Permission of taking photos

[jOhO]

Originally posted by Ansel
If I were a terrorist, I'll be taking pictures of my targets with tiny spy cameras and not with a Bronica ETRS medium format camera lah!!! Do think terrorists are so stupid?

No wonder terrorists got what they want! Because our police and security guards are busy stopping innocent tourists and photo enthusiasts from taking harmless pictures of unlikely terrorist targets!

Talk about paranoia! :cry:

ahahahahah good one!

i guess they're just adopting a kiasu method lor. "cover all bases"..

but really sometimes i'm thinking that the security guards are either abusing "power" or they just do it to cover their backsides. i mean put it this way, if i was a security guard and 5 mouths rely on my pay each month i'm gonna do my best to keep my job. and the management can't really fire me if i politely told "potential terrorists" to leave, can they?

 

[Watcher]

My personal opinion is that unless I am making a public nuisance, I'm allowed to take photographs of anything in public, with the exception of restricted area (like camps with the sign) or inside government buildings. If anyone and everyone can see in public (like parks, stadiums, on the road and streets), there is no such thing as privacy (which is defined as a restricted relationship between private individuals) as it is a contradiction.

In buildings, building management as a right to ask you not to take photos, although it can be contradiction: eg In Marche, I can't take photos with my DSLR but people who have normal cams can. :dunno: . It shows frankly how docile and meek and don't-want-to-use-my-brain-to-think-else-it-gets-me-into-trouble mentality of many Singaporeans (who definately won't get far).

For the case of the teachers, it shows either: 1) they are already brainwashed into NUTS or 2) they are too stupid to think properly

 

[Nikonian Foo]

I was near Lincoln Building in N.Y.C. last December. The building looked beautiful, huge christmas tree in front and an American flag made of light bulbs. Took my time and set up my tripod but I heard security screaming. I thought there was a robbery but it was my camera, and my tripod. Still I managed to take 2 shots but only 1 came out nice. The slides looked awesome under the slide viewer!

 

[Sausage]

Well, anyway, today I was taking photos of Paradiz Center. I was standing across the road and just taking the building in general. I saw one guy dressed in casual clothes below the building looking at me, and he then said something to a guy in uniform, who gesticulated wildly for me to move away. Is there some law against taking photos of shopping centers now?

 

[blizzy]

from my experience in the saf....

ur not allowed to take photos of restricted areas, which should be designated by the fence and the sign. If ur outside, security not allowed to touch u, all they can do is call the police to apprehend u and question u. Security guards have no jurisdiction to do anything. At no time are they allowed to seize ur equipment or force u to erase images. Only the police has the power...

 

[Azure]

Originally posted by Sausage
Well, anyway, today I was taking photos of Paradiz Center. I was standing across the road and just taking the building in general. I saw one guy dressed in casual clothes below the building looking at me, and he then said something to a guy in uniform, who gesticulated wildly for me to move away. Is there some law against taking photos of shopping centers now?

Gosh....:dunno:

But really, they have no jurisdiction whatsoever. So just smile at them and carry on. Maybe they are just feeling paranoid of reporters? :bsmilie:

 

[blizzy]

i was at parkview square yesterday. talked to the security guard. friendly guy. he say want to take outside, the garden etc, no problem... but inside the building cannot. fair enough, its private property.

 

[tomshen]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Of course, if I had been Tom "The Myth" Shen, the pretty young teachers would all have crowded round me asking to have their photographs taken. But that's another story.

u must have pointed to the pretty young teachers instead...

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Tuck Loong]

Hey...u guys were lucky.....I remembered once in spain that 10 anti-terrorist policemen converging on us in a matter of 20s (one acting as a cyclist, one acting as a passerby reading etc) when we were taking photographs of flowers 50m away from the ministry of interior building.....

Imagine all the submachine guns in the background and the demand of films from the cameras......they only backed down after we spoke to the captain and they went through their surveillance tape.......

Nevertheless....still noticed people following us for another 2 km or so before we were declared safe!!!!!

Surely...u won't want to see this happening in Singapore, right =)

 

[Azure]

Originally posted by Tuck Loong
Hey...u guys were lucky.....I remembered once in spain that 10 anti-terrorist policemen converging on us in a matter of 20s (one acting as a cyclist, one acting as a passerby reading etc) when we were taking photographs of flowers 50m away from the ministry of interior building.....

Imagine all the submachine guns in the background and the demand of films from the cameras......they only backed down after we spoke to the captain and they went through their surveillance tape.......

Nevertheless....still noticed people following us for another 2 km or so before we were declared safe!!!!!

Surely...u won't want to see this happening in Singapore, right =)

:bsmilie:
No. Unless you happen to be doing that at the venue where LKY will be making an appearance...


Well, when I was in Chile in few years back, my group of coursemates were shadowed by a black car for our entire duration in Vina Del Mar, just because we took a picture with 2 police in the town square. And that's despite the fact that we travelled in the local varsity's coach and definitely looked touristy.

 

[Tuck Loong]

I was teaching some friends about zooming effects today when we were stopped by a security guard outside a store. She asked us not to take the shop signs since they are copyrighted.

However, after 5 minutes, 2 other colleagues turned up and claimed that we have no right to shoot outside the building. We were on the pavements just next to the road and certainly not within the compounds. One of them started to talk about copyright laws and then I can be sued etc etc......the other said that they have every rights to prevent people from photographing the signs. Although I reminded them that this is a public place and their handling of the situation was horrible...imagine 3 against one! She refused to back down. All this time, I wasn't even the one holding the camera!I told my friends to stay out of the arguments and we did not take any shots of the building, shops or signs after her first warning initially!

I got pissed off and reminded them about the laws since they are so ignorant of. I certainly did not infringe on the Trademark Act (Chap 322) (not Copyright Act) and really feel intimidated with thier repeated mentions of lawsuits etc etc....

After another 10 miniutes of senseless arguments, I told her superior that it was senseless since I did not even held a camera to take their signs and we should just let the matter pass with a handshake. Luckily he was gentlemanly enough and we walked off feeling much better!

Any of you guys encountered such problems previously? Anyone else know about the laws concerning such a situation?

 

[Azure]

Don't bother. Phone New Paper or Today on the spot. Then retreat a distance and await for the "fun" to unfold.

No, Tuck Loong, you are NOT in the wrong. As you are in a public space, and for so long as the building (I read shops) is not a restricted structure, they have no right whatsoever. Period.

 

[eug]

Exterior of building is okay .... not the interior .... interior shots of a building technically require a permit .... if I am not wrong .... they can press a suit .... especially if you use the shot for a commercial ....

 

[vince123123]

can tell us the name of the store and its location? maybe i got time i would go test out my sparring with them... they certainly have no right to stop you. like i said, if challenged, you should proceed to challenge them to call the police, if not then get out of ur way. u can in fact counter-claim against them if they use physical force or even attempt to intimidate u in the process.

Originally posted by Tuck Loong
I was teaching some friends about zooming effects today when we were stopped by a security guard outside a store. She asked us not to take the shop signs since they are copyrighted.

However, after 5 minutes, 2 other colleagues turned up and claimed that we have no right to shoot outside the building. We were on the pavements just next to the road and certainly not within the compounds. One of them started to talk about copyright laws and then I can be sued etc etc......the other said that they have every rights to prevent people from photographing the signs. Although I reminded them that this is a public place and their handling of the situation was horrible...imagine 3 against one! She refused to back down. All this time, I wasn't even the one holding the camera!I told my friends to stay out of the arguments and we did not take any shots of the building, shops or signs after her first warning initially!

I got pissed off and reminded them about the laws since they are so ignorant of. I certainly did not infringe on the Trademark Act (Chap 322) (not Copyright Act) and really feel intimidated with thier repeated mentions of lawsuits etc etc....

After another 10 miniutes of senseless arguments, I told her superior that it was senseless since I did not even held a camera to take their signs and we should just let the matter pass with a handshake. Luckily he was gentlemanly enough and we walked off feeling much better!

Any of you guys encountered such problems previously? Anyone else know about the laws concerning such a situation?

 

[Tuck Loong]

Hi guys, this is the reply I got from the management today.....Not nice to name the place and shop but Vincent, you can try to guess....Take note of the Separate Approval from Tenants part....

Anyway, it is nice of her to send a prompt reply.......

