NO PHOTOGRAPHY - Wheelock Place

[mohgui]

same stupid rules apply to Raffles Hotel too. was there with tripod and DSLR and wanting to shoot the premises. was told cannot do so. asked to see the security manager and was told the bloody same thing. however, we are allowed to shoot without the use of a tripod.

another classic case of some stupid photography rules :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[xtemujin]

Welcome to the forum Doc.

Guys,

I was walking along Orchard Road taking some photos of the X'Mas lights... came to Wheelock Place and tried to take a picture of the cone from the inside of the building, was told by a Security Guard that photo taking is not allowed. I asked him to show me where is the sign that says "No Photography", he can't produce the sign, just say that Security says cannot means cannot. I wrote in to the management and they just say "sorry" but we have decided that photo taking "inside" the building is not allowed, but "outside" is ok....and to take photo of the inside of the building, I must write in...

I mean, say what???? :dunno:

Any similar encounters????

 

[vince123123]

Well, if you're inside the building, then its a different situation altogether. Stand outside and shoot lor

same stupid rules apply to Raffles Hotel too. was there with tripod and DSLR and wanting to shoot the premises. was told cannot do so. asked to see the security manager and was told the bloody same thing. however, we are allowed to shoot without the use of a tripod.

another classic case of some stupid photography rules :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[LENS]

that one considered photography for editorial purposes, i think the rules are different.

Can anyone elaborate more on this issue? i always wonder is it 100% ok the photo of accuser or victim just simple appear on newspp, can they sue the newspaper for anything?
or they just don't care since they have more troubles to deal?

For example, a photo of that teenager who piggyback on neightbour wireless internet..his photo is showed on first page of Saturday newspaper..

Does he have any rights in this case?

 

[arpinkor]

Can anyone elaborate more on this issue? i always wonder is it 100% ok the photo of accuser or victim just simple appear on newspp, can they sue the newspaper for anything?
or they just don't care since they have more troubles to deal?

For example, a photo of that teenager who piggyback on neightbour wireless internet..his photo is showed on first page of Saturday newspaper..

Does he have any rights in this case?

I think nobody dare to sue that big newspaper company. Sekali they bring on that same lawyer who fight the NKF case one.

 

[wobbly]

yeah, editorial comes under a different category. it does in the uk at least anyway.
editorial means its for the column/useage by newspaper/news media - ie. its not used for advertising.
anything that does 'advertising' requires model releases. if it isnt, and it is 'editorial' then no model release required.
if it was editorial, but gets used for advertising, then youre in trouble as its 'state' changes.

but if it is editorial, and youre called up on it, you'll probably need the backing of whoever youre working for [if youre, say a photo-journalist or a paper/staff tog].

this is from ottomh atm
hth

so i'll just have to talk really loudly and dress oddly to make it obvious that i'm an ang moh of sorts.. heh..

essentially editorial photography - and the news media - cannot function if it was subject to all the normal rules, including advertising and modelling photography, and all the paraphernalia it entails [like model releases]

occasionally the press is sued - in the west you have many examples - but its not the photographer but rather the company/magazine/title he/she works for.
usually its for things breaches of privacy [ie. breaking into a celebs garden to take pics inside their home, etc]

# Editorial photography: photographs made to illustrate a story or idea within the context of a magazine. These are usually assigned by the magazine.

# Photojournalism: this can be considered a subset of editorial photography. Photographs made in this context are accepted as a truthful documentation of a news story.

 

[28degree]

i was caught filming in a concert in hong kong eariler this year....
the security guard caught me and asked me followed him outside...
then he show me the sign and ask if i know what it says....

then i just say sorry to him loh.....
so many of them taking photos and video inside but i was caught..
think i too obvious when i mounted my camera on a tripod hahaha...

the next day...my photos appear in a few hk papers....
never realise those gou zai reporters so power one.....
my face was being mosaic haha....

can i claim some fees from them when they publish my photos? wahhahaa..

anyway...that was quite an experience...

 

[clicknick]

Taking photos of a none protected building outside of it's grounds is not an offense.

You can shoot the entrance of a building from across the road, no matter what the guard says, as long as you are outside of the grounds, no one can do anything.

Shooting the colorful spiral staircases at Bugis, I was standing on a public road while taking the photos. The security guard come out and say the stairs is private property I cannot take pictures of it. I told him I standing on public road, what rights he have to stop me, ask his management to come talk to me as he just small fry don't waste my time, he also LPPL canot do anything. Guess he never expected that photographers can be more aggressive than him, too bad he picked the wrong photog to piss off.

After 9/11, photo taking in public is not the same to security guards anymore. To them, take photos means we planning to fly a plane into their property or bomb them.

 

[yqt]

A point which some of us may want to consider is that any private property is subjected to the rules set by the management of that property. As a visitor to that place, like it or not, you are subjected to the rules of that place. In fact, almost all private property in SG have a no photography rule. It might be interesting if anyone can name private property/building which allows photography without even informing the guards ( I understand that you can shoot at the office buildings around Suntech so long as you sign in with the guards, can anyone confirm this? )

 

[wobbly]

sounds similar to other places generally - whilst on private property - different rules.
as stated elsewhere, whilst on public property [ie. road/public highway] you can take pictures of private property.
but even this i've seen vary.... [ie. i think in France they have a restriction on being able to take pictures of private property from public ground]

 

[yqt]

Can anyone elaborate more on this issue? i always wonder is it 100% ok the photo of accuser or victim just simple appear on newspp, can they sue the newspaper for anything?
or they just don't care since they have more troubles to deal?

For example, a photo of that teenager who piggyback on neightbour wireless internet..his photo is showed on first page of Saturday newspaper..

Does he have any rights in this case?

The newspaper/TV stations always says it is the freedom of the press. Even the courts, have to pass an instruction to the press, not to publish the name or face of anyone in a case being heard, if they think it is in the interest of fair judgement or to protact the family members.

 

[waileong]

It's not that difficult if you stand your ground. I doubt they will manhandle you. And most security "guards" in Singapore are not armed. You don't have to explain your actions to anyone, esp. if you're in a public place.

 

[synapseman]

i was caught filming in a concert in hong kong eariler this year....
the security guard caught me and asked me followed him outside...
then he show me the sign and ask if i know what it says....

then i just say sorry to him loh.....
so many of them taking photos and video inside but i was caught..
think i too obvious when i mounted my camera on a tripod hahaha...

the next day...my photos appear in a few hk papers....
never realise those gou zai reporters so power one.....
my face was being mosaic haha....

can i claim some fees from them when they publish my photos? wahhahaa..

anyway...that was quite an experience...

Sorry chief, but in this case where you mount cam on tripod, you are clearly in the wrong liao. As are the others. The security guards might have turned a blind eye to the rest, but for you to have tripod, the security guards were really left with no choice. No photography/videography is standard clause in almost any concert, anywhere in the world, and summore there were signs displayed. And your face is already mosaic'ed, what kind of fees you want?

This is a completely different case that shouldn't even be in this thread.

 

[waileong]

I think you should ask, on what grounds can you sue? There is no privacy law in Singapore.

You could sue for trespassing if they entered your house without your permission to take your pix. But outside the Courts? That's as public as you can get.

Can anyone elaborate more on this issue? i always wonder is it 100% ok the photo of accuser or victim just simple appear on newspp, can they sue the newspaper for anything?
or they just don't care since they have more troubles to deal?

For example, a photo of that teenager who piggyback on neightbour wireless internet..his photo is showed on first page of Saturday newspaper..

Does he have any rights in this case?

 

[noelleong]

Compose quick, shoot and go. No one will notice you.

 

[synapseman]

Shooting the colorful spiral staircases at Bugis, I was standing on a public road while taking the photos. The security guard come out and say the stairs is private property I cannot take pictures of it. I told him I standing on public road, what rights he have to stop me, ask his management to come talk to me as he just small fry don't waste my time, he also LPPL canot do anything. Guess he never expected that photographers can be more aggressive than him, too bad he picked the wrong photog to piss off.

After 9/11, photo taking in public is not the same to security guards anymore. To them, take photos means we planning to fly a plane into their property or bomb them.

