V
vince123123
Guest
Well, that is up to the individual himself to think about whether he wishes to do that or not. Most people do not challenge a "No Photography sign". I'm merely laying out the legal position - what course of action to take after knowing the legal position, is up to each individual to decide for himself and responsibility for his/her actions would apply accordingly.
I'll give you a simple analogy. Company A signs a contract to Company B for something. Due to any variety of reasons, Company A is trying to get out of this contract. A lawyer then gives Company A the legal position on whether there are ways to get out of the contract, and what the consequences are for these options. Company A makes its own decision on what it wants to do.
Although I am not giving the legal position here in the capacity of a lawyer, the analogy is still applicable. Readers here will be educated by whatever legal input I have provided, and then make their own decision on what they choose to do with that education. I am not here to tell you what you should do or not to do, merely to provide my views on the legal position since that seems to be rather lacking in this forum.
Back to the Company A example. Is Company A wrong for breaching a contract? Maybe? Maybe not? Is the lawyer wrong for advising Company A on the legal position, including but not limited to ways to get out of the agreement? Who is to say?
However, with the knowledge provided by the lawyer, Company A now knows its position better and can then now make an informed decision, whichever the decision might be. In the same way, armed with the information and views provided, photographers can then choose to make their own decision on what they want to do when faced in a situation like this.
That is clearly a better position than trying to hide information from them in the hope that they will not do what you want them not to do.
As for your final example, as I have stated in the previous post, even if they stipulated such a condition, they cannot force you to part with your belongings, no matter what T&Cs they put. This is the same case as the SBS bus driver not having any statutory rights to confiscate your EZLINK card even though their internal T&Cs say they can. If they want to, then institute a court action to compel it.
I'll give you a simple analogy. Company A signs a contract to Company B for something. Due to any variety of reasons, Company A is trying to get out of this contract. A lawyer then gives Company A the legal position on whether there are ways to get out of the contract, and what the consequences are for these options. Company A makes its own decision on what it wants to do.
Although I am not giving the legal position here in the capacity of a lawyer, the analogy is still applicable. Readers here will be educated by whatever legal input I have provided, and then make their own decision on what they choose to do with that education. I am not here to tell you what you should do or not to do, merely to provide my views on the legal position since that seems to be rather lacking in this forum.
Back to the Company A example. Is Company A wrong for breaching a contract? Maybe? Maybe not? Is the lawyer wrong for advising Company A on the legal position, including but not limited to ways to get out of the agreement? Who is to say?
However, with the knowledge provided by the lawyer, Company A now knows its position better and can then now make an informed decision, whichever the decision might be. In the same way, armed with the information and views provided, photographers can then choose to make their own decision on what they want to do when faced in a situation like this.
That is clearly a better position than trying to hide information from them in the hope that they will not do what you want them not to do.
As for your final example, as I have stated in the previous post, even if they stipulated such a condition, they cannot force you to part with your belongings, no matter what T&Cs they put. This is the same case as the SBS bus driver not having any statutory rights to confiscate your EZLINK card even though their internal T&Cs say they can. If they want to, then institute a court action to compel it.
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?
Last edited by a moderator: