Security Guard Paranoia

[Newman]

I have been to many stores with a DSLR and flash slung around my neck and I've never been questioned. Sometimes, I just don't want to bring my bag along. Of course, I do get the occasional stares from security guards. I don't think there's any standard approach for security guards to handle situations like this so it all depends on the guards and the management themselves. Moreover, many of these guards aren't properly trained so you may get rude obnoxious ones or jumpy ones. And they also 'see' people. I usually have a serious look so maybe they don't approach me.:bsmilie:
Recently, I saw a young foodcourt supervisor quickly running over to a patron who was using his videocam in the foodcourt. I assume this guy's a foreigner. After telling the patron to stop, the supervisor stood nearby and monitored him. :bsmilie: It would have been more interesting if that supervisor had ran into another patron carrying food!

 

[radedward]

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.

I know what you're trying to say. Avoid unnecessary trouble when possible.
But for my part, I think that authority should not have been exerted at all in the first place.

I agree that it's their territory but I believe that they should treat you as a guest rather than a criminal. I know it's difficult for a larger organization to do that but as a service-oriented company, they should try.

I've been thinking to myself why I feel strongly about this and the conclusion is that it impinges on my integrity. I'm no great man but I try to do what is right (emphasis on try :bsmilie: ) and I really don't like it when people do these sort of things.

Can you imagine if it got a step further?
The guard recognizes camera bags and sees you walking around with one and comes up to you and tells you that you shouldn't be taking pictures in their premises. It's just a small step from what I encountered. It might happen or it might not. It's funny when you think about it but not so funny if it does happen.

 

[michhy]

I would think if I walked into your house with a butcher knife, would you question me BEFORE I even attempt anything? :sweat:

 

[blive]

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

Sorry, remind me again which part of my case is a bit pushing it?

Sorry, I did not logged on over the weekend, and this thread is now so long....

 

[vince123123]

In order to avoid any "miscommunications" again, can you let me know whether what you're saying is:

1. Copyright of the Photograph that the photographer has just taken of the building belongs not to the photographer, but the owner.

2. As a result of (1), the photographer does not have any rights to publish the picture, or make money from selling the photograph he has just taken. Any attempts to publish the picture for sale would be an infringement of copyright.

Once you have confirmed the above, I'll pen my comments.

Thanks!

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.

 

[blive]

I would think if I walked into your house with a butcher knife, would you question me BEFORE I even attempt anything? :sweat:

Uhh, now we are comparing a DSLR as a weapon. If cameras were weapon, the small knife is the Camera phone? the aitoh/dagger is the p&S, and DSLR a butcher knife? Then the prof cameras are what, parang/sword?

What does people have with DSLR, and not P&S? Nowadays, DSLRs are also affordable, and not all DSLR owners are professionals photographers.

Tourists only use P&S?

 

[Newman]

I would think if I walked into your house with a butcher knife, would you question me BEFORE I even attempt anything? :sweat:

How do equate welding a knife with holding a camera??? I would have knocked you out with my barbell instead of questioning you unless you are just returning it.:bsmilie:

 

[Einstein]

First, I don't smoke.
Second, Having an item and using it are two very different issues.
Third, a pre-emptive strike is a very dangerous position to take especially when it comes to accusing people of an act that violates any sort of policy.

Let me just relate a joke that was told to me and it sort of applies to what happened.

A woman was walking through a park when she passed by a lake and saw a row boat. She decided it would be a nice day to row the boat across the lake to the other side. In the boat, was a fishing rod left there by someone else. She thought nothing of it and made her way across the lake.

On the other side of the lake, a park warden was doing his patrol and he saw the woman in the boat with the fishing rod and promptly went up to her and told her that he was giving a fine for fishing in the lake.

The woman protested that she didn't fish in the lake at all, but the warden said,
"You have the equipment with you so obviously you did it!"

The woman then told him, "Fine! But I'm accusing you of rape!"

The warden immediately protested to which the woman said
"You have the equipment with you so obviously you did it!"

So in reply,

1st - I dont fish, and i'm not a women btw.
2nd - shall we blame the toilet and not the security guard, being built in the wrong place?


Refering to your first post, does it mean the camera can only be used when it is at your eye, or rather it can be used in any position as long as your finger is on the trigger button?

