Do we have something like this for Singapore? I mean the bill of rights. If so, having one like this would be great!
Do we have something like this for Singapore? I mean the bill of rights. If so, having one like this would be great!
We once encountered a press photographer. He came into the company compound and started to shoot.(An incident happened in the company).
We politely told him to leave but he insisted. He left when the police arrived. Before he left, we told him that whatever he wanted to publish the pic taken within the compound, he had to get clearance. Otherwise we might take legal action.
The next moment we saw him taking outside the fencing of the company. My bosses told us to chase him away. But we told them he had every right as he was standing on public land...
He did not use the pic taken within the compound.
Know your right!
I never quite got to the point of clarifying... where does "private" property start and end, especially the area outside a building surrounding it. Not only photography but I am actually a bit @#$% at those shops which block entire walkway preventing pedestrians from walking through, by setting up tables and chairs tightly packed together for their restaurants. Then we're like forced to go onto the road to walk...
I'm wondering who can I call to get clarification. Read through the thread and the most commonly called group is Tourism Board. Any other government body who will be able to advise?
Even as many Singaporeans and businesses come to grips with the aftermath of Saturday morning’s flash floods, another story is raising eyebrows online.
Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao reports that one of its photographers was arrested and detained by police for one hour for taking photos of Saturday morning’s flood.
In its Saturday evening edition, the local newspaper put a photo of its photographer, with visible handcuff marks still on his wrist, and that of a policeman side by side on its front page, under a headline that said, “Photographer arrested because of taking photos”.
In a Page 5 report, the newspaper detailed how its photographer, Mr Wu Qing Shun, was detained by police for one hour before being allowed to leave.
His detention at about 7am on Saturday took place after a policeman saw him taking photos of snarling traffic and stranded vehicles along Upper Bukit Timah Road, one of the areas badly hit by Saturday morning’s floods.
After being spotted by an unidentified on-duty policeman who was mobilised to deal with the traffic situation, Mr Wu was asked to leave the scene.
However, he pleaded with the policeman to be allowed to take one more photograph.
Before he could finish talking, the policeman took out his handcuffs and placed them on his right hand. He was also told he would be brought down to a police station.
The photographer then asked, “I am not a criminal. Why are you handcuffing me?”
The policeman then brought him to the roadside and told him to wait for an investigator.
Mr Wu was only released after an hour.
Wanbao also included a police statement which said the photographer was detained for safety reasons because the policeman in question thought Mr Wu was in danger and would hurt himself while taking photos.
It was only after flood waters had subsided did he let the photographer go.
The news has sparked outrage online as many questioned why the police detained the photographer for essentially doing what was his job.
Twitter user and renowned blogger @mrbrown asked, “Was the flood in a sex scandal?”
Another @scarletscandals added, “I shall be in fear everytime I twitpic.” Twitpic refers to the process of taking a photo and posting it on Twitter.
2 korean women approached me asking if i was taking pic of one of their 'sis'.
apparently they were doing some preaching stuff to the young strangers there as i was
told later and they didnt want to be photographed. well, i was not photograhing them
anyway, i was taking a shot of the building as a whole.
she asked if i could show her my camera to check if her 'sis' image is captured. i say NO.
i said this is my property and i hv my right to take anything i want in PUBLIC. she insists
to check and she even asks me to delete the pic of her 'sis'. I say NO, i challenged her
to call the police and if the police wants me to delete, i will do that. she walks away.
we can shoot all we want in PUBLIC. no one can stop us. have you read a posting from me
that a traffic policeman threatening me for a summon if i dont delete a traffic accident scene
pic from my camera? NO, i wouldn't even give a damn to him. he had no right!
Sidewalks, as long as they are not owned by companies or individuals, they are 'Public'. Malls etc are private property opened to the public.
I've forgotten much of the law I've studied, but I'm fairly sure that I'm not wrong here.
Seizure of films of law enforcement activities
38. —(1) Any police officer of or above the rank of sergeant, or any CPIB officer, narcotics officer, intelligence officer or immigration officer, if satisfied upon information and after such further inquiry as he thinks necessary, that any person —
(a) is making, has made or is about to make;
(b) is exhibiting or communicating or is about to exhibit or communicate; or
(c) has in his possession,
any film or picture containing a record of any law enforcement activities, and he reasonably believes that the film or picture, if exhibited or communicated (whether to the public or any section thereof or otherwise) —
(i) prejudices the effective conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation, or any intelligence operation; or
(ii) endangers or will endanger the safety of any law enforcement officer in an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation, or any intelligence operation,
he may exercise any of the powers specified in subsection (2).
(2) A police officer of or above the rank of sergeant, a CPIB officer, a narcotics officer, an intelligence officer or an immigration officer may —
(a) direct the person reasonably believed to be making, exhibiting or communicating a film or picture or about to do so to immediately cease making, exhibiting or communicating the film, and either to immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy the film or picture or to surrender the film or picture to the police officer, CPIB officer, narcotics officer, intelligence officer or immigration officer, as the case may be;
(b) without warrant, search any person whom he has reason to believe is in possession of a film or picture referred to in subsection (1);
(c) without warrant, and with such assistance and by such force as is necessary, by night or by day, enter and search any place where he has reason to believe any film or picture referred to in subsection (1) is kept; or
(d) without warrant, and with such assistance and by such force as is necessary, seize any film or picture referred to in subsection (1) and any copy thereof, and any equipment (including a handphone) used or about to be used in the making, exhibition or communication of the film or picture,
and take into custody any person reasonably believed to be in possession thereof.
(3) Any film, picture and any equipment (including a handphone) used in the making, exhibition or communication of the film or picture may be forfeited and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Commissioner may direct.
(4) Where a person to whom a direction under subsection (2)(a) is given fails to comply with the direction, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.
(5) In this section —
"cinematograph film" means the aggregate of visual images embodied in an article or a thing so as to be capable by the use of that article or thing —
(a) of being shown as a moving picture; or
(b) of being embodied in another article or thing by the use of which it can be so shown,
and includes the aggregate of the sounds embodied in a sound-track associated with such visual images;
"communicate" means to transmit by electronic means (whether over a path, or a combination of paths, provided by a material substance or by wireless means or otherwise) a film or picture, whether or not it is sent in response to a request, and includes —
(a) the broadcasting of the film or picture;
(b) the inclusion of the film or picture in a cable programme; and
(c) the making available of a film or picture on a network or otherwise in such a way that the film or picture may be accessed by any person from a place and at a time chosen by him,
and “communicating” and “communication” shall be construed accordingly;
"CPIB officer" has the same meaning as in the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap. 241);
"film" means —
(a) any cinematograph film;
(b) any video recording, or any disc or solid state recording device containing information by the use of which one or more series of visual images may be produced electronically and shown as a moving picture; or
(c) any other material, record or thing on which is recorded or stored for immediate or future retrieval any information that, by the use of any computer or electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or displayed as wholly or partly visual moving pictures,
and includes any part of a film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film;
"immigration officer" means an immigration officer appointed under section 3 of the Immigration Act (Cap. 133);
"intelligence officer" means a public officer appointed to such Scheme of Service as the Minister designates;
"law enforcement" means —
(a) activities carried on by any police officer, CPIB officer, narcotics officer, intelligence officer or immigration officer in the exercise of any function, power or duty of such an officer in accordance with law;
(b) activities carried on by any police officer, CPIB officer, narcotics officer, intelligence officer or immigration officer for the purpose of dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or public disorder; or
(c) activities carried on by any police officer, CPIB officer, narcotics officer, intelligence officer or immigration officer, as the case may be, in preparation for or directly in support of any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
"narcotics officer" means a public officer appointed to the Narcotics Service;
"picture" includes —
(a) any drawing, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise; and
(b) any photograph, photographic negative, photographic plate or photographic slide,
and includes any part of a picture;
"photograph" means a product of photography or of a process similar to photography, other than an article or thing in which visual images forming part of a cinematograph film have been embodied, and includes a product of xerography, photocopy, and record an image, whether digitally or in another way.
i've read your previous posting many many times and i dont seem to find the word
"I'm referring to private-public property like malls". if the word "private-public property" was not mentioned in your posting, how could you expect me NOT to think
you were meant public-public property?
polish it if is getting too rusty.
..there is another unwritten rule, Ang Moh can shoot any where, but try shooting them....there was this Italian accented guy who happened to pass by as I was shooting somthing along the road opposite Tekka Market, he came at me agressive insisting that I delete the picture, after deleteing the picture that he happened to be in as I did not like the picture anyway, he wanted me to delete the rest of the pictures on my CF.....I told hime to take a walk, he stopped me from leaving, so I said, let's go and ask the police, he agreed, and kept gesturing rudely at me as he talked loudly, I asked him to remember that he is not in his own country and decided not to waste anymore time and walked away....he yelled that I am a funny fellow and must have something to hide...if I only knew the police station was just around the corner I would have went ahead with him to see what the police would say.....
I was once shooting an Engagement shoot for a couple at Arab Street.
We passed by this rather chic cafe and the brideToBe was saying she wanna shoot inside the cafe. So we nicely went asked for permission (was intending to eat in the cafe as well)
The auntie (we assume is the ladyboss) very nicely tried to welcome us in.
Bride to be : Can we shoot a few picture inside your cafe? its lovely.
Auntie (eyeing us up and down) : Are you tourist?
Bride to be (rather taken back) : erm no
Auntie : Sorry. No photography
Seriously thats Crap to me. Why are locals not allowed to shoot but TOURIST can?
A tourist will only be here for days.. and really, when that tourist return do you think he will return to the cafe??
its us local who will and might boast your biz. Don't understand why cant she see this point. So she turned us away. fine.