Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 72 of 72

Thread: Should Photography be Illegal?

  1. #61
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    its such an expected and std reply from the authorites - please seek your own legal advice (basically read as : not my problem)



    Quote Originally Posted by loupgarou
    Dear Mr Low

    I refer to your e-mail of 9 Dec 2004 and 5 Jan 2005.

    We note that the e-mail dated 9 Dec 2004 was addressed to the MCYC Feedback
    Unit.

    We would like to inform you that the police does not provide legal advice
    to the public. You may wish to seek legal advice from a lawyer.

    As regards the photograph of the Police Officer sleeping in the Police car,
    we have been in touch with Mr Lawrence Quek who provided us the information
    and feedback. We have expressed our appreciation to him for bringing the
    matter to our attention. The Police does not condone such misconduct and
    appropriate action will be taken against the Police Officer concerned.

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside the Dry Box.
    Posts
    16,268

    Default

    my lawyer would say... we gotta try den we know... this has not happened before, we do not have a precedence... but watever happen, we will try our best to win the case for ya... (den in the end u pay 50k lawyer fee just for a stupid summon of 50 bucks)

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    Most security guards nowdays are on a power trip whenever they put on their uniform...

    With authority comes power.
    With power comes abuse.
    [Yoda voice]and abuse leads to anger ... and anger leads to the dark side! [/Yoda voice]

  4. #64

    Default

    I find this to be supreme mastery of passing the buck...


    "Police, help, I was touched by a stranger in inappropiate places, what should I do?"

    We would like to inform you that the police does not provide legal advice
    to the public. You may wish to seek legal advice from a lawyer.


    quite lame. makes me feel that they are nothing more than PUBLICally hired mercenaries.

  5. #65

    Default

    if i remember correctly, the police does encourage members of the public to photograph incidents of law-breaking such as traffic offences and they will take appropriate action against the offender(s). and i see nothing wrong with the email reply from the police which was posted in this thread earlier.

  6. #66

    Default

    the email reply is with regarding to all other questions regarding the legal position of photography.

    however, we can take note.

    a) in the law , I believe there is no such crime as invasion of privacy. only crimes such as criminal trespass and outrage of modesty.

    b) given out latest p.a.p (apparently that's a 3 letter word that is censored) political change around to "if its not explicitly forbidden, it is allowed".

    c) if its a public area and not your father's road, then you should be free to shoot whatever, including police officers etc. (because of b)

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    upper thomson
    Posts
    183

    Default

    loupgarou, that's exactly how i feel except for part A which i agree partially.

    i think other than in private places, it's generally ok to shoot. I mean, how can a person sue someone for taking pictures of him/her in public for invasion or privacy? Of course unless the picture-taker was doing it 2.5fps 5meters away from the subect and refuses to stop when approached...or taking shots from below (with flash on? haha) but that's harressment already isn't?

    all in all, shouldn't photography be a free-and-easy kinda thing? it doesn't cost others money or damage the environment. So, i see no reason for a picture of a sleeping cop in a police car to be forced to be taken down. next, wads wrong with photographing building pillars and stuff? its in full view of the public and if terrorists really want to blow the hell out of that building, they really can, and stopping photographers taking pics of their exterior top-secret pillars ain't gonna help.

    If that is wad they say 'invasion of privacy' is, then there is no reason for that couple doing oral sex in quiet staircase to be charged of indecent exposure isn't it(read news...)?

    It seems to me that sg is becoming a place whereby the police and gov are always rite. like this: i say right means right, i say wrong means wrong. wad u say is insignificant. (think: casino)

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jsbn
    Hahaha... I used to be an RP guarding an installation. Does it count?
    same, i never thought of myself ever being security guard? RP, same rite.....

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    481

    Default

    I was stopped by the owner of one of the KTVs in Joo Chiat while filming for a school assignment. I was filming at a traffic junction and was in no way violating any laws. However it is sometimes best not to argue with such people as they can make your filming very difficult. You can argue that you are not filming his KTV and you are on public property. He can still stand in front of your camera when you are filming.

    Thing I have learn in regards to filming and photography:
    1) Do your thing as fast as possible.
    2) Use the smallest possible equipment you can, to be inconspiscous
    3) Have identifications with you, though it does not work with KTV owners.
    Last edited by hori; 9th January 2005 at 02:58 AM.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkForce
    Happened to come across this. Just we don't have to face such issue.

    http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3802.htm

    Yeah well, you have to expect this type of reaction from them in the wake of 911 and all the hype about terrorists and all that. I mean, erring to the safe side is a natural aspect of human nature. Just happens that us photographers have to bear the brunt of this =) sadly.

  11. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hori
    I was stopped by the owner of one of the KTVs in Joo Chiat while filming for a school assignment. I was filming at a traffic junction and was in no way violating any laws. However it is sometimes best not to argue with such people as they can make your filming very difficult. You can argue that you are not filming his KTV and you are on public property. He can still stand in front of your camera when you are filming.

    Thing I have learn in regards to filming and photography:
    1) Do your thing as fast as possible.
    2) Use the smallest possible equipment you can, to be inconspiscous
    3) Have identifications with you, though it does not work with KTV owners.
    Sad world.Intolerant people are everywhere these days.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reachme2003
    Those binding terms and conditions are not 'loudly' displayed. Such extensive terms and conditions, liability, etc are usually found on a large panel/s in the public area, immediately outside the station control room. Whether such t and c includes 'no photography', I have no idea.
    Check this out..
    http://www.smrt.com.sg/smrt/systems_act/pg01.htm

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •