Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 115

Thread: Places that ban shooting

  1. #81
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    Well if its impt to you, just ignore them and take the photo. All BK can do is to ask you to leave, in which case you should, after you have taken the photo :P

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Nielson
    Once I had dinner with a bunch of friends in a Burger King Restaurant (not sure what is the building name, beside wheellock place). And we decide to take a group picture, and one of the staff popped up to say that it is not allowed. Yes, this is a weird world that we are living in.

    I was also being told off while videotaping in the Malaysian custom (the one in the second link). But this one they might have a little bit of excuse, but Burger King?

  2. #82

    Default

    i depends on whether there is a sign outside the restuarant that states no photography allowed. if there is not, then i will assume that photography is allowed.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    West Coast of sunny Singapore
    Posts
    1,439

    Default

    beat this:
    hotels will let you shoot,

    but,

    you can't use a tripod.

    happened to me twice. once at raffles hotel, and again at marriot. i'd have tot it's a coincidence if it was only once, but after the second time, i was wondering if there's some hotel code that spells that out.

  4. #84

    Default

    I was stopped once too at MRT in Nov .. that's because I was away from Sg and did not know about the new ruling. The funny thing is he tell me can take photo provided got people inside (as in there is an object eg, tourist snapping of themselves at train station is allowed)

    Not sure how true this is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wai
    ok..back to topic

    one of the places that ban shooting - MRT station. Thanks to that famous video clip of yishun MRT station taken by suspected terrorists after 911.

    anyway, last sunday i was at city hall mrt, meeting a buyer to sell my filter, we stayed at one corner near the entrance. she mounted the filter on the lens and did some testing, no pic was taken at all since she was using film SLR. anyway, the security approach us shortly and tell us no photo taking allowed, i dun want to waste my breath to explain or argue with him so i just say ok....then he also mumbled something saying other pple will complain if we take photo there

    well..i guess he was just over-react since we were not acting suspiciously, or may be he got nothing to do and want to exert some authority

  5. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Nielson
    Once I had dinner with a bunch of friends in a Burger King Restaurant (not sure what is the building name, beside wheellock place). And we decide to take a group picture, and one of the staff popped up to say that it is not allowed. Yes, this is a weird world that we are living in.

    I was also being told off while videotaping in the Malaysian custom (the one in the second link). But this one they might have a little bit of excuse, but Burger King?
    If it's outside, shouldn't be a problem.Loved shooting the pigeons that always roosted on the BK sign.Sometimes, it helps to look really perptually pissed off, and the staff will not bother you.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  6. #86

    Default Can't use tripod

    Quote Originally Posted by obviousdude
    beat this:
    hotels will let you shoot,

    but,

    you can't use a tripod.

    happened to me twice. once at raffles hotel, and again at marriot. i'd have tot it's a coincidence if it was only once, but after the second time, i was wondering if there's some hotel code that spells that out.
    Hi obviousdude,

    What you encountered is very similar to what has happened in Australia and in the US. Even some of the national parks in Australia have come under this no-tripod rule.

    From reliable sources, I was told that the use of a tripod suggests a professional photographer or a photographer serious about his images. Such a photographer would have a higher chance of selling or using his images for $$, and hence the hostility/unwelcome towards one who erects a tripod, especially if he/she does not have prior written consent to shoot images at the location.

    Again, as in my earlier post, I have said that Singapore is gradually becoming more like a western country in her enforcement of copyright in buildings and places.

    There could be another reason for the no-tripod rule -- obstruction of traffic (human or vehicular) although I doubt it is this reason. I recall seeing this law in the Republic of Singapore Statutes.
    Last edited by Jemapela; 20th April 2005 at 03:11 PM. Reason: Additional information

  7. #87

    Default

    Hmmm...maybe using a monopod might suggest a lesser degree of professionalism? Best is to train our legs to be human tripods.

