Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    opp. East Coast Park
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    I'd like to get this straightened out.
    Is it against the law or human rights or whatever to:
    1) shoot people (with camera, not gun!) without their consent.
    2) use photos shot of people in competitions without their consent.
    The best photographer is one who is inspired by the innate nature of his subjects.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    I'm a Llama!
    Posts
    4,751

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    Find out more about the legalities of image use in this talk during Month of Photography 2007... details...

    http://www.monthofphoto.sg/07/index_talks.shtml

    scroll to end.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    Taking pictures of people in public is not illegal, as far as I'm aware. But aim cameras at people while they're on their own property and it may be an intrusion of privacy, even though you can probably look inside without any special equipment (well duh, how else would you take pictures). If they object to you taking pictures of them, then obviously it's polite to delete them, though.

    Using pictures of people for commercial purposes without consent is illegal, which is why model release forms exist. Not sure about contests.
    Last edited by jmmtn4aj; 28th June 2007 at 09:24 PM. Reason: ****ing typos

  4. #4
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    Quote Originally Posted by Terence View Post
    Find out more about the legalities of image use in this talk during Month of Photography 2007... details...

    http://www.monthofphoto.sg/07/index_talks.shtml

    scroll to end.
    Good chance to ask questions like the one from the following poster (especially the underlined part, which is highly questionable under Singapore laws):

    Quote Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj View Post
    Taking pictures of people in public is not illegal, as far as I'm aware. But aim cameras at people while they're on their own property and it may be an intrusion of privacy, even though you can probably look inside without any special equipment (well duh, how else would you take pictures). If they object to you taking pictures of them, then obviously it's polite to delete them, though.

    Using pictures of people for commercial purposes without consent is illegal, which is why model release forms exist. Not sure about contests.

  5. #5
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    My view:

    1) No,
    2) No.

    Quote Originally Posted by WuffRuff View Post
    I'd like to get this straightened out.
    Is it against the law or human rights or whatever to:
    1) shoot people (with camera, not gun!) without their consent.
    2) use photos shot of people in competitions without their consent.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    SPEAKING of legal issues. DO you know that IF one is found with his handphone or recording devices on (camera or video mode), and IF someone spotted it and IF the somone had got nothing better to do, the one that posses the devices can be CHARGED. so to all people who fancy to take self posed pictures in the toliet, beware

  7. #7

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    Quote Originally Posted by desmondnwx View Post
    SPEAKING of legal issues. DO you know that IF one is found with his handphone or recording devices on (camera or video mode), and IF someone spotted it and IF the somone had got nothing better to do, the one that posses the devices can be CHARGED. so to all people who fancy to take self posed pictures in the toliet, beware
    only for toilet

    Anything else, it is not illegal, even on private property. Even the security guard cannot stop you, and the police cannt stop you or confiscate your equipment. Take note that you can be wacked for trespassing though.

    What will happen is if a police report is made, and the fella decides to SUE YOU, it transcends into a civil suit, not a criminal one.

    Very diff from the United States. Take note if you ever travel to the US, there are privacy laws. You are allowed to shoot ANYTHING you see, provided it is in visible view from a public place. (public place=street etc). So theoretically if someone want to build his house made of half-glass and you take photo of him naked... well, he can't do a darn thing to you.

  8. #8
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    At best he may only be liable for an "attempt", not the actual crime - it is easy to see that he did not take any actual photos of others merely by inspecting the device.

    Still it would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed attempting to commit the offence in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by desmondnwx View Post
    SPEAKING of legal issues. DO you know that IF one is found with his handphone or recording devices on (camera or video mode), and IF someone spotted it and IF the somone had got nothing better to do, the one that posses the devices can be CHARGED. so to all people who fancy to take self posed pictures in the toliet, beware

  9. #9
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    One of the rare times that someone actually states the correct position and not the "kiasu position".

    One small clarification though, "whacked for tresspass" may be a criminal offence (depending on whether the elements are made out) and not merely a "civil offence". When the police tell you its a "civil claim", what they sometimes mean (but are too ignorant to know better) is that you need to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint, aka private prosecution. This is distinguished from a civil claim, where the claim does not lie in criminal liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by chanjyj View Post

    Anything else, it is not illegal, even on private property. Even the security guard cannot stop you, and the police cannt stop you or confiscate your equipment. Take note that you can be wacked for trespassing though.

    What will happen is if a police report is made, and the fella decides to SUE YOU, it transcends into a civil suit, not a criminal one.

    Very diff from the United States. Take note if you ever travel to the US, there are privacy laws. You are allowed to shoot ANYTHING you see, provided it is in visible view from a public place. (public place=street etc). So theoretically if someone want to build his house made of half-glass and you take photo of him naked... well, he can't do a darn thing to you.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    One of the rare times that someone actually states the correct position and not the "kiasu position".

    One small clarification though, "whacked for tresspass" may be a criminal offence (depending on whether the elements are made out) and not merely a "civil offence". When the police tell you its a "civil claim", what they sometimes mean (but are too ignorant to know better) is that you need to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint, aka private prosecution. This is distinguished from a civil claim, where the claim does not lie in criminal liability.

    You misunderstood the "wacked for tresspass"..
    I meant the POLICE wack you for trespass, not the security guard or house owner. Yes,the police in SG are pretty competent but sometimes they use terms that are slghtly wrong.

  11. #11
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people

    Hmm alright, well the view is the same - it is not a civil claim but private prosecution via a Magistrate's Complaint.

    I think the term "slightly wrong" is understated, there's a vast difference between a civil claim and private prosecution. The Police often use it "wrongly" (whether in the know or otherwise) to dissuade complainants from pursuing it further. When people hear "civil" they will think "wah need lawyer, need $$, better don't do liao), which is the wrong impression given by the misuse of this "slightly wrong" term.

    As for trespass, I think it is more often that it starts from private prosecution than from independent police action.

    Quote Originally Posted by chanjyj View Post
    You misunderstood the "wacked for tresspass"..
    I meant the POLICE wack you for trespass, not the security guard or house owner. Yes,the police in SG are pretty competent but sometimes they use terms that are slghtly wrong.

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
  •