Dear Tuck Loong,

We are sorry to learn that your encounter with our security personnels yesterday was both unpleasant and unnecessary. We believe the security you met is from the XXXX Management Corporation who patrol the outdoor area (We are from another component, XXXX, the shopping centre).

Do give us a few days so that we can raise this matter to the management corporation and enabling them to conduct an investigate. We would like to assure you that we have always been very supportive of photographers in their interest and will advise them on the proper application procedure to conduct photography in our premises. However, our approval does not cover tenants' premises and separate approval should be sought from the respective tenant.

We thank you for highlighting this incident to us and feel free to contact me directly should you wish to conduct photography sessions (non-commercial) in XXXXX.

Warm regards,
Sarah XXXX
Senior Executive
Marketing Communications
XXXXXXX
DID: 6432 XXXX

 

[David]

Originally posted by Nikonian Foo
I was near Lincoln Building in N.Y.C. last December. The building looked beautiful, huge christmas tree in front and an American flag made of light bulbs. Took my time and set up my tripod but I heard security screaming. I thought there was a robbery but it was my camera, and my tripod. Still I managed to take 2 shots but only 1 came out nice. The slides looked awesome under the slide viewer!

Hey man!!! I got the same treatment there too!! It's a BIG no no...

Well, as a photographre of cos I'm very disappointed. But from a lay-person's perspective I can understand. The tripod for one makes ur equipment very intimidating. How do they know it's a real camera? Secondly, they are not sure what u're going to do with the pictures. Spying? 3rdly, it's to protect from some copyright laws. I believe only a selected few can take those shots for brochures, events, even postcards etc.

A tricky issue....

 

[vince123123]

haha how to guess? well there isn't much point to state everything except the actual entity who caused the problem. Most of the time, these entites get away with it because their 'misdeeds' aren't widely publicised enough for them to bother to do something about it.

ANyway its ur choice whether or not to put the name down. as far as i see it, if your narration has been accurate, true and without embelishment, you should have nothing to fear from it. greater consumer awareness of 'bad' entites would lead to a subconcious boycott and in the end would be retribution for those entites. just look at the NTUC income insurance thread in this board.

Originally posted by Tuck Loong
Hi guys, this is the reply I got from the management today.....Not nice to name the place and shop but Vincent, you can try to guess....Take note of the Separate Approval from Tenants part....

Anyway, it is nice of her to send a prompt reply.......

Dear Tuck Loong,

We are sorry to learn that your encounter with our security personnels yesterday was both unpleasant and unnecessary. We believe the security you met is from the XXXX Management Corporation who patrol the outdoor area (We are from another component, XXXX, the shopping centre).

Do give us a few days so that we can raise this matter to the management corporation and enabling them to conduct an investigate. We would like to assure you that we have always been very supportive of photographers in their interest and will advise them on the proper application procedure to conduct photography in our premises. However, our approval does not cover tenants' premises and separate approval should be sought from the respective tenant.

We thank you for highlighting this incident to us and feel free to contact me directly should you wish to conduct photography sessions (non-commercial) in XXXXX.

Warm regards,
Sarah XXXX
Senior Executive
Marketing Communications
XXXXXXX
DID: 6432 XXXX

 

[Tuck Loong]

Hey guys,

Really need to thank you guys for the advice and support. Am sure Vincent is really good at guessing the place. Err...but do not want all you guys to camp on the pavement next to the shop or building armed with telephotos aiming at the signs.....


I have never encountered such an incident in Singapore and thus, wanted to share this with you guys so that you will be more aware when you encounter similar situations in the near future....

Cheers,
Tuck Loong

 

[vince123123]

Just more stuff to add on this issue, its probably not copyright infringement to take photos of such artistic works per se, nor is it infringement to take photos of buildings n such. the below extract from the COpyright Act refers:


Sculptures and certain other works in public places
63. —(1) This section shall apply to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of “artistic work” in section 7.

(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.

Buildings and models of buildings
64. The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.


So..shoot in peace and tell those guys who stop u to go fly kite

 

[astroller]

Hi guys,

I started a thread on the matter similar to this. My impression is that most of us snap pictures with the "as long as we don't get caught it's okay" mentality and do things which we may not be allowed to do.

Please comment in this thread too?