I know you know his doing his JUST doing his job. Clearly it states no photography. AS your DSLR is so bloody big, I know you know that he cant happen to see YOU carrying a camera rather then those small phones and pns with puny lens and silm bodies. Make sense?

Your a walking target yourself. So imagine your in malaysia driving. The police car stops you and say your speeding. But you bloody know your not speeding, by heck or by crook. But what can you do? Your in his territory.

Dont give me a reply saying firstly you dont drive. Its a dumb reply. :nono:

I'm in full support of the security guard. :thumbsup:

 

[blive]

How do equate welding a knife with holding a camera??? I would have knocked you out with my barbell instead of questioning you unless you are just returning it.:bsmilie:

or your 80-200mm lens, except it would be too expensive to do that...;p

 

[Germinc]

Sometimes some guards can be idiots just throw their weight around.
But mostly I think they are okay. I've met quite a few friendly ones.

 

[michhy]

Glad to know the security guards arent sleeping on duty :thumbsup:

 

[Taurean]

Glad to know the security guards arent sleeping on duty :thumbsup:

Sometimes pity the security guards, when too lax got ppl complain, over zelous also got ppl complain. :dunno:

 

[vince123123]

Perhaps I should invite you into my home, and then when you're inside, take out my self-written regulation manual saying that you have to give me all your money, clothes and possessions since you're in "my territory". :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: . I'm doing my job to enrich my home too

So in reply,

1st - I dont fish, and i'm not a women btw.
2nd - shall we blame the toilet and not the security guard, being built in the wrong place?


Refering to your first post, does it mean the camera can only be used when it is at your eye, or rather it can be used in any position as long as your finger is on the trigger button?

I know you know his doing his JUST doing his job. Clearly it states no photography. AS your DSLR is so bloody big, I know you know that he cant happen to see YOU carrying a camera rather then those small phones and pns with puny lens and silm bodies. Make sense?

Your a walking target yourself. So imagine your in malaysia driving. The police car stops you and say your speeding. But you bloody know your not speeding, by heck or by crook. But what can you do? Your in his territory.

Dont give me a reply saying firstly you dont drive. Its a dumb reply. :nono:

I'm in full support of the security guard. :thumbsup:

 

[vince123123]

I think this applies to any industry or business or matter, not just security guards - a balance is what people are asking for.

Sometimes pity the security guards, when too lax got ppl complain, over zelous also got ppl complain. :dunno:

 

[Taurean]

I think this applies to any industry or business or matter, not just security guards - a balance is what people are asking for.

Agreed :thumbsup:

 

[waileong]

1. You are beating a dead horse.

2. Although you may feel that they picked on you, or that they "criminalised" you, I assure you that is not the case. They simply thought you were going to take a picture, so they tried to pre-empt that. They have no formal photography training, they just see someone touching a big camera intently and so they came over.

I think generally they accept that people, esp. tourists, may sling their cameras as they shop, that's ok, but the moment they raise or attempt to raise the camera, if the guard sees it, and if he's on, he's supposed to act. Else he could kena fired.

3. Your unhappiness comes from the fact that they "accused" you of doing something you did not. I assure you they did not pick on you specifically, you just happened to catch their eye. They did not single you out.

They could have been more polite, but telling you not to take pictures is simply telling you dept store policy.

4. There are many other policies, eg. no bags. Security guards in years past would ask shoppers to deposit their bags at the holding area-- do you remember? Many times I've been asked to follow this policy-- it does not mean they are accusing me of shoplifting, it's just the house rules. If I felt that way each time, my blood pressure would have burst long ago. However, with improved security systems (eg. electronic tags) most stores no longer do this.

5. There is no trouble with the law per se, unless you want to escalate it. They would not sue you or ask to retain your film/CF card as it's a trival matter. But if you really refused to comply, they management could tell you to leave the store, and if you then refused, they could evict you physically or even call the police to arrest you for trespassing if you physically refused to leave.

6. I don't like such store policy either-- I think stores and supermarkets are stupid in this area-- but it's their private property, so they make their own rules.

7. Is it worth it?

Wai Leong
===

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.

 

[rncw]

from what i know from my consultation with some real legal professionals who knows what they're talking about, you're wrong to say that "they can however warn the photographer of the image ownership if the building design has been patented (but hardly anyone do it in Singapore)"

building designs are copyrighted to the designers/company, but the buildings in a photo taken by anyone with a camera, the copyright of the photos belongs to the person who took the shot.

in my own opinion, selling the photos, or publishing them will not infringe the building design copyrights.

