Filming on Public Transport

[GhostSG]

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.

If there's someone in the forum has a question/ problem we help to the best of our ability. Why we never hear some constructive comments instead of challenging other's comments. Mr Chris Lim already answered a lot of things(again in plain simple english) but you think he is a "small fly"-he produced more professional films than me.

Q1- 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.
Ans - ISA-Power to order production of detained person.
18. —(1) On proof to his satisfaction that the presence at any place of any person detained under the provisions of this Chapter, or lawfully in the custody of the police or confined in any prison whether in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter or under an order of any court or otherwise howsoever, and notwithstanding any order of any court or other authority whatsoever, is required in the interests of justice, or for the purpose of any public or other inquiry, or in the national interest, or in the interests of the person detained, in custody or confined, the Minister may order that such person be taken to that place.

(2) Any person in course of being taken to any place in pursuance of subsection (1) and while at such place shall be kept in such custody as the Minister may direct and while in that custody shall be deemed to be in lawful custody.

Q2-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.
Ans-Go read Sec 45 Cap 332 - Exclusive licensee having rights and remedies of assignee but in court it reads with the Trade Dispute Act again do understand english and read.When a company sue a party its up to their lawyers to fight for the case-I'm not a lawyer though. If there is a case then its easier to ellaborate right the subject matter is so massive isnt it.

Q3A-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.
Ans: Didn't I commented the example of pervert peepers-simple layman terms. The rest I repeat its civil suit. Sigh.....I though Sporeans all know simple english...sigh....

Q3b-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?
Ans-Compliance with Codes of Practice, etc.
13. —(1) Every broadcasting licensee shall comply with the Codes of Practice relating to standards of programmes and advertisements and broadcast standards.

(2) No broadcasting licensee shall allow to be transmitted a broadcasting service other than in accordance with any broadcast standards specified in any regulations or Code of Practice or any condition which may be incorporated in its broadcasting licence Again, simple english never read - so can you tell me last time what's the license conditions terms etc given to SBC last time??? I also dun know and was outsider helping employees in SBC;so boss say I listen lor

Q4-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?
Ans- By LazerLordz"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."

Didn't Lazerlordz answered that question and a detailed number facts of sentry duties - use of force levels??? The rest under like what kind of threatcon levels etc we cant discuss in public b'cos its all "Official Secrets" of the ROEs/SOPs etc.My example was the last level of force(the extreme case) which Lazerlordz higlighted. Please see Lazerlordz's comments/reply - these are the kind of responsible, helpful and constructive comments of the members here. I can't tell much cos I was a trainer of the diff uniform security forces;i always quote the worst scenarios during trgs. The sentries report - we were the people who engage terror suspects;we got diff ROEs from uniform personnels.

 

[centuryegg]

Shooting in Trains is a NO NO....

If you apply to shoot in one, charges are bloody expensive.

In case u are trying to shoot and run... well a gentle reminder. There are cameras all over trains and stations.. you will be stopped before you are even half way through.

The issue here is due to Terrorism, and the JI plot to bomb MRT stations and most damning of all, DV cameras with footage shot by terrorists of the targets.

Hence alarm bells will ring the moment u are seen shooting in trains or stations esp with small DV cam.

 

[vince123123]

Ah looks like I missed out replying to the long essay above - the reply was done but somehow forgotten to post:

Just can't understand why there are such childish and ignorant people in this forum. If there's someone in the forum has a question/ problem we help to the best of our ability. If you are so good why we never hear some constructive comments instead of challenging other's comments. Correct us if we are wrong then be a man not a cry baby.

Oh my, now we are descending into name calling. Yes, when someone has a question, it is always helpful to provide an answer. However, are you saying that if another forum member feels that the answer provided may not be correct, he is supposed to let the wrong answer remain without trying to correct it? There are many cowboys around who think there are correct and then say things which may mislead others. Isn’t it then constructive to enquire further to ask that person to substantiate what he is saying to make sure that there is a correct basis for the “advice”?

