Shooting in Shopping Centres

[rendition]

Shooting people and property by right requires a thing called model or property release. Without these, the chances of you being sued (if they want to) is as easy as ABC. Easier for people to sue you if you shoot them as compared to you shooting property. So beware.

 

[Giorgio]

Let's put the model release thingy aside.
I think it's a basic form of respect and courtesy to del the pic when people ask the photographer to del it.
If people wants me to del it,i'll just smile and do it.
But some photographer are just quarelsome.
Die die wants to throw everythng about law,rights and blah blah.

 

[boyboy]

dun agree.

inside or outside shops, u are IN the shoppin center (and there are usually "no photography" stickers pasted on the doors).

shot in Tampines Mall once, and was ushered into the security office and asked to delete my pics.

somehow, shooting the stores is not something they'd approve of.

went for photo exhibit before and took a few snaps around the exhibit and of it. that one no issue. but not TM la. that was at Vivo...

i think it's how u do it, and how u respond once security discovers u. also, depends on the mood of whoever is asking u to stop.

 

[vince123123]

Well, it indeed has been discussed many times before.

1 to 4 - You can shoot at anything you want, so long as you know where you are and who has jurisdiction over the place.

If you are talking about a shop owner, he can ask you to leave his shop. Hence, it will be hard for you to shoot his wares inside his shop.

If you shoot outside the shop, he cannot stop you, but he needs to get the building management to evict you from the entire building.

Same goes for the building itself, the management can stop you from shooting inside the building, but not outside the building premises.

And in any situation they can only ask you to leave, they cannot ask you to delete your photos, surrender your camera, snatch your camera, confiscate your camera, prevent you from leaving etc.

I know such threads would irritate some people, as they would say "it has been discussed many times" and "google is your best friend".

But what i am asking is only pertaining to shopping malls and within.

So my questions are, are we allowed to:
1. shoot at other shoppers, be it full face or side view?
2. shoot at the retail shops with the shop names?
3. shoot at the products on the shelf within the shops?
4. shoot at my friends/family against the backdrop of those products on shelf?

Because at some places, i did #2 and #4 with no problem.
While sometimes, i ask permission on #3 but was rejected.

 

[vince123123]

No you are wrong. They do not have any legal right to do so. If they punch you, they will then be liable ofr a criminal offence. Same goes for "cast off yr camera".

This is def not a right way to do that even if you are outside. PPle have rights to ask to delete their pictures. By doing this, u will prob make the person piss off by punching you or cast off yr camera, who's fault in the end?

 

[vince123123]

No they do not have any legal right to ask you to delete anything. Please quote me the law which purports to give such legal rights. If I refuse, what are you going to do?

I agree.
People have the rights to ask you to del the pictures u took of them.
if they don't compile,take out camera phone and snap them and tell them if picture appear on clubsnap,his/her pictures will be posted too

 

[vince123123]

In Singapore, the concept of a model release is legally doubtful. The concept of a "property release" is even more legally doubtful even in jurisdictions which require model releases, much less in Singapore.

Shooting people and property by right requires a thing called model or property release. Without these, the chances of you being sued (if they want to) is as easy as ABC. Easier for people to sue you if you shoot them as compared to you shooting property. So beware.

 

[vince123123]

Ah yes, courtesy and respect is fine. But please do not say that they have a "right", because they do not have any legal right. That is misleading.

Let's put the model release thingy aside.
I think it's a basic form of respect and courtesy to del the pic when people ask the photographer to del it.
If people wants me to del it,i'll just smile and do it.
But some photographer are just quarelsome.
Die die wants to throw everythng about law,rights and blah blah.

 

[wakaowalao]

No they do not have any legal right to ask you to delete anything. Please quote me the law which purports to give such legal rights. If I refuse, what are you going to do?

So how one should answer if this situation happens?

 

[vince123123]

You should just answer "If you wish for me to leave your premises, I will. But you do not have any legal rights to compel me to delete any of the photographs taken as this is my property. If you think otherwise, feel free to consult with your lawyer ".

So how one should answer if this situation happens?

 

[Giorgio]

Of course such people exist.
take out hp cam,snap them.

 

[DiGdUb]

i believe if you are inside a building, you are bound by the restrictions as stipulated by the building regulations. if the mall has a no photography sign at the door, it means no photography, if you shoot and they dun bother, then consider it goodwill on their part.

 

[vince123123]

Its a two way street, just as you can snap them, they can snap you. No harm done.

Of course such people exist.
take out hp cam,snap them.

 

[satan_18349]

i believe if you are inside a building, you are bound by the restrictions as stipulated by the building regulations. if the mall has a no photography sign at the door, it means no photography, if you shoot and they dun bother, then consider it goodwill on their part.

You should just answer "If you wish for me to leave your premises, I will. But you do not have any legal rights to compel me to delete any of the photographs taken as this is my property. If you think otherwise, feel free to consult with your lawyer ".

Does this stand against the "No photography" sign too?

 

[vince123123]

Where there is a no photography sign, in my personal view, I'll read it as a condition of entry. This means that technically speaking, by taking photographs within the area, you will already be trespassing (as opposed to where there is no sign, you are only considered to be trespassing upon receiving notice that photography is not allowed and should you persist in engaging in photography).

That being the case, the cause of action for the shop/building owner, is still the same. To either ask you to leave, or to prosecute you for trespass. They still do not have a right to ask you to surrender or destroy your property.

Thanks for the answer, but does this stand against the "No photography" sign too?

 

[DiGdUb]

Does this stand against the "No photography" sign too?

i think the building's security has the right to ask you to delete the photographs. say if its not a shopping mall, but a restricted military area. try that "this is my property" stunt and the consequences will probably be worse, maybe detained even. my colleague who took a civillian plane back to sg and landed in seletar airport and took photos from the tarmac area was asked by the security personnel there to delete pictures which she took of the plane. someone did tell me that in sg, if a person is inside an area/building, he has to abide by that building's regulations, if not he does not accept the terms, he has to leave immediately, and the regulations are legally binding. if he knowingly flouts the regulations, then he has to answer for it, and not challenge the people who set the rules and act gungho.

 

[vince123123]

Well, if it is a military area, the situation is a little more complicated than a shopping area in view of all those "security" hullabaloo. I do recall having discussed the position at length for military places. That said, I would focus the discussion here on shopping centres since that is what the thread starter asked.

Also, there is a difference between acting gungho and actually knowing what your rights are. Building "regulations" are internally drafted rules and can never give the building owners a right of action which they never had.

Of course, if they put outside in a sign which says "No photography, if you choose to enter and subsequently take photographs, then you must hand over those photographs for deletion"; then their position MAY be stronger. But even so, I don't think a contractual right can trump over a property right. Hence, all they can do is to institute a civil action for breach of contract requesting for an injunction to compel the deletion of the photographs. The alternative is to prosecute for trespass. They will not be able to FORCE you to delete the photos without a court injunction.

One distinction to bear in mind and to make a clear difference, is between what is morally right and wrong, and what is legally right and wrong. Our moral compasses may tell us that this seems wrong, or that seems right, or "I think it sounds right that this guy can do this". However, this often does not gel with what the actual legal position is.

i think the building's security has the right to ask you to delete the photographs. say if its not a shopping mall, but a restricted military area. try that "this is my property" stunt and the consequences will probably be worse, maybe detained even. my colleague who took a civillian plane back to sg and landed in seletar airport and took photos from the tarmac area was asked by the security personnel there to delete pictures which she took of the plane. someone did tell me that in sg, if a person is inside an area/building, he has to abide by that building's regulations, if not he does not accept the terms, he has to leave immediately, and the regulations are legally binding. if he knowingly flouts the regulations, then he has to answer for it, and not challenge the people who set the rules and act gungho.

 

[CS TAN]

In Singapore, the concept of a model release is legally doubtful. The concept of a "property release" is even more legally doubtful even in jurisdictions which require model releases, much less in Singapore.

Not sure if anyone here has tried asking the building management to waive the "no photography" rule? I think for commercial shooting such as from TV/movies/news, they will usually grant such requests but how about someone applies as an individual and for personal use?

Anyone done this before and what process/documentation they need to go through in order to get the permission to shoot?

 

[vince123123]

They'll probably see it as a way to generate revenue, so if you intend to go by this route, you should also start budgetting some fees.

Not sure if anyone here has tried asking the building management to waive the "no photography" rule? I think for commercial shooting such as from TV/movies/news, they will usually grant such requests but how about someone applies as an individual and for personal use?

Anyone done this before and what process/documentation they need to go through in order to get the permission to shoot?

 

[DiGdUb]

Well, if it is a military area, the situation is a little more complicated than a shopping area in view of all those "security" hullabaloo. I do recall having discussed the position at length for military places. That said, I would focus the discussion here on shopping centres since that is what the thread starter asked.

Also, there is a difference between acting gungho and actually knowing what your rights are. Building "regulations" are internally drafted rules and can never give the building owners a right of action which they never had.

Of course, if they put outside in a sign which says "No photography, if you choose to enter and subsequently take photographs, then you must hand over those photographs for deletion"; then their position MAY be stronger. But even so, I don't think a contractual right can trump over a property right. Hence, all they can do is to institute a civil action for breach of contract requesting for an injunction to compel the deletion of the photographs. The alternative is to prosecute for trespass. They will not be able to FORCE you to delete the photos without a court injunction.

One distinction to bear in mind and to make a clear difference, is between what is morally right and wrong, and what is legally right and wrong. Our moral compasses may tell us that this seems wrong, or that seems right, or "I think it sounds right that this guy can do this". However, this often does not gel with what the actual legal position is.

it just seems like asking for trouble when entering a shopping mall knowing that a sign is displayed saying that no photo-taking is allowed, and yet still go around taking photos inside expecting that they respect your rights when you have disrepected theirs in the first place. that to me, is challenging the rules and acting gungho. morally or legally, i just hope that photographers do not take such challenging actions as it will only bring bad name to us, and will force malls to take away the goodwill. do we really want to come to a stage that malls have rules in black and white that they have right to confisicate our memory cards?