Security Guard Paranoia

[Francis247]

need to start a thread where no photography allows.:bsmilie:

1) outside of raffles hotel
2) outside marriot hotel
3) inside MRT stations

I second this thought. :think:
This will give fellow photographers an idea where places do not allow photography. If they really want it, then maybe to approach the management of the place for permission (if possible).

 

[vince123123]

Assuming "outside" is completely outside the grounds of these places, including the driveways and walkways or any areas within their jurisdiction, it is highly doubtful that they have the right to stop anyone from photography in these areas.

need to start a thread where no photography allows.:bsmilie:

1) outside of raffles hotel
2) outside marriot hotel

 

[eikin]

Assuming "outside" is completely outside the grounds of these places, including the driveways and walkways or any areas within their jurisdiction, it is highly doubtful that they have the right to stop anyone from photography in these areas.

if i am not wrong, if one is standing outside of the property line, the property owner and his/her employees cannot stop anyone from taking pictures. they can however warn the photographer of the image ownership if the building design has been patented (but hardly anyone do it in Singapore)

btw property line may or may not extend to pedestrian pavement, but usually don't stop at building boundary, there's always the building setback within the property line.

 

[vince123123]

Building designs are copyrighted, not patented, and you do not infringe the copyright in a building by taking a photograph of that building.

As for the building perimter, when in doubt, just go across the nearest road - I would be surprised if the perimter extends to across the road.

if i am not wrong, if one is standing outside of the property line, the property owner and his/her employees cannot stop anyone from taking pictures. they can however warn the photographer of the image ownership if the building design has been patented (but hardly anyone do it in Singapore)

btw property line may or may not extend to pedestrian pavement, but usually don't stop at building boundary, there's always the building setback within the property line.

 

[eikin]

Building designs are copyrighted, not patented, and you do not infringe the copyright in a building by taking a photograph of that building.

As for the building perimter, when in doubt, just go across the nearest road - I would be surprised if the perimter extends to across the road.

yes but you do not own that image of the building in the photo as that the design is manifested in there. depending on how picky the owners want to read the rules. photographing a building doesn't infringe on the copyright, what i am referring to is the ownership of the image, please read carefully. making money out of selling a picture of a building one photographed is definitely an infringement of copyright.

 

[LazerLordz]

need to start a thread where no photography allows.:bsmilie:

1) outside of raffles hotel
2) outside marriot hotel

If you are outside their property, and you are treated with rudeness, tell them you will call the police to settle this issue.Most often than not, they will back down.

Ignore them if you wish to, if you are on public property.There is a serious lack of professionalism and proper training given to the guards by the management concerned.:nono:

 

[denniskee]

need to start a thread where no photography allows.:bsmilie:

1) outside of raffles hotel
2) outside marriot hotel

No body has the right to stop anyone from taking photos of any public places and any building from public space. Unless you are in their turff. Much like you have to follow the laws of the country you are in.

Assuming that the property owner has the right to stop people from taking photos of their building, than whats the point of putting up $$$ decor during festive season?

 

[Danntbt]

Got told off by the man in blue once, while they were standing by their patrol car by the bus stop opposite NUS on AYE, as I tried to shoot them......they were in public area after all, anyway could visualize the shot I missed.....the blue siren light flashing on the white and orange striped BMW, with the traffic whizzing by in streaks of red and warm yellow lights...could have been a masterpiece...sigh....on top of that was quizzed and had my ID taken down.....

 

[TMC]

Jeez....so much whining. They are doing their job, and from the first post I didnt think there was anything wrong. He came to a conclusion which any other person in his job/situation would make, explain to him. Blive`s case would a bit pushing it. Photographers sometimes think that they have too much rights at times.

me 2 yen

 

[eikin]

Jeez....so much whining. They are doing their job, and from the first post I didnt think there was anything wrong. He came to a conclusion which any other person in his job/situation would make, explain to him. Blive`s case would a bit pushing it. Photographers sometimes think that they have too much rights at times.

me 2 yen

actually if the threadstarter's description is correct, i find it very disturbing to be followed by the security guard all the way to the toilet just because of a dslr ... the security guard abit too free right?

 

[Look4Yest]

But seriously guys, the guard is merely doing his job, he is not wrong for that but he has to be polite and not to make assumptions... if he did that to me...seriously I will complain...that sentence is too much....he could have said...'No phototaking please...' at least not that bad right? Its the matter about how the message is brought across lar...

Being in the sales line, I have to stop people from taking photos too, but only when I am very sure they are taking photos...guess thats the rule of thumb...and I will politely do that...

Remembered this incident at Courts Toa Payoh, was there to buy a printer, when about to leave...did not realise the door on that level was locked...so tried to push it...but end up it made a loud noise, the security said to me...'Can't you read the sign??' Was so d**n pi**ed by his remarks...lucky for him I was too lazy to complain... agains the choice of words...

 

[radedward]

Let me just reiterate:

I have nothing against security guards doing their jobs.
What I have a problem against is accusing people without JUST CAUSE.

Yes, the security guard has every right to stop me IF I behaved suspiciously.
The ONLY thing I did was carry a camera by my side in my hand.
No putting of camera to face to look through the viewfinder.
No looking at the LCD screen.

Sure, I was too lazy to put the camera in the bag but that doesn't warrant a guard coming up to me to warn me of anything.

I find this sort of behaviour worrying because then anyone who thinks they have any sort of authority can just stop you for no apparent reason and accuse you of something that you didn't do.

This has nothing to do with a photographer's rights (well, maybe some of it).
I'm not being indignant because the guard stopped me from taking photos.
I wonder why this guard found it in his heart to follow me from the 1st floor to tell me off about taking photos when I did nothing even close to that.

Maybe it was the management who emphasized on it or maybe it was him being a little overzealous.

If it was the latter then I'll treat it as something one off.
If it's the former then it gets a little more worrying and I can only hope it's not a growing trend.

 

[eikin]

Let me just reiterate:

I have nothing against security guards doing their jobs.
What I have a problem against is accusing people without JUST CAUSE.

Yes, the security guard has every right to stop me IF I behaved suspiciously.
The ONLY thing I did was carry a camera by my side in my hand.
No putting of camera to face to look through the viewfinder.
No looking at the LCD screen.

Sure, I was too lazy to put the camera in the bag but that doesn't warrant a guard coming up to me to warn me of anything.

I find this sort of behaviour worrying because then anyone who thinks they have any sort of authority can just stop you for no apparent reason and accuse you of something that you didn't do.

This has nothing to do with a photographer's rights (well, maybe some of it).
I'm not being indignant because the guard stopped me from taking photos.
I wonder why this guard found it in his heart to follow me from the 1st floor to tell me off about taking photos when I did nothing even close to that.

Maybe it was the management who emphasized on it or maybe it was him being a little overzealous.

If it was the latter then I'll treat it as something one off.
If it's the former then it gets a little more worrying and I can only hope it's not a growing trend.

it's probably that the overly over-zealous security personnel took the management's instructions wrongly

 

[centuryegg]

I second this thought. :think:
This will give fellow photographers an idea where places do not allow photography. If they really want it, then maybe to approach the management of the place for permission (if possible).

1) Exteriors of shops such as Prada, Gucci, Valentino. (Their staff do keep a constant lookout at the entrace and will walk up to you to stop you if you take photos. If you insist, they will stand in front of your camera to prevent you from getting a shot)

 

[jsbn]

U guyz think security guards are paranoid? Try shooting inside Stamford House and u'll see what I mean. :bsmilie: The security guards there dun stop anyone with white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes with P&S but stop anyone with a (D)SLR! :bsmilie:

 

[tokrot]

Let me just reiterate:

I have nothing against security guards doing their jobs.
What I have a problem against is accusing people without JUST CAUSE.

Yes, the security guard has every right to stop me IF I behaved suspiciously.
The ONLY thing I did was carry a camera by my side in my hand.
No putting of camera to face to look through the viewfinder.
No looking at the LCD screen.

Sure, I was too lazy to put the camera in the bag but that doesn't warrant a guard coming up to me to warn me of anything.

I find this sort of behaviour worrying because then anyone who thinks they have any sort of authority can just stop you for no apparent reason and accuse you of something that you didn't do.

This has nothing to do with a photographer's rights (well, maybe some of it).
I'm not being indignant because the guard stopped me from taking photos.
I wonder why this guard found it in his heart to follow me from the 1st floor to tell me off about taking photos when I did nothing even close to that.

Maybe it was the management who emphasized on it or maybe it was him being a little overzealous.

If it was the latter then I'll treat it as something one off.
If it's the former then it gets a little more worrying and I can only hope it's not a growing trend.

Sorry to say he is right. He has the right to stop you if you lug the camera visible when inside their building. But he has to be poilte when approaching you. Remember when inside the building the camera has to be inside the bag also, I always stick to this rule to prevent unnecessary happiness. Cheers..

 

[waileong]

Actually he's not being paranoid. Just doing his job.

Do you know most dept stores and supermarkets have a no-photography policy? Maybe they scared that their competitors will take pixs showing their prices, product layouts, etc? I don't like it, but it's just the way it is. And it's not a public space.

What is happening in America is much more sad. Anyone who takes pictures of airports, bridges, govt buildings-- even from open public spaces-- is liable to be questioned by police. If you argue with them, you may find yourself spending time at a police station. Even if you are freed subsequently, you'd have lost precious time.

Wai Leong
===

The next step in being paranoid has just been reached.

I just got out of the MRT station at bugis holding my dSLR in my hand, reviewing some pictures. I was walking through Seiyuu to get to Liang Seah Street, decided to go to the toilet on the 2nd floor and stowed my camera into my waistpouch.

After exiting the toilet, I have a security guard standing infront of me telling me "Don't take picture in the store."
I ask him very puzzled," What picture?"
He replies," I saw you on the 1st floor with your camera."

At about this point, I'm thinking "WTF!?" and just told him I did not take any photos at all.

I didn't have time to argue with him and just went past him after that.

At no point in time did the camera viewfinder go up to my eye level. At the most it was at waist level. I don't know how badly I would have reacted if he has asked to see the 'pictures', I had supposedly taken or worse, told me to delete them.

I know he's trying to do his job but this just crosses the border. You need a little just cause before approaching anybody to accuse them of something. It's like taking an item of clothing and walking around trying to find the changing room and having someone accuse you of shoplifting.

I wonder if he's going to stop everyone with a PnS or worse, everyone with a camera phone.

I didn't think an SLR made someone that convenient a target ;(

 

[redstone]

need to start a thread where no photography allows.:bsmilie:

1) outside of raffles hotel
2) outside marriot hotel

Anyone can use zoom lens to take shots from far away... :bsmilie:

 

[radedward]

Sorry to say he is right. He has the right to stop you if you lug the camera visible when inside their building. But he has to be poilte when approaching you. Remember when inside the building the camera has to be inside the bag also, I always stick to this rule to prevent unnecessary happiness. Cheers..

I know this sounds like beating a dead horse but why is it necessary for me to keep my camera?
The sign/warning says 'no photography' not 'no camera'.

I really do want to know not because I being anal about it and no, I do not go out of my way to get into trouble with the law.

I'm bringing this up because I think it is unreasonable to assume someone has done something wrong (and I use the word 'wrong' here very loosely) without a reasonable excuse.

Holding a camera in my hand does not constitute a reasonable excuse to accuse me of taking photographs. It might give the person just cause to observe me whether I'm going to take a photograph but not to come up to me and accuse me of something I did not do.

I'm not a rabble rouser who wants to "stick it to The Man" as the expression goes but I draw the line at false accusations.

 

[tokrot]

I know this sounds like beating a dead horse but why is it necessary for me to keep my camera?
The sign/warning says 'no photography' not 'no camera'.

I really do want to know not because I being anal about it and no, I do not go out of my way to get into trouble with the law.

I'm bringing this up because I think it is unreasonable to assume someone has done something wrong (and I use the word 'wrong' here very loosely) without a reasonable excuse.

Holding a camera in my hand does not constitute a reasonable excuse to accuse me of taking photographs. It might give the person just cause to observe me whether I'm going to take a photograph but not to come up to me and accuse me of something I did not do.

I'm not a rabble rouser who wants to "stick it to The Man" as the expression goes but I draw the line at false accusations.

Seriously I have no idea what he has said to you but he should not accuse you of anything. A poilte request to keep your camera in your bag should be the way. As I have said before, it is wise to keep the camera inside the bag once you are inside the shopping mall. Don't give them the excuses to exert the authority on you. I wouldn't like it either if I were you. My friend also encountered similiar incident but luckily he was inside the lift when the security came shouting before the lift closed. The whole lift of passengers roared after that.. :bsmilie: Get over it, it's their terriority and they have the calls.