Prismatic said:
What about press photographers? Do they need someone's release if their identiable face appeared in the newspaper? I am not talking about celebrities eg David Beckham, but ordinary man in the street.
Just thinking.
Photography legal rights?
- Thread starter icer
- Start date
- Status
What about press photographers? Do they need someone's release if their identiable face appeared in the newspaper? I am not talking about celebrities eg David Beckham, but ordinary man in the street.
Just thinking.
if i'm not mistaken (i dont know for sure myself, really) press photographers are doing editorial photography, and are exempted of this. now, whether paparazzi are covered by this, i have no idea...
at least one thing is, the local press photogs have MITA passes that lets them shoot when the rest of us can't, due to security clearances etc...
at least one thing is, the local press photogs have MITA passes that lets them shoot when the rest of us can't, due to security clearances etc...
In Singapore, it is a much neglected part, but yes model releases are actually required for competitions too. Most competitions are sponsored or endorsed by commerical partners therefore they are actually considered commercial activities.
For photo contest overseas, there's usually either a clause on model releases in the rules and regulation or a disclaimer stating the rights and liabilities of the contest participants.
For photo contest overseas, there's usually either a clause on model releases in the rules and regulation or a disclaimer stating the rights and liabilities of the contest participants.
sehsuan said:
Nope, the MITA Press Accreditation System (PAS) doesn't really work the way we think it does.Read Here . In any case, the press are still open to lawsuits by the government or the public.
I'm not sure myself, but I think it's because for newspapers, the photos that are being used are not directly used to endorse the commercial interests of the newspaper.
sehsuan said:
MITA passes absolves the press photographers and their employers from such liability??? MITA passes are issued to accredited medias. This is one way how MITA 'control' media, including foreign media. I am not sure about security clearances, being a reason.
thanks for the link, Prismatic.
that was pretty skimpy a read though, didn't mention anything about legality.
reachme, i'm not too sure about that. that's from the occasional chance encounters with the press that i have a foggy idea. but i definitely will say it's my conjecture, and not necessarily correct! :sweat:
that was pretty skimpy a read though, didn't mention anything about legality.
reachme, i'm not too sure about that. that's from the occasional chance encounters with the press that i have a foggy idea. but i definitely will say it's my conjecture, and not necessarily correct! :sweat:
I was told by my friend that in Singapore, there is no law about privacy in a public place. The photographer is allowed to take photos of anyone on the streets. Once you take the photo, the image becomes your property, and you own the right to delete it or not if someone demands it to be deleted off. Of course, things might end up in a police station. But I dont think the person in the photo can sue the photorapher just because he had taken a photo of her/him. There must be some case of basis which will form the base of the argument for sueing someone. Examples are taking upskirts of women which cause an outrage of modesty.
I am just wondering with the above in mind, and the introduction of camera phones, girls photos can be taken easily without any knowledge, how is this situation solved? Sue the person based on moral issue that this is not right to do so?
Another issue is the increase security in Singapore against terrorism, it might be more tricky to take photos, esp people or certain places are involved. My friend read on a Blog that this person was questioned by a security guard why is he taking so many photos? Luckily his theme was animals and places, and not kids, which he might have a harder time to explain... Tsk tsk...
I am just wondering with the above in mind, and the introduction of camera phones, girls photos can be taken easily without any knowledge, how is this situation solved? Sue the person based on moral issue that this is not right to do so?
Another issue is the increase security in Singapore against terrorism, it might be more tricky to take photos, esp people or certain places are involved. My friend read on a Blog that this person was questioned by a security guard why is he taking so many photos? Luckily his theme was animals and places, and not kids, which he might have a harder time to explain... Tsk tsk...
dropzone, you mean, as in using the photos in a derogatory manner? that one, i'll agree wholeheartedly 
sehsuan said:dropzone, you mean, as in using the photos in a derogatory manner? that one, i'll agree wholeheartedly
yup. in fact, what i read and understand was that even if u have camera phones and used it to take a photo of a girl unknowingly, it is alright to do so. of coz, if one try to take some, say upskirts pics or taken in a snezy place, then the girl can sue the person for outrage of modesty, not for the act of just taking photos.
of coz, if the girl approaches the camera-man, its also better to just delete off even if its a normal photo to avoid gg to the police station. hehe...
i don't know, dun quote me if something happensehsuan said:
but i think if i copy a picture from u, crop/resize/filter a lot and then merge/filter with 4 other pictures, i guess it'll be hard for u to identify it (unless it's your face there)
hmmm...i tink for ppl photography on the streets...juz take and keep...if wanna use it for competition, at least ask(if its your friend)...if u take it without a person's knowledge...better not submit anywhere....
if confronted,...juz say gimmie ya email and i will return u the photo and negative(for film) or delete on the spot for digital...
Otherwise...learn me...switch to jap and act tourist...haha
if confronted,...juz say gimmie ya email and i will return u the photo and negative(for film) or delete on the spot for digital...
Otherwise...learn me...switch to jap and act tourist...haha
OKie, here's my view. Don't flame me if I'm wrong, NUS only teach engineering student contract law and law of tort.
1. You are allow to shoot as long as it's in a public place. This means that photography might not be allow in shopping center, etc etc cos technically, these are not public places. But if the shoots are taken in a manner that invade someone privay, i.e. upskirt, you'll be liable. No, make that commetting a crime.
2. You are allow to use your street photos as long as there's no monetary gains. eg, post on your website, portfolio.
3. You can send your street photos for competitions as long as there's a so call model release, or an understanding from the subject that this will be use in some publications, competitions, etc, etc. But then again, how to get model release if you shooting in lets say a remote part of china? Prepare all the forms and ask everyone you shoot to sign? They might not even understand why they are signing. So personally I feel that if you want, just send the photos for the competition if the organiser allows. If that person really sue, then splite the winnings, if any, with that person loh.
4. Media are not excluded from copyright, privacy. i.e. If media ppl take a photo of me without my knowing and post it, technically, I can sue. But do I really want to spend a few hundreds to maybe thousands to make a stand is another story. I would if I've the money to throw away. Read in paper few months back some woman sue some company over something less then $100 to make a stand.
5. As for copyright issue, in the law of tort, as long as you can prove that the image is taken by you. i.e. a larger file size of the picture(if digital) or the negative itself, you can sue. Lets put it this way, how can 2 pictures taken at the same spot on different times be 100% the same?
1. You are allow to shoot as long as it's in a public place. This means that photography might not be allow in shopping center, etc etc cos technically, these are not public places. But if the shoots are taken in a manner that invade someone privay, i.e. upskirt, you'll be liable. No, make that commetting a crime.
2. You are allow to use your street photos as long as there's no monetary gains. eg, post on your website, portfolio.
3. You can send your street photos for competitions as long as there's a so call model release, or an understanding from the subject that this will be use in some publications, competitions, etc, etc. But then again, how to get model release if you shooting in lets say a remote part of china? Prepare all the forms and ask everyone you shoot to sign? They might not even understand why they are signing. So personally I feel that if you want, just send the photos for the competition if the organiser allows. If that person really sue, then splite the winnings, if any, with that person loh.
4. Media are not excluded from copyright, privacy. i.e. If media ppl take a photo of me without my knowing and post it, technically, I can sue. But do I really want to spend a few hundreds to maybe thousands to make a stand is another story. I would if I've the money to throw away. Read in paper few months back some woman sue some company over something less then $100 to make a stand.
5. As for copyright issue, in the law of tort, as long as you can prove that the image is taken by you. i.e. a larger file size of the picture(if digital) or the negative itself, you can sue. Lets put it this way, how can 2 pictures taken at the same spot on different times be 100% the same?
dropzone said:
Outrage of modesty is a criminal offence here and the State through the police will prosecute the offender. The victim need only to lodge a complaint to the police. The victim need not act(including private legal action) against the offender.
Here comes the answer from Mr KPO (me )....... Got it from IPOS ....
--- babbling on -----
Please note that section 30 of the Copyright Act of Singapore provides that
the owner of the copyright is :
a) the creator of the work;
b) the employer, if the work was created in the course of employment unless
there is an agreement to the contrary;
c) the person who commissions a non-portrait photograph, portrait,
engraving or print for valuable consideration (which has been paid) unless
there is an agreement to the contrary.
d) the person depicted in the portrait for commissioned portrait
photographs. The photographer can only use the commissioned portrait
photograph within the terms of the agreement between him and the person in
the portrait. In the absence of an agreement, he cannot use the photograph
without prior permission of the person in the portrait; or
e) some other party, if the original owner has transferred his or her
rights.
---- babbling off ----
LOL
Anyone want to dispute that?
)....... Got it from IPOS ....--- babbling on -----
Please note that section 30 of the Copyright Act of Singapore provides that
the owner of the copyright is :
a) the creator of the work;
b) the employer, if the work was created in the course of employment unless
there is an agreement to the contrary;
c) the person who commissions a non-portrait photograph, portrait,
engraving or print for valuable consideration (which has been paid) unless
there is an agreement to the contrary.
d) the person depicted in the portrait for commissioned portrait
photographs. The photographer can only use the commissioned portrait
photograph within the terms of the agreement between him and the person in
the portrait. In the absence of an agreement, he cannot use the photograph
without prior permission of the person in the portrait; or
e) some other party, if the original owner has transferred his or her
rights.
---- babbling off ----
LOL
Anyone want to dispute that?
dropzone said:
Don't think that you cannot be sued just because there's no specific privacy law written in the Constitution. The person can choose to sue you on grounds of a whole lot of other reasons too, ultimately it's the judge who decides where there is a valid case or not. So to avoid trouble, just take your pictures in an appropriate manner.
Haha, I agree with Kira. Many a times, it is possible to sue the company if they decides to use your pics. But to sure them for a small amount and having to spent a hug amount on lawyer fees is not worth it. better to compromise and ask for some compensation that is beneficial to both parties.
dropzone said:Haha, I agree with Kira. Many a times, it is possible to sue the company if they decides to use your pics. But to sure them for a small amount and having to spent a hug amount on lawyer fees is not worth it. better to compromise and ask for some compensation that is beneficial to both parties.
If legal costs is the main issue, one may request the Court for legal costs to be awarded against the defendant, if the plaintiff is successful in the suit. Do not let the big boys 'bully' the small boys, like me.
- Status
Similar threads