If lets say for example, I come out and say something which is obviously wrong, for example “I say that filming of a high security military installation, inside the installation itself, is totally okay! You can go ahead and do it! It’s perfectly fine!’

Are you going to sit there, knowing that it is wrong, and let my comment continue? Or is it better if you challenge it and ask me on what basis I have based my advice on above?

Maybe you are too used to getting people to accept what you say as to gospel truth. In your case, you even sought to quote names of Statutes to bolster or lend authority to your points. Is it too much to ask specifically what sections you are relying on?

I will now turn to a blow by blow discussion of each of your points. And since you have requested for my constructive comments, they will follow at the end of each point.

Q1- 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.
Ans - ISA-Power to order production of detained person.
18. —(1) On proof to his satisfaction that the presence at any place of any person detained under the provisions of this Chapter, or lawfully in the custody of the police or confined in any prison whether in pursuance of the provisions of this Chapter or under an order of any court or otherwise howsoever, and notwithstanding any order of any court or other authority whatsoever, is required in the interests of justice, or for the purpose of any public or other inquiry, or in the national interest, or in the interests of the person detained, in custody or confined, the Minister may order that such person be taken to that place.

(2) Any person in course of being taken to any place in pursuance of subsection (1) and while at such place shall be kept in such custody as the Minister may direct and while in that custody shall be deemed to be in lawful custody.

You have quoted Section 18 of the ISA to substantiate the point that filming without a permit can constitute certain offences. With respect, this section does not support your stand on how filming without a permit is an offence – it merely talks about how a Minister is empowered to order the production of a detainee to a particular place, assuming that the person is a detainee to begin with (see words in bold above). Are you sure you are reading the Section correctly?

I’ll help you out since you want constructive comments and not just mere challenges (although I do note that the onus is on you to substantiate your points and not for me to feed them to you).

Are you referring to Section 8 instead? Kindly confirm or provide the correct number, or you can always confirm that you intended to rely on Section 18 instead.

Once I get the correct Section, I’ll then reply further.

Q2-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.
Ans-Go read Sec 45 Cap 332 - Exclusive licensee having rights and remedies of assignee but in court it reads with the Trade Dispute Act again do understand english and read.When a company sue a party its up to their lawyers to fight for the case-I'm not a lawyer though. If there is a case then its easier to ellaborate right the subject matter is so massive isnt it.

Okay this one really takes the cake as far as wrong quoting of laws is concerned.

Do you know what an assignee and a licensee is? Do you know what this Section is about?

Let me tell you, lest I be accused of being unconstructive or merely challenging.

By way of background, a licensee, under the Trade Marks Act, is one who has been licensed by a proprietor who owns a registered trade mark, to use that proprietor’s trade marks (See Section 42 for further information). A registered proprietor has his/its name appears in the Trade Marks Register as owner of the registered trade mark,

A license may be exclusive or non-exclusive. A non-exclusive license means that the trade mark proprietor has agreed to license, say A, to use a trade mark, but he reserves the right to, or already has licensed another party, say B. An exclusive license means that the licensee is the one and only licensee of the trade mark (analogous to a sole agent situation), even to the extent of excluding the registered trade mark proprietor himself (See Section 43).

Section 45 is intended to give an exclusive licensee, the same rights as if he was an assignee of the registered trade mark. An assignment is one where the registered trade mark proprietor has given up all his rights to another person (ie assigned all rights) and has transferred it to that person (the assignee). Section 45 puts the exclusive licensee in the same position as if he was an assignee. And why is this significant? Because, under the Trade Marks Act, certain things can only be done or certain rights (such as bringing of an infringement action) can only be enforced by the proprietor of the registered trade mark. Read Section 45 again.

Hence, I have no clue how you can ever construe this section to mean that “filiming of a hotel logo or trade mark without permission constitutes an offence under the Trade Marks Act”. Perhaps I’m really having trouble with interpretation of what you term as “simple English”.

Again, in the spirit of being constructive, I now turn you to Sections 46 to 53A of the Trade Marks Act, where offences under this Act are listed. None of these sections list the situation you have envisaged, ie that “filiming of a hotel logo or trade mark without permission constitutes an offence under the Trade Marks Act”.

Finally, I have no idea how the Trade Disputes Act fits into all of this so I have no idea how anyone can “in court it reads with the Trade Dispute Act”. Kindly elaborate which sections you are referring to that the court will "read with" (are you sure you want to open a new can of worms when you haven't even put the old ones back?)

Q3A-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.
Ans: Didn't I commented the example of pervert peepers-simple layman terms. The rest I repeat its civil suit. Sigh.....I though Sporeans all know simple english...sigh....

Yes, and I have highlighted that an essential element is intention to insult the modesty. The main mischief is the insulting of modesty, not the provision of privacy. Hence there are no privacy laws per se. Privacy laws in other jurisdictions do not premise the offence being conditional on there being an intention to insult the modesty. They are framed towards protecting the privacy of a person, even where there is no intention to insult modesty.

I’ll respond to the part on “civil suit” in the next point as that is where you are saying the rights for a civil suit lies.

(cont'd in next post due to post length limit)

 

[vince123123]

(cont'd from previous post)

Q3b-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 filming 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?
Ans-Compliance with Codes of Practice, etc.
13. —(1) Every broadcasting licensee shall comply with the Codes of Practice relating to standards of programmes and advertisements and broadcast standards.

(2) No broadcasting licensee shall allow to be transmitted a broadcasting service other than in accordance with any broadcast standards specified in any regulations or Code of Practice or any condition which may be incorporated in its broadcasting licence Again, simple english never read - so can you tell me last time what's the license conditions terms etc given to SBC last time??? I also dun know and was outsider helping employees in SBC;so boss say I listen lor

Alright, let’s take a look at this. You didn’t say which statute you are relying on, but I note that this is taken from the Broadcasting Act (Cap 28).

This section refers to the conditions imposed on broadcasting licenses granted under Section 8 of that Act. Since you have relied on Section 13, I presume that you are saying that a “regulation” or “Code of Practice” specifically prohibits the incidental filming of people in the background”?

I note that you have no idea on these “Conditions” – but you said that such conditions were stated to you by your boss. Hopefully your boss has some authority to back him up on, or perhaps he is just taking a conservative view. That said, in many TV dramas and television programmes, we can see hundreds and thousands of passers by being incidentally filmed. Are you saying that TCS/film company has gotten “model releases” from each and every one of them?

Any applicable Regulations and Codes of Practice issued under the Broadcasting Act may be found in the MDA website – I am unable to locate any such Regulation or Code which says you need a model release – it seems like you don’t know either since you said that “I also dun know and was outsider helping employees in SBC;so boss say I listen lor”

Even if there was a “regulation” or “Code of Practice”, I note that this is strictly limited to such incidental filming of people when intended to be broadcasted as part of a broadcasting service. Hence, if I make a film, and say sell it commercially to someone, without broadcasting it, this Section does not apply.

And I note that this Section does not refer to model releases or the like as far as Singapore is concerned. Hence, again I see no substantiation for the concept of model releases required.

In fact, you have just said that you don’t know and you are just listening to what someone else has told you – hence you do not know and cannot substantiate your point.

Q4-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?
Ans- By LazerLordz"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."

Didn't Lazerlordz answered that question and a detailed number facts of sentry duties - use of force levels??? The rest under like what kind of threatcon levels etc we cant discuss in public b'cos its all "Official Secrets" of the ROEs/SOPs etc.My example was the last level of force(the extreme case) which Lazerlordz higlighted. Please see Lazerlordz's comments/reply - these are the kind of responsible, helpful and constructive comments of the members here. I can't tell much cos I was a trainer of the diff uniform security forces;i always quote the worst scenarios during trgs. The sentries report - we were the people who engage terror suspects;we got diff ROEs from uniform personnels.

Yes Lazerlords said that “You are not allowed to aim your rifle at a person who is taking pictures of your base” – this totally runs contradictory to your statement that “that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base”. You have just shot yourself in the foot without realizing it.

You then say that “My example was the last level of force(the extreme case) which Lazerlordz highlighted” – so you are now saying that taking photographs outside a military base is an “extreme case” analogous to Lazerlord’s example of”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

There is no point shrouding in all that mystery when someone else has clearly provided you with a contrary point of view from yours. I can just as easily assert without proof or basis that I in the Ministry of Defence’s Counterterrorist and Intelligence Unit and that I know that sentries cannot point their rifles at civilians taking photographs outside a military base but I cannot tell you how I know because it is an “official secret”.

Besides, this doesn’t even touch on the point that the Section 9 you quoted is totally off the mark.

Guess by now everyone understands the level of maturity in you and your knowledge.

I think you need a reality check yourself when it is clear that your answers do not substantiate your points. Name calling and personal attacks/insults are a nice try to obfuscate the issues and/or provoke the other person, but fall flat on their face when used in conjunction with points that lack merit, substantiation and are made without basis.

 

[sundazz]

well, jus call or email sbs, transiland or smrt up and tell them wat and why ur intension for shoot lor, and u will know whether can or not, or wat u need for approval.. to me as simple as tat... :dunno:

 

[vince123123]

This is indeed a good point at first glance - however sometimes it bears further thought into it.

Imagine this, we all know that there is nothing wrong with shooting a building or shopfront while standing on a public road (well if someone wishes to contest this, then lets start another thread - lets assume for once that it is true).

However, we also know that there are many threads here reporting on overzealous security guards who stop photographers who attempt to shoot these buildings or shops.

Now the question is, if you ask the security guards of the buildings or shops for permission to shoot, they will surely tell you "No, cannot, need permission, need license, need whatever". But the problem is, in law, you are indeed within your rights to shoot from a public road without any need for permission from the shop/building owners.

Hence whatever the people tell you, may or may not be the correct position.

well, jus call or email sbs, transiland or smrt up and tell them wat and why ur intension for shoot lor, and u will know whether can or not, or wat u need for approval.. to me as simple as tat... :dunno:

 

[sundazz]

This is indeed a good point at first glance - however sometimes it bears further thought into it.

Imagine this, we all know that there is nothing wrong with shooting a building or shopfront while standing on a public road (well if someone wishes to contest this, then lets start another thread - lets assume for once that it is true).

However, we also know that there are many threads here reporting on overzealous security guards who stop photographers who attempt to shoot these buildings or shops.

Now the question is, if you ask the security guards of the buildings or shops for permission to shoot, they will surely tell you "No, cannot, need permission, need license, need whatever". But the problem is, in law, you are indeed within your rights to shoot from a public road without any need for permission from the shop/building owners.

Hence whatever the people tell you, may or may not be the correct position.

why ask the security? ask the management.. ask the rite person.. email prefered as have black and white proof.. you are covered.
cheers

 

[vince123123]

Hmm, my point is, whether you ask the security or management of the building/shop, they will take the Singapore "NO" approach and say cannot. That doesn't in itself mean that they are justified in doing so.

There has been reports in threads that even management say no. Owners of shops saying no. etc etc.

why ask the security? ask the management.. ask the rite person.. email prefered as have black and white proof.. you are covered.
cheers

 

[sundazz]

Hmm, my point is, whether you ask the security or management of the building/shop, they will take the Singapore "NO" approach and say cannot. That doesn't in itself mean that they are justified in doing so.

There has been reports in threads that even management say no. Owners of shops saying no. etc etc.

hmmm..... u never try u never know.. its not always no..

 

[adamadam]

in Melbourne, there was a man who went around in the tram putting his bag (wired with a video camera) to film up skirts! Luckily he was caught!

 

[sundazz]

in Melbourne, there was a man who went around in the tram putting his bag (wired with a video camera) to film up skirts! Luckily he was caught!

hmm.. up skirt.. :bigeyes: tat's deffinately illegal!:sweat: .. well i think many places happened!... jpn..:think:

 

[vince123123]

Well two possibilities, if they say yes, then no issue, go ahead and shoot.

