commander would know this as second nature.
V
vince123123
Guest
Good one, now we know it isn't as mysterious as he makes it out to be. After failing to use the proper written laws, he attempted to shroud it in mystery as "offical secrets". Now we know that that isn't true as well.
- Status