Wow. Yet another f***ing stupid incident. I guess even before the 9/11 incident, S'poreans have always been inherently suspicious of everything and everyone. (Didn't your mother or grandma tell you to behave yourself as a kid, if not the stranger will catch you?). Maybe it's our culture, that we're so "modest" that we're all camera-shy people? Or maybe even people still believe that having their pictures taken means that their soul will be stolen? I can't seem to put my finger on it. People here just don't feel comfortable with people holding cameras.

When I was overseas (meaning ang-moh country), when I started shooting at some place, people would try to find out what so interesting, as in "wow, I've lived here for so long, and I didn't realise it could be so nice!". Occasionally, it may even start a conversation. When I went to Tiong Bahru three days ago, this man stared me down all the way, siah. He was walking, and literally stopped in his tracks and tracked me with his suspicious eyes even as I walked past him!

 

[yqt]

sounds similar to other places generally - whilst on private property - different rules.
as stated elsewhere, whilst on public property [ie. road/public highway] you can take pictures of private property.
but even this i've seen vary.... [ie. i think in France they have a restriction on being able to take pictures of private property from public ground]

Talking about France, a photographer friend told me he was in France on holiday when he was at the Eiffel Towers.
He took out his D2X with a wide lens and set it on tripod to do a long exposure of it against the evening sky. A guard came along and ask him to stop and following him to the office. My friend refused and said he's just a tourist shooting the tower as a keep sake of his trip. The guard didn't even want to say anything else to my friend and called the police. 45 mins later my friend is in the police station and have to hand over his CF card which the police took away and delate away everything in the card including all other unrelated images!!! ( Lucky thing my friend back up his card before leaving the hotel that evening. ) The police even warn him that they will put him in a cell and deport him and ban him from coming into France again if he's caught doing that again.
Funny thing here, the Eiffel Tower is a public icon, a tourist attraction, images of it can be found all over the web and millions of tourist have been snapping images of it every year, but if the guard thinks that you look too pro, that you may be able to sell your images, you look suspcious or they just don't like your face, you may be better of just buying a post card ;p

If you think shooting in SG is bad, try going to France :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[blazer_workz]

I encountered similar incidents during my trip at Taiwan too..was walking along Huaxi Street Night Market, where there is this alley with restaurants that sell snakes..no photography signs is displayed outside of all these shops..but I saw 1 ang moh taking photos of the snake that is on display inside one shop, so I thought I can take it too..the minute I try to compose for a shot, the worker inside stop me from taking..then I ask him why that ang moh can take? He never replied and smile at me, and the ang moh is still taking pictures..I just don't want such incidents to spoil my mood for the trip, so I just walk off..:angry:

If I walk around Taipei especially the subway stations or shopping malls with a DSLR hanging, it tends to attract too much attention, the security guards especially, will keep staring at you..:embrass:

:think: :dunno:

 

[noelleong]

What a story:bigeyes: just damn unlucky. I had this experience too. I was at an NBA game. I brought in a zoom lens and was stopped from going in. Security said that my cam is TOO PRO. Come on, a normal point and shoot can also zoom up to 200mm. I was really disappointed and it really sucks. I wanted just to go home but since I have paid for 2 seats what the hell. In the end, I have to put back my gears back to my car and bought a $10 disposable Kodak camera. All the photos came out underexposed;( I am never going back for another game. But then, Tennis and Baseball is OK. :dunno:


"Talking about France, a photographer friend told me he was in France on holiday when he was at the Eiffel Towers."

 

[yanyewkay]

You know those newspaper PGs who take photos of those people outside the Sub Courts ? Those "subjects" all use umbrella and newspaper to cover their face one, how come they don't sign the model release but their photos still can appear in newspaper ?
I think I read somewhere that the police allow you to take photographs in a public place as long as you don't do illegal things like outrage ladies' modesty or stuff like that.

inside the building is private property liao. it belongs to the management of the building. even if the building management say you must wear a ski mask else no entry for you. It is ok for them to implement that. As long as it isn't contradicting to sg laws or pose any moral/religious issues they are entitled to do just about anything they want.

It's the same when clubs impose age limits of 28 or concert halls demanding proper attire etc..