Even if they say no, doesn't mean you can't either

hmmm..... u never try u never know.. its not always no..

 

[sundazz]

Well two possibilities, if they say yes, then no issue, go ahead and shoot.

Even if they say no, doesn't mean you can't either

if no and u go ahead n shoot then dont get caught..
just like adamadam mentioned abt up skirt.. everyone kno its illegal.. and if u wan to go ahead n shoot.. then u have to bare the consequences if gana caught.. polish ur butts and prepare for the rottan.. :sweat:

well of cos panelty depends on wat u have in ur shots and oso depends on the respective agency whether to take actions against u.. :dunno:

my point is write to the respective agency if u need to shoot.. if u have a valid reason.. i think its not tat diificult to get an approval.. i have shot in LRT, shopping center, schools for projects..
unless u are shooting without any reasons and suspiciously.. :think:

 

[vince123123]

Well I suppose we are still debating whether it is illegal to shoot on a train - that is what the topic is about isn't it? Trying to see if there are any real laws prohibiting such acts.

My point was, just because you ask and they say "no" doesn't mean it is illegal. Just like we all know that shooting a building and/or shop from a public road is not illegal, even though so many shop owners and building security guards have tried to stop photographers from shooting their building facade and shopfronts. Heck even photographers themselves perpetuated this myth that it is illegal without basis or authority/laws to support this myth.

Other than the fact that it is debatable on the legality to shoot on a train, it is even more debatable whether it is an offence punishable by caning.

if no and u go ahead n shoot then dont get caught..
just like adamadam mentioned abt up skirt.. everyone kno its illegal.. and if u wan to go ahead n shoot.. then u have to bare the consequences if gana caught.. polish ur butts and prepare for the rottan.. :sweat:

well of cos panelty depends on wat u have in ur shots and oso depends on the respective agency whether to take actions against u.. :dunno:

my point is write to the respective agency if u need to shoot.. if u have a valid reason.. i think its not tat diificult to get an approval.. i have shot in LRT, shopping center, schools for projects..
unless u are shooting without any reasons and suspiciously.. :think:

 

[sundazz]

Well I suppose we are still debating whether it is illegal to shoot on a train - that is what the topic is about isn't it? Trying to see if there are any real laws prohibiting such acts.

My point was, just because you ask and they say "no" doesn't mean it is illegal. Just like we all know that shooting a building and/or shop from a public road is not illegal, even though so many shop owners and building security guards have tried to stop photographers from shooting their building facade and shopfronts. Heck even photographers themselves perpetuated this myth that it is illegal without basis or authority/laws to support this myth.

Other than the fact that it is debatable on the legality to shoot on a train, it is even more debatable whether it is an offence punishable by caning.

yes in a way u are rite.. the debate here will goes on with no diffinate rite or wrong... yes or no.. legal or illegal...
so no pt debating here.. go grab your cam and shoot and guess u will know when u are shooting...
cheers

 

[vince123123]

Yeap, but hey, this is what a forum is for, debate and discussion - different people will have different views. Then after someone has read through all the points for and against, he can then decide what course of action he needs to take.

yes in a way u are rite.. the debate here will goes on with no diffinate rite or wrong... yes or no.. legal or illegal...
so no pt debating here.. go grab your cam and shoot and guess u will know when u are shooting...
cheers

 

[sundazz]

Yeap, but hey, this is what a forum is for, debate and discussion - different people will have different views. Then after someone has read through all the points for and against, he can then decide what course of action he needs to take.

so i hopes tat the nonchann have some understand by now and decides if he is to shoot in public transport..

 

[vince123123]

I hope so too - that he has adequate information to consider whether it is necessary or otherwise. If not, he can ask some more and we can discuss some more

so i hopes tat the nonchann have some understand by now and decides if he is to shoot in public transport..

 

[AReality]

Funny thread...



.

 

[jaegersing]

Yah, if you want to test whether it is allowed or not, just go ahead and shoot. And then we can test whether they allow us to shoot interview with you at Changi prison....