Filming on Public Transport

[nonchann]

Hey,

anyone know if there is any procedures or protocol that must be mantained when doing filming on public transports such as Buses and trains? must get permission?

[Chris Lim]

what do u mean by filming?

for trains. If you are doing a semi pro shoot. you need to obtain a permit. But its is hardly granted unless u can pull some string with ppl inside. Alternatively you can book an empty cabin for a 4 hr block.

[compro_1975]

Originally Posted by Chris Lim what do u mean by filming? for trains. If you are doing a semi pro shoot. you need to obtain a permit. But its is hardly granted unless u can pull some string with ppl inside. Alternatively you can book an empty cabin for a 4 hr block.

same for bus too, charted is needed

[Chris Lim]

of cos it comes with a fee.

if i remember i was qouted 40k for the 4 hour block on the train But we turned that and the alternative plan down in the end. for the bus. i need to check with my producer. think we commanded a special rate for it.

[alternus]

If you are doing a simple shoot not involving a big crew, and no need to direct the bus driver to do any stunts, you may consider boarding those $1 SBS shuttle service that goes around town (I forgot the name of the service). Hardly anyone boards those buses. And they keep going over the same route non-stop.

I once did some filming on a double deck. Quiet and peaceful for > 30 min upstairs. At a price of $4 (i.e. 4 pax). And since you won't be bothering anyone, the bus driver won't care.

The best part is, the bus brings you back to the same place you boarded.

[GhostSG]

Originally Posted by Chris Lim what do u mean by filming? for trains. If you are doing a semi pro shoot. you need to obtain a permit. But its is hardly granted unless u can pull some string with ppl inside. Alternatively you can book an empty cabin for a 4 hr block.

Yup its hard to get the permits due to Counter-Terrorism Security measures. Unless the crew/ company is filming a govt project. I did a few govt corporate videos - the relavant agencies will do all the liaison and we just go and film on the set date. BTW, the crew is subjected to ISD screening etc cos I have to submit full particulars and we were bounded by Official Secrets Act.

Nowadays, anyone who holds a handycam shooting at SBS bus interchanges, MRT stations etc are subjected to checks by the SMRT security. But its ok if you're taking those tourist bus services in town.

[tommon]

Originally Posted by alternus If you are doing a simple shoot not involving a big crew, and no need to direct the bus driver to do any stunts, you may consider boarding those $1 SBS shuttle service that goes around town (I forgot the name of the service). Hardly anyone boards those buses. And they keep going over the same route non-stop. I once did some filming on a double deck. Quiet and peaceful for > 30 min upstairs. At a price of $4 (i.e. 4 pax). And since you won't be bothering anyone, the bus driver won't care. The best part is, the bus brings you back to the same place you boarded.

It's not whether they care but the bus / train is a company property thus anything you do on the vehicle makes the transport company liable.

Just like shooting inside a hotel or shopping centres.

Public transports are not public places, even then usage without permission of the individual makes it a violation of privacy.

[Chris Lim]

Originally Posted by tommon It's not whether they care but the bus / train is a company property thus anything you do on the vehicle makes the transport company liable. Just like shooting inside a hotel or shopping centres. Public transports are not public places, even then usage without permission of the individual makes it a violation of privacy.

there is no privacy laws in sg.

[nonchann]

hmm... can i say the"do but don't get caught" rule applies?

I have been thinking about doing a documentary with regards to the rat race/paper chase/rush for the riches thing in singapore. thought about filming during rush hour and maybe even interviewing people on the train in particular. Not too worried about bus...quite safe on double deck as long people don't complain. So...yeah...train would be the tricky one hor...

[tommon]

Privacy laws falls under a grey area of the laws. Meaning that as long as no one complaints, you will be on the safe side. Why not just try you luck at taking pix at a no photography area ands see if you can get away with it.

[vince123123]

Amen to that, recently he has been quoting a lot of laws wrongly..

Originally Posted by Chris Lim there is no privacy laws in sg.

[vince123123]

First time I hear that a crime is a crime only when someone complains about it. Its like saying that when a tree falls in the forest, it does not make a sound unless someone is there to hear it.

As for taking photos in a no photography area, it depends on what that no photography area is. Please elaborate.

And, does a bus/train (which is the subject of this discussion) have a no photography sign?

Originally Posted by tommon Privacy laws falls under a grey area of the laws. Meaning that as long as no one complaints, you will be on the safe side. Why not just try you luck at taking pix at a no photography area ands see if you can get away with it.

[yqt]

Originally Posted by tommon Public transports are not public places.........

If public transports are not public, why is it called public transport in the first place? Should it than not be called Private transport/bus?

[yqt]

Originally Posted by tommon Privacy laws falls under a grey area of the laws. Meaning that as long as no one complaints, you will be on the safe side. Why not just try you luck at taking pix at a no photography area ands see if you can get away with it.

If this is a serious discussation I think this is not a wise thing to do or suggest.

If, and I mean " If ", Privacy laws do falls under a grey area, it also meands that you may have fallen fowl under the law if you do it. In other words, you may have committed a crime. And the suggestion to take pix in a place which photography is not allowed is asking people to break the law or rule. Not something we should encourage.

If all this is posted in jest, well OK, but some may take it seriously.

[GhostSG]

Originally Posted by tommon It's not whether they care but the bus / train is a company property thus anything you do on the vehicle makes the transport company liable. Just like shooting inside a hotel or shopping centres. Public transports are not public places, even then usage without permission of the individual makes it a violation of privacy.

1. a)Yes-true they are liable but the main point it not whether the bus companies/SMRT owns the
buses/trains or not as stated in (1c).
b)Yes of course they also wana earn $$$ to charter for filming.
c)The main thingy is National Security issued. All public transport and utilities are national security assets. The staff authorities are the National Security Co-ordinating Secretariat (Min of Defence) and Homeland Security Office(Min of Home Affairs). Thats why now there are transit security isn't it? Filming w/o permits can constitute certain offences under "Internal Security Act, Cap 143"

2. Hotels/ Shopping Ctrs are total different ball game - its a matter of trade secrets. That is under Commercial Laws not Criminal Law. Its only a Criminal Act if we shoot the hotel logos or certain special trademarks w/o permission of the property owner which infringe the "Trademarks Act, Cap 332"

3. The only Privacy Law is stated in Sec 509 Cap 224 Penal Code stating acts that intrude the privacy of a woman e.g. those pervert peepers. Other than that we can't just take a person's foto w/o the other party agreement for publish - that is a Civil Suit. When I was young & learning during the SBC days all cam-ops are not allowed to film public in the background during LocPro(On Location Production) otherwise if the subjects' faces are broadcasted TV station can get sued because there is no "model/actor release agreement signed"

4. The word "Public Places" is defined in Singapore Statutes as having access by the public including private property that is accessed to public.[/color] The word "Public" includes any member of the public or the community[/color]. Thats why the buses/trains are named "Public Transport".

5. The "No Photography" Sign areas are always the Protected Places. Try shooting outside a Military Base w/o clearance - the sentries will point their rifles at you warranted under the "Sec 9 - Protected Areas/Places Act Cap 256". Next thing you know you will be sitting in ISD interview room.

Lastly dun ask why I know all the law and stuff - if I let you know I will have to kill you hahahaha

[vince123123]

No worries, no one is going to ask how you know about the law and stuff - it is good that people post their views with the relevant sources of law/authority so we know what they are basing their views on, not just relying on "I have so-and-so qualifications so I must be correct" type of statements.

Now, onto the points proper:

1(c) Could you point us to the section numbers which states that "Filming w/o permits can constitute certain offences"? Also, how those sections relate to filming in a bus or train, and how a permit may be obtained.

2. Can you point me to the section number which states that filiming of a hotel logo or trade mark without permission constitutes an offence under the Trade Marks Act? I am surprised to know that there are such offences under this Act but wait to hear your elaboration.

3. I quote Section 509 which you have referred to as follows:

Quote: Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman. 509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Please note that an essential element of this offence is the intention to insult the modesty of a woman, mere intrusion of privacy alone is insufficient. You have left this out. Also, take note that the heading of this section suggests the main mischief is to insult the modesty of a woman, not to safeguard privacy laws. Hence, there are no privacy laws in Singapore per se.

3 (cont'd). Could you elaborate on any sources of Singapore law which states that model releases are required? And to take one more step forward, that such releases are required for incidental filiming of people in the background? Or is this just an industry perpetuated myth from reading too many Internet sources which are based on specifically legislated provisions under US laws?

5. I quote Section 9 which you have referred to as follows:

Quote: Special powers in protected areas and protected places. 9. Any person who attempts to enter or who is in a protected area or a protected place and who fails to stop after being challenged 3 times by an authorised officer to do so may be arrested by force, which force may, if necessary to effect the arrest, extend to the voluntary causing of death.

I don't see any provision here which states that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base. The provision above relates to an attempt to ENTER or failure to stop after being challenged after you are INSIDE the protected area or place. Maybe you made an error in quoting the section number?

Originally Posted by GhostSG 1. a)Yes-true they are liable but the main point it not whether the bus companies/SMRT owns the buses/trains or not as stated in (1c). b)Yes of course they also wana earn $$$ to charter for filming. c)The main thingy is National Security issued. All public transport and utilities are national security assets. The staff authorities are the National Security Co-ordinating Secretariat (Min of Defence) and Homeland Security Office(Min of Home Affairs). Thats why now there are transit security isn't it? Filming w/o permits can constitute certain offences under "Internal Security Act, Cap 143" 2. Hotels/ Shopping Ctrs are total different ball game - its a matter of trade secrets. That is under Commercial Laws not Criminal Law. Its only a Criminal Act if we shoot the hotel logos or certain special trademarks w/o permission of the property owner which infringe the "Trademarks Act, Cap 332" 3. The only Privacy Law is stated in Sec 509 Cap 224 Penal Code stating acts that intrude the privacy of a woman e.g. those pervert peepers. Other than that we can't just take a person's foto w/o the other party agreement for publish - that is a Civil Suit. When I was young & learning during the SBC days all cam-ops are not allowed to film public in the background during LocPro(On Location Production) otherwise if the subjects' faces are broadcasted TV station can get sued because there is no "model/actor release agreement signed" 4. The word "Public Places" is defined in Singapore Statutes as having access by the public including private property that is accessed to public.[/color] The word "Public" includes any member of the public or the community[/color]. Thats why the buses/trains are named "Public Transport". 5. The "No Photography" Sign areas are always the Protected Places. Try shooting outside a Military Base w/o clearance - the sentries will point their rifles at you warranted under the "Sec 9 - Protected Areas/Places Act Cap 256". Next thing you know you will be sitting in ISD interview room. Lastly dun ask why I know all the law and stuff - if I let you know I will have to kill you hahahaha

[GhostSG]

I don't see any provision here which states that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base. The provision above relates to an attempt to ENTER or failure to stop after being challenged after you are INSIDE the protected area or place. Maybe you made an error in quoting the section numbers all ?


Hmmmm......only those who completed NS or ever worked for govt will know the procedures...sorry official secrets wun elaborate here.....As for the statutes of S'pore - its just for common Spore local knowledge....thats the law there will always be diff angles of looking at it thats why there are jobs for lawyers....

[vince123123]

You relied on specific statutes and when invited to quote the provisions, you say that it is an official secret? A law is a law, not an official secret.

Sure, there are different ways of interpreting the law, which is why I invite you to give your interpretation with relevant support. By dismissing someone's point of view without even providing a counter-view, is not conducive to a discussion. Unless you are saying that you have no counterviews to my views raised. A point by point answer to my post #16 rather than a blanket dismissal.

Originally Posted by GhostSG I don't see any provision here which states that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base. The provision above relates to an attempt to ENTER or failure to stop after being challenged after you are INSIDE the protected area or place. Maybe you made an error in quoting the section numbers all ? Hmmmm......only those who completed NS or ever worked for govt will know the procedures...sorry official secrets wun elaborate here.....As for the statutes of S'pore - its just for common Spore local knowledge....thats the law there will always be diff angles of looking at it thats why there are jobs for lawyers....

[LazerLordz]

Originally Posted by GhostSG I don't see any provision here which states that a sentry is authorised to point their rifles at you if you are taking photographs outside a military base. The provision above relates to an attempt to ENTER or failure to stop after being challenged after you are INSIDE the protected area or place. Maybe you made an error in quoting the section numbers all ? Hmmmm......only those who completed NS or ever worked for govt will know the procedures...sorry official secrets wun elaborate here.....As for the statutes of S'pore - its just for common Spore local knowledge....thats the law there will always be diff angles of looking at it thats why there are jobs for lawyers....

You are not allowed to aim your rifle at a person who is taking pictures of your base. That is disproportionate use of force in this context. You are only allowed to report him/her to the relevant authorities, as he is still outside these said premises.

If he is aiming a weapon with the aim to discharge it into the property of the camp, or attempting to gain entry, you may then carry out the SOP for people who are a threat to that protected installation.

But at no point may a sentry raise his weapon at an in-situ non-threatening subject, he may give verbal orders to desist. In fact, whether he can come out of the property and seize that subject may not even be a clear-cut case.

Anyone who has served as a guard commander would know this as second nature.

[vince123123]

Good one, now we know it isn't as mysterious as he makes it out to be. After failing to use the proper written laws, he attempted to shroud it in mystery as "offical secrets". Now we know that that isn't true as well.

Originally Posted by LazerLordz You are not allowed to aim your rifle at a person who is taking pictures of your base. That is disproportionate use of force in this context. You are only allowed to report him/her to the relevant authorities, as he is still outside these said premises. If he is aiming a weapon with the aim to discharge it into the property of the camp, or attempting to gain entry, you may then carry out the SOP for people who are a threat to that protected installation. But at no point may a sentry raise his weapon at an in-situ non-threatening subject, he may give verbal orders to desist. In fact, whether he can come out of the property and seize that subject may not even be a clear-cut case. Anyone who has served as a guard commander would know this as second nature.