Laws governing public photography

[waileong]

Of course you can vindicate your rights. The main problem is that it is usually not practical or cost-effective to do so. Ultimately, rights are manifested in a court of law. And this is an expensive route that involves hiring a lawyer and paying legal and court fees (money which put be put to better use towards satisfying lens lust ha~) assuming that you have a course of action in the first place.

That's why we need an ACLU-equivalent.

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

a bit unrelated to the issue of public photography.. but an interesting incident to share.

a few years ago my grandparents' house (landed property) was trespassed into by a drunk person at night who fell aslp on the front porch. my family went to check out the situation before calling the police.

when the police came and entered the property to deal with the unwanted guest, i snapped a couple of photos with a P&S camera. a female officer then barked at me and ordered me to delete the photos and told me that i wasn't allowed to take photos.

this was way before i picked up photography, so i wasn't trying to be photojournalist-y. just had the idea of snapping some photos for the family scrapbook.

 

[vince123123]

Ask her to quote the law by which she says that you cannot take photographs. It is in your own property. Take down her rank name and serial number for possible complaint later.

a bit unrelated to the issue of public photography.. but an interesting incident to share.

a few years ago my grandparents' house (landed property) was trespassed into by a drunk person at night who fell aslp on the front porch. my family went to check out the situation before calling the police.

when the police came and entered the property to deal with the unwanted guest, i snapped a couple of photos with a P&S camera. a female officer then barked at me and ordered me to delete the photos and told me that i wasn't allowed to take photos.

this was way before i picked up photography, so i wasn't trying to be photojournalist-y. just had the idea of snapping some photos for the family scrapbook.

 

[darrrrrrrrrr]

agreed. did not make an issue on the ground as i was much younger at that time.

although we did make an official complaint regarding the long response time, their handling of the situation (drunk person and police were on our property for more than half an hr) and of course this unwarranted and illegal order by the PO. police followed up accordingly.

anw i've learnt more abt my rights as a photographer from this thread and will be more confident in standing my ground if challenged unlawfully. although there's always room for some restraint and courtesy too. thanks to all who've contributed!

back to topic.

 

[sjackal]

a bit unrelated to the issue of public photography.. but an interesting incident to share.

a few years ago my grandparents' house (landed property) was trespassed into by a drunk person at night who fell aslp on the front porch. my family went to check out the situation before calling the police.

when the police came and entered the property to deal with the unwanted guest, i snapped a couple of photos with a P&S camera. a female officer then barked at me and ordered me to delete the photos and told me that i wasn't allowed to take photos.

this was way before i picked up photography, so i wasn't trying to be photojournalist-y. just had the idea of snapping some photos for the family scrapbook.

agreed. did not make an issue on the ground as i was much younger at that time.

although we did make an official complaint regarding the long response time, their handling of the situation (drunk person and police were on our property for more than half an hr) and of course this unwarranted and illegal order by the PO. police followed up accordingly.

anw i've learnt more abt my rights as a photographer from this thread and will be more confident in standing my ground if challenged unlawfully. although there's always room for some restraint and courtesy too. thanks to all who've contributed!

back to topic.

Did they arrest the drunk?

Have you consider she is protecting the drunk person's rights? Yes the drunk person is wrong, but he must be treated fairly too.

If you noticed in some countries, arrested person often have their faces covered with a paper bag (and two holes for the eyes to see so the arrested person doesn't trip.) Especially so for the high profile arrest where the media is there.

Why they do this?

Because the person is not guilty until sentenced.

Having photographs of person in handcuffs, or even without handcuffs but restrained by police officers hand held sorta puts an unfair impression to readers that the person is already guilty, but he haven't had his chance to defence himself in court yet.

Here in Singapore you don't see the cops doing this because probably our local media is quite fair and regulated by MDA. If you are the local media, probably they won't be as worried because their police chief can write in to protest about unfair reporting, but you are not the media so perhaps thats why they ask you to delete those picture. They have no way to know if these pictures will be published online in some blog or forum.

Think again, have you ever see pictures of local arrested person in cuffs in our local newspaper, even the Chinese Wan Bao? Then think about the paparazzi in Hong Kong, and why Hong Kong police cover the faces of the arrested persons?

And about the complaining thing, I put myself in your shoes, no doubt I would be angry at being told off by a girl cop, maybe my ego a bit bruised. But I believe in karma and its unlikely I will complaint against the very persons who were there to help me.

When I go to hospitals, I was sometimes very very upset by the rude nurses, unfriendly doctors, and the long long wait. But calm down and think again after you are no longer angry, these people are doing noble work, tough jobs, not everyone wants to or can be a doctor, nurse, fireman, policeman, etc.

Often, I am more reserved about upholding my rights as a photographer, because I know my rights, but I often don't know what the rights of other people. I am not the only creature in the world, I live with others.

 

[writing with light]

I agree with what sjackal said. Although we have rights or what nots as photographers, we also have to respect others/our subjects And if that means that we sometimes have to delete that photo of a subject that we may never capture again, then we have to live with it. I remember JOHO once said this "Human first, photographer second".

 

[frametology]

If you are ill-informed, it is best to clarify it, or keep your misinformation to yourself.

In a public place, unless you are photographing a protected building (for instance the Parliament House or an army camp), there is no law restricting you from taking photographs (unless they are deemed uncouth or indecent, such as upskirting).

are yours facts or opinions? this is an issue which needs specific answers, not your own misinformation.

honestly, i think you can shoot, and if you're caught, then just explain lor. if they make a big hoo ha about it, eat humble pie, say sorry and delete the shots. case closed. (i just hope you're not shooting film and are half way through an important roll)

 

[vince123123]

So what is your opnion? Can or cannot? Your answer doesn't give much either. You're saying can, but if caught, say sorry. So is it legal or illegal?

Please clarify.

are yours facts or opinions? this is an issue which needs specific answers, not your own misinformation.

honestly, i think you can shoot, and if you're caught, then just explain lor. if they make a big hoo ha about it, eat humble pie, say sorry and delete the shots. case closed. (i just hope you're not shooting film and are half way through an important roll)

 

[frametology]

honestly, i think you can shoot, and if you're caught, then just explain lor. if they make a big hoo ha about it, eat humble pie, say sorry and delete the shots. case closed. (i just hope you're not shooting film and are half way through an important roll)

note, i used the term think. and i don't know that's why i'm here looking for answers.

 

[frametology]

do you guys think photographic society of singapore would know about the laws?

afterall, i think they're the most established organisation in singapore. haha.

any PSS members here? can clarify?

 

[LOTUSfairy]

in all sense, they have no rights to "BARK" at u...

1. you are not trespassing.
2. you are not entering a taped corden area ...
3. it is a not sensitive case here.