  8. #88
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    Again, as in my earlier post, I have said that Singapore is gradually becoming more like a western country in her enforcement of copyright in buildings and places.
    I again reiterate that taking photographs of buildings do not infringe their copyright, just in case it wasn't clear earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    There could be another reason for the no-tripod rule -- obstruction of traffic (human or vehicular) although I doubt it is this reason. I recall seeing this law in the Republic of Singapore Statutes.
    amazing, which one?

  9. #89

    Default Many things are copyright protected

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    i don't know that building can be copyrighted.... LOL
    Hi mervlam,

    If you read copyright law, and there are many countries' copyright laws available online (even S'pore's), you will see that:

    technical drawings/designs, poetry, music scores, text articles, scultures, buildings, art drawings/paintings, photographs, images, films, videos, etc

    can all be copyright protected.

    It's only a matter of whether the original creator/author wants or not to exert his right to protect his work.

    Some common but real examples of copyright infringement are:

    1) copying and pasting a (online/print) newspaper/magazine article here
    2) using another person's work as your avatar

  10. #90

    Default

    I seem to have no problem at all.... maybe i do it as PnS or either SLR with no tripod.

    I have seen pple shooting in MRT, having no problem in it. Although, it is inconceivable to do that with a tripod; U may have alot of explanation to do to the station manager.

    Of course , security installation photography is a


    Just be snappy and fast. Smile if ask. Explain to them your intent, nothing to hide. Bring ya PnS camera along, looks more "tourist" It works better sometimes than SLR in this situation.

  11. #91

    Default My bad writing

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    just thought about it. buildings ARE the material form of expression of ideas. so your reasoning may be valid.

    as for your second statement, you meant infringement occurs irregardless your work is for commercial usage or not???

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    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 a lawyer, and I don't intend to flex any male ego here. I'll admit that I may not have written properly enough with my earlier post (shown above). Sorry for that.

    Many of us here have stated and established that buildings/stations/terminals and their designs are copyright protected (they probably were when drawn on paper). So, I assume no more debate here?

    Not flexing any male ego here, and not in the capacity of a lawyer, my best understanding is that shooting photos of any building (or whatever) can be considered copyright infringement.

    It would be ridiculous for the management to catch every Tom, Dick and Harry, and haul them into court for copyright infringement. (If that's how the world works, then nobody would buy cameras because every place could be a good place to sue someone for copyright infringement.)

    Instead, the management would want to watch out for the sneaky Tan Ah Beng and Lee Ah Lian who shot the photo and later used it in a commercial advertisement or profit-making idea (such as a photo book). Now, because the clever management or not-so-educated security guards can't quite tell which Mr Bean character may shoot photos for such purposes, they probably just blindly tell (and frighten) every Sue, Ann and Mary that they can't shoot photos because the building has something "holy and sacred" called copyright (which is correct and I can understand their reason for doing so).

  12. #92
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    once again, the copyright in a buliding is not infringed by the taking of a photograph of that building.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    Not flexing any male ego here, and not in the capacity of a lawyer, my best understanding is that shooting photos of any building (or whatever) can be considered copyright infringement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    If you read copyright law, and there are many countries' copyright laws available online (even S'pore's),
    perhaps you might want to double check your online resource again to verify the advice that you have given.

  13. #93

    Default Amazing laws in the Penal Code

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by: Jemapela
    There could be another reason for the no-tripod rule -- obstruction of traffic (human or vehicular) although I doubt it is this reason. I recall seeing this law in the Republic of Singapore Statutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    amazing, which one?

    Hi vince123123,

    Like some countries around the world, Singapore is 1 of those countries that have peculiar (I would prefer to call "restrictive") laws. One example would be the law regarding "unlawful assembly".

    To answer your question, I searched the Penal Code to quote this peculiar law.

    Under Chapter XIV - Offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals, subsections 268 and 283 describe situations that may be considered as obstruction to public.

    I won't quote or copy the subsections here because:
    1) of possible infringement
    2) to discourage more individual interpretation and endless debate here (which often doesn't get us anywhere... come on... let's try not to be strongly glued in front of the computer screen)

    It's better that you, and other CS users, read it yourselves, and consult lawyers if need be.

  14. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Singapore / Eindhoven (NL)
    Posts
    21

    Thumbs up

    Interesting matter.
    The following link does not apply directly to the Singapore situation, but I guess that similar legal train of thought is also applied in a modern constitutional state as Singapore.

    site:
    http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
    pdf directly:
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

  15. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Well if its impt to you, just ignore them and take the photo. All BK can do is to ask you to leave, in which case you should, after you have taken the photo :P
    Well, at last I did took the picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    i depends on whether there is a sign outside the restuarant that states no photography allowed. if there is not, then i will assume that photography is allowed.
    Hmmm... May be you are right, I didn't notice any sign though.

    But my idea on why they do not allow picture taking is because a picture can be a powerful piece of evidence to if it catches certain conduct or action, and they do not want to deal with unnecessary mess.

  16. #96

    Default You're correct... but

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    once again, the copyright in a buliding is not infringed by the taking of a photograph of that building.


    perhaps you might want to double check your online resource again to verify the advice that you have given.
    Hi vince123123,

    There is nothing wrong with my online resouce because it's maintained by reputable organisations/departments. They either have the .gov or .edu or (at least) .org extensions.

    Since I'm not a lawyer (and I assume that you're not as well), you may be correct in some way, especially in the Singapore context. I just read the Singapore Copyright Act under subsection 64. It says that no infringement is caused by taking a photograph of a building (unless I missed out some exceptions stated elsewhere in the Act). On that matter, you appear to be correct. Sorry for my mistake.

    However, I must say that I have been interrupted and ID recorded while photographing at Millenia Walk's waterfall wall (before the Sept 11 disaster - if it matters) The guard could even explain that it was because people had previously photographed and filmed the premises without permission and used it in some way (I assume to be commercially) disapproved by the management.

    I have also been interrupted and advised about building copyright while photographing at a memorial shrine in Australia. In an earlier post, I also mentioned about some national parks having no-tripod hostile-to-pro-photographers rules. A CS users also mentioned the same no-tripod rule with hotels in Singapore.

    I have also observed no-camera-no-photography signs displayed inside art galleries in Australia.

    My understanding is that if you make a copy of an original work in any form, you could be infringing copyright unless it's for research, educational or newsreporting purposes (described as fair use).

  17. #97
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    well now that you have the correct answer and authority, just use it against those security guards who make up their own laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemapela
    I just read the Singapore Copyright Act under subsection 64. It says that no infringement is caused by taking a photograph of a building (unless I missed out some exceptions stated elsewhere in the Act). On that matter, you appear to be correct. Sorry for my mistake.

  18. #98
    Senior Member dominator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amazon Forest
    Posts
    1,662

    Default

    to me i simply don't care as long as i don't see any "no camera" or "no photo taking" ...etc of such signs. i will just take my shots! if really anyone comes up and stop you then respect them and bye bye!!...

  19. #99

    Default

    i somewhat ... agree that acting pissed might help ward-off potential 'management'/'security'/'no-shooting-here' people ... was at a wushu competition earlier ... everyone around was using flash .. and they DID NOT state anywhere that flash photography was not allowed ... some guy next to me with a 1d was blasting flash ... at 8fps i suppose ... i took 2-3 shots with flash over there ... and some management guy told me no flash photography, later disturb them ...

    i agree that the flashes might distract the competitiors ... but still ... the guy ONLY tome me no flash photography -.- everyone else who had a cam with flash was 'flashing' -.- ... maybe its cos i was mild mannered + external flash -.-?

  20. #100

    Default

    No flash is allowed during table tennis compitition, because it will distract the player.

    Once my son was taking swimming lesson in a public pool, and I wanted to take some photo of him swimming, I took out the camera and taking some test shot, before I was about to take his photo, I was stopped by lifeguard that no photography is allowed at the public pool.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •