huaiwei said:
Yeah...but I was curious about photographing a building/model. So, quoting a section from the relevant act is considered a "comprehensive" and supposedly definitive reply. Why the existance of this thread then?
As I said, I hadent faced much of a prob personally at the Esplanade itself, but I have had plenty of occasions in which I was told not to snap photos (nicely or otherwise). Most memorable was how, in one day, I was scoulded on two different occasions by security guards who refuse to allow me to take photos of other buildings from within theirs. One of them basically yelled at me to stop.
Copyright issue? Probably not. The management in the UOB probably closed their viewing gallery for fear that JI would launch missles from there at Parliament (even thou they can prob get another shot from the restaurant on top) but then again, I am still curious as to what security issue there may be about me snapping building models in showrooms and showflats if it is not about copyright?
I believe we were talking about snapping pictures of buildings, mainly from the outside in PUBLIC space.
You may want to check up on wikipedia. That applies to US law though, consult a singapore lawyer for differences in relation to copyright. your analogies and questions are confusing the issue....invasion of privacy is not what we're discussing here so peeping into someone's flat is not part of the equation...neither is taking photos of models in showflats. You are in private property once you're in a showflat.
"The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work – but only if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
Also consider what is public and private property. The walkway of Orchard Cineplex extending to just next to the road is owned by Cathay Management, as is the overhead bridge connected to Far East Plaza (owned by Far East...whatevercompany.can't remember the name sorry)
there's no need to start passing sarcastic or glided remarks...we're all here to help each other. =)
huaiwei said:
Which section of the copyright act?
My analogy is simple. Claiming that an act is not an infringement by insisting one is outside the premises of the said subject is as good as a peeping tom insisting he has the right to look anywhere from the comfort of his own home.
regarding your analogy of a peeping tom, which is another story altogether, maybe you want to check up the law on that. offensive part is probably more related to outrage of modesty.
but I'm no expert on peeping tom laws.grin.
Do consider that paparazzi get away with shooting from public spaces with their telephoto lenses.