'No Photography' Plz...

[Teufelhunden]

I was once shooting an Engagement shoot for a couple at Arab Street.
We passed by this rather chic cafe and the brideToBe was saying she wanna shoot inside the cafe. So we nicely went asked for permission (was intending to eat in the cafe as well)

The auntie (we assume is the ladyboss) very nicely tried to welcome us in.

Bride to be : Can we shoot a few picture inside your cafe? its lovely.
Auntie (eyeing us up and down) : Are you tourist?
Bride to be (rather taken back) : erm no
Auntie : Sorry. No photography


Seriously thats Crap to me. Why are locals not allowed to shoot but TOURIST can?
A tourist will only be here for days.. and really, when that tourist return do you think he will return to the cafe??

its us local who will and might boast your biz. Don't understand why cant she see this point. So she turned us away. fine.

A lot of business owners here have the same mentality. I've grown weary of it. It's their loss really, if they are myopic enough to turn away local clientele.

Hope you found an alternate place to shoot.

 

[JinnyLim]

Saw a few frds who were shooting with the background wall that is facing the basement exit/entrance to the marina square escalator in the city link, the security guard stopped them from taking photos. There is no sign said that photography is not allowed. So is it up to the security guards to decide?

 

[redstone]

Photography is a crime. Holding a camera is akin to holding a gun.

 

[chanjyj]

Saw a few frds who were shooting with the background wall that is facing the basement exit/entrance to the marina square escalator in the city link, the security guard stopped them from taking photos. There is no sign said that photography is not allowed. So is it up to the security guards to decide?

Yes. But the great thing is the upper management can later disavow knowledge of the guard's actions saying they were "over-enthusiastic" if they want to.

Great isn't it? :bsmilie:

 

[JinnyLim]

Yes. But the great thing is the upper management can later disavow knowledge of the guard's actions saying they were "over-enthusiastic" if they want to.

Great isn't it? :bsmilie:

haha yea. :bsmilie: upper management always has a way to snake around issues.

 

[speedknight]

sorry to bump up this rather old thread but:

Photogs take note because of the ongoing international events they are very strict on the no photography rule at city hall and old supreme Court area now.
Got Chased away yesterday evening by a rushed phase of "GOVERNMENT BUILDING,NO PHOTOGRAPHY" in a very unfriendly tone
& went under the scrutiny of security guard's eyes from a distant as if we are criminals even when we are NOT SHOOTING & MERELY RESTING on the stairs

 

[kelstorm75]

sorry to bump up this rather old thread but:

Photogs take note because of the ongoing international events they are very strict on the no photography rule at city hall and old supreme Court area now.
Got Chased away yesterday evening by a rushed phase of "GOVERNMENT BUILDING,NO PHOTOGRAPHY" in a very unfriendly tone
& went under the scrutiny of security guard's eyes from a distant as if we are criminals even when we are NOT SHOOTING & MERELY RESTING on the stairs

Wat do u expect? u get arrested for taking pics of flood, let alone GOVERNMENT BUILDING!!!! Its almost heresy!!!

 

[redstone]

sorry to bump up this rather old thread but:

Photogs take note because of the ongoing international events they are very strict on the no photography rule at city hall and old supreme Court area now.
Got Chased away yesterday evening by a rushed phase of "GOVERNMENT BUILDING,NO PHOTOGRAPHY" in a very unfriendly tone
& went under the scrutiny of security guard's eyes from a distant as if we are criminals even when we are NOT SHOOTING & MERELY RESTING on the stairs

Security guard get ego boost from pretend to be police and scaring people. It's govt bldg?? So?

HDB also govt building...

U're outside of the bldg, the bldg is not a Protected Place (with the signage like those at army camps)...

 

[papermelodydoll]

my latest rant about this topic would be getting told off firmly by this (i believe its a residence) guy at Wessex Estate while I was shooting an Engagement shoot.
He told me its private estate and I SHOULDNT be shooting there. (pss we were standing on the road which I though belongs to LTA.)

I wasnt even shooting the buildings. we were shooting using the greenry there!

and yeah, i hate this feeling of just cause your holding-a-camera.. ur being treated as some kidda troublemaker / pervert / terrorist.

 

[zoossh]

Wat do u expect? u get arrested for taking pics of flood, let alone GOVERNMENT BUILDING!!!! Its almost heresy!!!

if the police defy the law, let alone security guards.

not just government buildings, even construction sites have put up sign boards saying no photography, next to public lanes. i've no interest in taking pictures of a construction site, but simply obviously that construction sites are not embassies nor army camps nor customs, i've wonder these companies infringing on others right and taking law into their own hand so blatantly, wouldn't that send the wrong messages to the public?

 

[papermelodydoll]

if the police defy the law, let alone security guards.

not just government buildings, even construction sites have put up sign boards saying no photography, next to public lanes. i've no interest in taking pictures of a construction site, but simply obviously that construction sites are not embassies nor army camps nor customs, i've wonder these companies infringing on others right and taking law into their own hand so blatantly, wouldn't that send the wrong messages to the public?

YES this I agree! Why cant we take photos at construction sites?
I ran into this problem before.

My BTO flat has a Facebook group page (yes, everything nowadays need to have a FB page) where we update the page with photos of the sites and some news.
So once i was there trying to shoot (using a Handphone camera, mind you) when i was stopped by the ah nei rather fiercely.

*roll eyes*

whatever. :thumbsd:

 

[+evenstar]

YES this I agree! Why cant we take photos at construction sites?
I ran into this problem before.

My BTO flat has a Facebook group page (yes, everything nowadays need to have a FB page) where we update the page with photos of the sites and some news.
So once i was there trying to shoot (using a Handphone camera, mind you) when i was stopped by the ah nei rather fiercely.

*roll eyes*

whatever. :thumbsd:

it's the same as "why can't i take photos at shopping malls"

construction sites are not public land, hence they have the right to deny photography in their premises

 

[zoossh]

it's the same as "why can't i take photos at shopping malls"

construction sites are not public land, hence they have the right to deny photography in their premises

i think u got it totally wrong.

they are denying photographs taken FROM the public road outside of their premises. it is already known that construction sites do not allow public walk-in, which is not the case in shopping malls, so it is really common sense that any photographs taken will never ever be taken from within their premises since u can't even walk in. they are basically extending the restriction outside of their premises and they have no rights to do so, whether morally, by reason, or by law. and they are crossing the law when they put up formal signboards stating so. this is either that the authority who printed the large signboard is really blissfully ignorant that he went against the law, or that he knew, but he is cashing in that the public is ignorant and is trying to sell the idea that they have such rights when they didn't.

this is different from certain locations where it does not matter FROM where u take the pictures. universal examples include locations that concerns state security and individual privacy in private spaces, such as someone bathing in their bathroom and changing in their rooms.

 

[papermelodydoll]

it's the same as "why can't i take photos at shopping malls"

construction sites are not public land, hence they have the right to deny photography in their premises

well no photographys at Mall is cause of the window displays ?
I dunno how to phrase it in words but bascially its a infrigment of rights (for the merchants).. kidda like Copyrights of the window display? Correct me if im wrong, anyone...
of course if you are taking photos for personal (say using a compact camera and saying 'Cheese' infront of Mango is alright)

but if u are pointing a DSLR at mango, you can be sure the Guard will come up and say Hello.

 

[papermelodydoll]

this is different from certain locations where it does not matter FROM where u take the pictures. universal examples include locations that concerns state security and individual privacy in private spaces, such as someone bathing in their bathroom and changing in their rooms.

I always feel if you are shooting in a HDB, nobody gives a damn. Sure they cast curious looks at you.. but no1 would really Chase you away (or had anyone been chased off before?)

but its' those private or semi-private places that are more... protective ?
and anyway issnt your own "duty" to make sure the curtains are drawn properly before changing???

 

[zoossh]

well no photographys at Mall is cause of the window displays ?
I dunno how to phrase it in words but bascially its a infrigment of rights (for the merchants).. kidda like Copyrights of the window display? Correct me if im wrong, anyone...
of course if you are taking photos for personal (say using a compact camera and saying 'Cheese' infront of Mango is alright)

but if u are pointing a DSLR at mango, you can be sure the Guard will come up and say Hello.

copyrights is infringed if personal creation is duplicated in the same format. for things that are widely used, they are not part of personal creation, and which is why a lot of things are not copyrighted simply becos they can't be proven to be unique. window display is one such thing that common elements are often found, and it is not easy to differentiate if some elements is purely created by one, inspired by others, or simply copied wholesale or copied with modification.

secondly, taking photographs without setting a similar window display is of cos not an infringement of copyright. and similarly, you can completely copy the idea, without taking photograph at all. unless they want to ban the eyes as well.

 

[zoossh]

and anyway issnt your own "duty" to make sure the curtains are drawn properly before changing???

it is also common sense that you do not stare, use binoculars or use camera, in such cases.
just like if someone wears a short skirt, doesn't mean another person can squat down in a posture not expected. basically it is all about common sense

I always feel if you are shooting in a HDB, nobody gives a damn. Sure they cast curious looks at you.. but no1 would really Chase you away (or had anyone been chased off before?)

but its' those private or semi-private places that are more... protective ?

and i won't even use "protective" as a word. what is there to protect?

it is basically a business mindset that if u r not going to buy my stuff, dun come and dun do anything here as photographers are unlikely to purchase merchendise when on photoshooting, even if they may return a 2nd day as a customer. whatever good image that they sell on advertisement are all fake and opposite. some time ago, a girl insisted on getting her birthday cake from a bank to prove the point that advertisement do not mean what they project and in reality the companies are ready to defy that even if confronted.

 

[chanjyj]

i think u got it totally wrong.

they are denying photographs taken FROM the public road outside of their premises. it is already known that construction sites do not allow public walk-in, which is not the case in shopping malls, so it is really common sense that any photographs taken will never ever be taken from within their premises since u can't even walk in. they are basically extending the restriction outside of their premises and they have no rights to do so, whether morally, by reason, or by law. and they are crossing the law when they put up formal signboards stating so. this is either that the authority who printed the large signboard is really blissfully ignorant that he went against the law, or that he knew, but he is cashing in that the public is ignorant and is trying to sell the idea that they have such rights when they didn't.

this is different from certain locations where it does not matter FROM where u take the pictures. universal examples include locations that concerns state security and individual privacy in private spaces, such as someone bathing in their bathroom and changing in their rooms.

I cannot figure out what papermelodydoll is trying to say. Is he/she saying that photography is prohibited by law at construction sites? If yes, then zoossh's reply should suffice.

And to bring it a step further, you are not restricted from taking pics, so why do you feel obliged to stop?

Just read the newspaper yesterday about NSman (not NSF) getting called up to police station to face charges because he commented on his blog, that "handcuffing the LianheWanbao newspaper was not warranted for and not allowed".

What the heck.

 

[chanjyj]

There was a time when I also reached my limit (and I DON'T HAVE a short fuse) - military police told me that "military exercise, no photo".

Got fuming mad and ended up taking pics of them, sending the images to MINDEF and making a big big noise. Quoted MINDEF the chapter and verse of the law. GAH.

This topic always seems to get on my nerves.

 

[soeypixels]

just tell them ur civilian
HAHA