Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 115

Thread: Places that ban shooting

  1. #21
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Spore DOES NOT have a privacy law.
    If the building is in plain from public area, you can take a photo of it.
    If you are in their compound, they can stop you from doing whatever you are doing,
    be it taking photos or sitting on the ground. It is private property.

    If you are stopped, if you are not doing something wrong,
    then you have nothing to be afraid of. Let them check.

    Sensitive areas are normally out of public view, so no worries there.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega
    Spore DOES NOT have a privacy law.
    If the building is in plain from public area, you can take a photo of it.
    If you are in their compound, they can stop you from doing whatever you are doing,
    be it taking photos or sitting on the ground. It is private property.

    If you are stopped, if you are not doing something wrong,
    then you have nothing to be afraid of. Let them check.

    Sensitive areas are normally out of public view, so no worries there.
    hi, is this a legal or personal opinion?

  3. #23
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    Heh first you said we cannot take photo from across the road, now you say we can but we can't use the images.

    by the way, there was a thread also on security guards making up their laws as they go along. perhaps your guard was inventing his own as well :P

    by the way, why can't we use the images?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Ds
    I did it once and was approached by a security guard advise me that images taken should not be use without granted by the management.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Ds
    They can't stop you for taking photo from a public place but they can stop you from using the images.

  4. #24

    Default

    I think the use of the images as prohibited by the management unless with proper approval refers to publication of the images.

  5. #25

    Default Commercial reasons

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesow
    Hi guys/gals,
    Do you know that some popular places in sgp forbad ppl from taking pics, esp on tripod for nite scenes? eg CHIJMES where the prominent church building stands, only allow ppl point and shoot. My impression is they are more tolerant to tourists. Ppl will SLR/SDSLR or tripod or look pro, will be requested to seek the management's approval on shooting on location.
    That gives raise to another issue, will ppl get prosecuted by law if they post pics of such places on net?

    It's probably due to commercial reasons, and not to do with terrorists shooting sensitive areas.

    Terrorists are not likely to shoot places using a professional camera. Looking like a tourist or a dummy, a point-and-shoot will do best in attracting less attention/suspicion.

    On the other hand, a professional looking camera such as F90X or any DSLR will speak something about the status of the cameraman -- he's a serious shooter -- and he could be shooting images for a living -- to feed himself and his family.

    This is where buildings, especially the nicer ones, will be protected by the management from photographers taking advantage of their property to conduct their photo-shooting work/business.

    Asking for a permit is usually to find out what the photographer intends to use the images for. If it's for a wedding or a commercial (advertisement), they probably will charge. If it's personal enjoyment and not to earn any profit of gain, then no permit is needed.

    I shot at the waterfall-wall at Millenia Walk before and was asked what the images will be used for. Even after explaining that they were not for commercial use, security still took down my name & NRIC on a book filled with pages of so many others!

    Singapore appears to be moving towards a western-like society which pays more attention to copyright. Buildings have always been copyrighted but these days building management tend to impose their authority to get a fair share of photographer's using the building/premises.

    Shooting CHIJMES from across the road still infringes on the copyright if it's used commercially. CHIJMES management can take you to court for that if you shot it without their permit. For personal enjoyment without profit or gain, it won't see you in court.

  6. #26
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    i doubt there are laws which prohibit publication of images or those which say you need to get prior approval before you can publish them.

    Quote Originally Posted by snowspeeder
    I think the use of the images as prohibited by the management unless with proper approval refers to publication of the images.

  7. #27
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    doyou know that there is a specific exclusion of infringement if one takes a photograph of a building?

    there is no differentiation whether it is commercial or non-commercial use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    Singapore appears to be moving towards a western-like society which pays more attention to copyright. Buildings have always been copyrighted but these days building management tend to impose their authority to get a fair share of photographer's using the building/premises.

    Shooting CHIJMES from across the road still infringes on the copyright if it's used commercially. CHIJMES management can take you to court for that if you shot it without their permit. For personal enjoyment without profit or gain, it won't see you in court.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Leith Road
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Just checked with a lawyer friend of mine. He is not sure but his opinion is that it shouldn't matter unless the trademark such as the 'Chijmes' is misused. Again, he warned me that he is not sure but he will check with a friend of his who specialises in IT Properties.

    Don't know how long he'll take but I'll get back to you guys. Those who have quicker access, please feel free to advise.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside the Dry Box.
    Posts
    16,268

    Default

    i guess the only place a sith lord is banned from shooting is a jedi temple... ooops... can't resist it...
    Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.

  10. #30

    Default Privacy only relates to people

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega
    Spore DOES NOT have a privacy law.
    If the building is in plain from public area, you can take a photo of it.
    If you are in their compound, they can stop you from doing whatever you are doing,
    be it taking photos or sitting on the ground. It is private property.

    If you are stopped, if you are not doing something wrong,
    then you have nothing to be afraid of. Let them check.

    Sensitive areas are normally out of public view, so no worries there.

    It's correct that Singapore does not have a Privacy Act like Australia and other more developed western nations.

    However, privacy laws only relate to people, not buildings or premises because something non-human is considered as not to have privacy.

    Privacy Act has laws allowing companies/buildings/shops/trains/taxis/ATMs to video-record customers/visitors for security reasons without them sueing for intrusion of privacy. Usually a sign will be placed to inform people that they will be filmed if the enter/board, and they can choose not if they feel that their privacy is violated.

    Pivacy laws may also extend to the collection and restricted use of personal information on any paper or on the Internet when you sign up for gym membership, bank account, YahooMail, ClubSnap forum, or anything else.

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore / Taiwan
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    I believe this is a topic that spans beyond a given brand, please post in the correct forum the next time.

    I am moving this thread to General, Reviews, Tech Talk, please continue the discussion there.

    Thank you.

    Avatar
    Moderator
    Nikon sub-forum

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Leith Road
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    Singapore appears to be moving towards a western-like society which pays more attention to copyright. Buildings have always been copyrighted but these days building management tend to impose their authority to get a fair share of photographer's using the building/premises.

    Shooting CHIJMES from across the road still infringes on the copyright if it's used commercially. CHIJMES management can take you to court for that if you shot it without their permit. For personal enjoyment without profit or gain, it won't see you in court.
    I'm not sure, but I think copyright would definately be infringed upon if the building's design is replicated. That is, if you walk along Guangzhou one day and find an exactly the same 'Chijmes' there! (Of course, it'll probably be named 'Chijmess'.)

    So far, it seems that most here share the opinion that taking photographs of places such as Chijmes from a public place is ok. So basically we just have to establish if printing or publishing on websties is legally okay or not.

    I think this post would prove helpful to many of us whatever the answer might be.

    But I would warn readers not to quote this thread should they run into trouble with the police or ISD. No use asking them to type "forums.clubsnap.org" to search for this thread. They'll ask you to do it yourself in lock-up! (Of course just joking lah!)

  13. #33

    Default

    [QUOTE=vince123123]Heh first you said we cannot take photo from across the road, now you say we can but we can't use the images.

    I never said cannot

  14. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avatar
    I believe this is a topic that spans beyond a given brand, please post in the correct forum the next time.

    I am moving this thread to General, Reviews, Tech Talk, please continue the discussion there.

    Thank you.

    Avatar
    Moderator
    Nikon sub-forum
    Dude, sorry abt tat...

  15. #35
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    Well, you said "not true" in response to Clark75's post saying " but if you are talking from across the road, it should be perfectly legal! Lawyers, please confirm."

    The only way the words "not true" can be construed with any intelligible meaning in relation to Clark 75's post would be that it is not true that it is perfectly legal "if you are talking from across the road".

    later on you also said "They can't stop you for taking photo from a public place but they can stop you from using the images. "

    So i wonder where you "never say cannot". Unless I am having trouble comprehending your posts.


    [QUOTE=1Ds]
    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Heh first you said we cannot take photo from across the road, now you say we can but we can't use the images.

    I never said cannot

  16. #36
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    Well isn't a discussion of Australian laws not entirely relevant to the situation here in Singapore? I dont think the laws you quoted have extra-territorial effect outside of Australia do they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    It's correct that Singapore does not have a Privacy Act like Australia and other more developed western nations.

    However, privacy laws only relate to people, not buildings or premises because something non-human is considered as not to have privacy.

    Privacy Act has laws allowing companies/buildings/shops/trains/taxis/ATMs to video-record customers/visitors for security reasons without them sueing for intrusion of privacy. Usually a sign will be placed to inform people that they will be filmed if the enter/board, and they can choose not if they feel that their privacy is violated.

    Pivacy laws may also extend to the collection and restricted use of personal information on any paper or on the Internet when you sign up for gym membership, bank account, YahooMail, ClubSnap forum, or anything else.

  17. #37
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    There is a difference between replicating a building's design and building another buliding based on that design, as opposed to taking a photograph of a building already constructed...

    Quote Originally Posted by Clark75
    I'm not sure, but I think copyright would definately be infringed upon if the building's design is replicated. That is, if you walk along Guangzhou one day and find an exactly the same 'Chijmes' there! (Of course, it'll probably be named 'Chijmess'.)

    So far, it seems that most here share the opinion that taking photographs of places such as Chijmes from a public place is ok. So basically we just have to establish if printing or publishing on websties is legally okay or not.

    I think this post would prove helpful to many of us whatever the answer might be.

    But I would warn readers not to quote this thread should they run into trouble with the police or ISD. No use asking them to type "forums.clubsnap.org" to search for this thread. They'll ask you to do it yourself in lock-up! (Of course just joking lah!)

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Leith Road
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    There is a difference between replicating a building's design and building another buliding based on that design, as opposed to taking a photograph of a building already constructed...
    Yes, that is my point exactly.

  19. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Well, you said "not true" in response to Clark75's post saying " but if you are talking from across the road, it should be perfectly legal! Lawyers, please confirm."

    The only way the words "not true" can be construed with any intelligible meaning in relation to Clark 75's post would be that it is not true that it is perfectly legal "if you are talking from across the road".

    later on you also said "They can't stop you for taking photo from a public place but they can stop you from using the images. "

    So i wonder where you "never say cannot". Unless I am having trouble comprehending your posts.

    Not true

  20. #40
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    I rest my case



    Quote Originally Posted by 1Ds
    Not true

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

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
  •