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]

I'm still waiting for his response so that I won't "misunderstand" him again hehe....

from what i know from my consultation with some real legal professionals who knows what they're talking about, you're wrong to say that "they can however warn the photographer of the image ownership if the building design has been patented (but hardly anyone do it in Singapore)"

building designs are copyrighted to the designers/company, but the buildings in a photo taken by anyone with a camera, the copyright of the photos belongs to the person who took the shot.

in my own opinion, selling the photos, or publishing them will not infringe the building design copyrights.

 

[radedward]

1. You are beating a dead horse.

2. Although you may feel that they picked on you, or that they "criminalised" you, I assure you that is not the case. They simply thought you were going to take a picture, so they tried to pre-empt that. They have no formal photography training, they just see someone touching a big camera intently and so they came over.

I think generally they accept that people, esp. tourists, may sling their cameras as they shop, that's ok, but the moment they raise or attempt to raise the camera, if the guard sees it, and if he's on, he's supposed to act. Else he could kena fired.

3. Your unhappiness comes from the fact that they "accused" you of doing something you did not. I assure you they did not pick on you specifically, you just happened to catch their eye. They did not single you out.

They could have been more polite, but telling you not to take pictures is simply telling you dept store policy.

4. There are many other policies, eg. no bags. Security guards in years past would ask shoppers to deposit their bags at the holding area-- do you remember? Many times I've been asked to follow this policy-- it does not mean they are accusing me of shoplifting, it's just the house rules. If I felt that way each time, my blood pressure would have burst long ago. However, with improved security systems (eg. electronic tags) most stores no longer do this.

5. There is no trouble with the law per se, unless you want to escalate it. They would not sue you or ask to retain your film/CF card as it's a trival matter. But if you really refused to comply, they management could tell you to leave the store, and if you then refused, they could evict you physically or even call the police to arrest you for trespassing if you physically refused to leave.

6. I don't like such store policy either-- I think stores and supermarkets are stupid in this area-- but it's their private property, so they make their own rules.

7. Is it worth it?

Wai Leong
===

No, it's not worth it.
Being the pragmatic and practical singaporean that we all are, we should just obey the rules, however lame we perceive them to be.
Singapore has no real history of a strong civil liberty movement, then again we don't really have a history of institutionalised discrimination too. So there's no reason for anyone to be a martyr to a cause here, especially one perceived as trivial as this.
I'm guilty of it too. I have no intention of pursuing it to any higher level then it has already gone.

I don't believe that it was the guard's fault. I believe that it's the fault of the management for treating their customers as potential criminals and the guard was probably influenced by it. They, of course have the right to earn as much money as they want and safeguard their business in whatever way they deem fit, as long it does not move into the illegal. But conducting your business legally sometimes doesn't mean conducting it correctly (e.g. the music industry, but that's a whole other topic).

So I've said my piece and I'm not going to fight any wars over this.

I was deciding whether to close the thread but I'll leave it open for anyone else who wants to talk about it or just leave it to die the slow death of a forum thread. :bsmilie:

 

[waileong]

Wise words. But you throw words like "civil liberties" and "criminals" about too easily. Hope you understand what these words mean, and there is nothing applicable in the context of your situation.

Eg "criminal" means you are doing something that is against the Penal Code, even if the dept store took you to court, it would not be using the Penal Code.

No, it's not worth it.
Being the pragmatic and practical singaporean that we all are, we should just obey the rules, however lame we perceive them to be.
Singapore has no real history of a strong civil liberty movement, then again we don't really have a history of institutionalised discrimination too. So there's no reason for anyone to be a martyr to a cause here, especially one perceived as trivial as this.
I'm guilty of it too. I have no intention of pursuing it to any higher level then it has already gone.

I don't believe that it was the guard's fault. I believe that it's the fault of the management for treating their customers as potential criminals and the guard was probably influenced by it. They, of course have the right to earn as much money as they want and safeguard their business in whatever way they deem fit, as long it does not move into the illegal. But conducting your business legally sometimes doesn't mean conducting it correctly (e.g. the music industry, but that's a whole other topic).

So I've said my piece and I'm not going to fight any wars over this.

I was deciding whether to close the thread but I'll leave it open for anyone else who wants to talk about it or just leave it to die the slow death of a forum thread. :bsmilie: