Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 128

Thread: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

  1. #61

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    hrm, it's not that i disagree that photographers should know their rights and push for them (the rights) whenever needed..

    but the approach, and the basis should be less on the petty side, with more mutual respect. most people/guards are not doing it for no reason, they are just ignorant, there is no need to rub it in, or lord it over them just because of this ignorance.

    you can either do such things in a respectful, measured way, which leaves both parties happy, since you get what you want, and the guard's backside is covered.. or you can crow, be jubilant, flounce around and even take out pom-poms and champagne to celebrate.. i know which method i would choose.

    just my 2 cents.

  2. #62
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    My own view is that the manner I deal with the guard will reflect the manner in which he chooses to deal with me. If he is nice, courteous and friendly, he will get accorded the same treatment; I may even choose to let my rights go.

    If he is rude, loud and pushy, then I will not let up in pushing for the right to the maximum extent required. However, I will not be abusive, rude or otherwise aggressive, because in a dispute resolution forum (such as a court, the manager's office or wherever); the person who is rude always loses. Having the law on my side merely assists in making the rude person lose.

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    hrm, it's not that i disagree that photographers should know their rights and push for them (the rights) whenever needed..

    but the approach, and the basis should be less on the petty side, with more mutual respect. most people/guards are not doing it for no reason, they are just ignorant, there is no need to rub it in, or lord it over them just because of this ignorance.

    you can either do such things in a respectful, measured way, which leaves both parties happy, since you get what you want, and the guard's backside is covered.. or you can crow, be jubilant, flounce around and even take out pom-poms and champagne to celebrate.. i know which method i would choose.

    just my 2 cents.
    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    My own view is that the manner I deal with the guard will reflect the manner in which he chooses to deal with me. If he is nice, courteous and friendly, he will get accorded the same treatment; I may even choose to let my rights go.

    If he is rude, loud and pushy, then I will not let up in pushing for the right to the maximum extent required. However, I will not be abusive, rude or otherwise aggressive, because in a dispute resolution forum (such as a court, the manager's office or wherever); the person who is rude always loses. Having the law on my side merely assists in making the rude person lose.

    Yes... Security guards like us, have a job to do... and the last thing they ever want is for a person to explode in a building when they are on duty... We must put ourselves in their shoes sometimes... We must also understand the ignorance of the general public... I think more than half the population cannot differentiate between D90 and 700D,... to them, they all just look "pro"... Its best to have a win-win situation...

    I guess we as photographers need to know some of our rights too... Is there any thread (best to make it sticky) that list out some of the scenarios and the rights of us photographers? That would be very useful for us and we can then know what to do in different circumstances such as taking photos IN shopping mall, taking photos OF shopping malls, taking photos at PUBLIC Events eg NDP, concerts, etc..., taking photos of strangers and posting online, and the lists goes on... I hope those with more legal expertise (eg Vince) in CS can help and lead in this movement.. heh...

  4. #64

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by shaoken View Post
    From my knowledge as a former S.League club helper, yes, you're not allowed to take photos "of the match" using a DSLR..
    (Security were told to tell people off when they see them using "pro" cameras)

    There was once, a guy was using a DSLR, mounted with a wide-angle lens, taking photos for 2 of his friends, using the Jalan Besar stadium as the "background".
    He was also told not take photos of the match..

    I think that they know there is some "negotiations" on the pitch that they don't want people to know..
    That's why they don't allow such "pro" cameras to be there, which we may "coincidentally" take photos that may be evidence.
    Having a run-in with some overzealous personnel in the past, I have something to say.

    Someone really needs to have a word with the CC department of the S-League, especially when one needs more publicity to drum up greater crowd attendance. By relaxing photography opportunities, one increases the scope of viral marketing and publicity when fans share images with their friends and also grant the S-League much more visual exposure.

    After all, these images are not commercially viable, but rather for personal consumption, so the worry of undermining media rights' sales is unfounded. Secondly, angles in the stand are not as appropriate for commercial sports imagery, if that is their worry.

    Do note, if we cannot hit 5000 pax attendance on average by 2010, S-League clubs may fail some of the AFC standards for the AFC Champions League 2011 season and beyond, possibly relegating the League to the AFC Cup. The ball is in their court now, if they choose to stick so some "unlisted" T&C restriction of fans' photography of their players and team and risk cutting off one avenue of BTL match and league publicity.

    Football is a high SNP potential product and for the sake of the growth of our local league, please will the management have some common sense. Thank you.

  5. #65
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    I won't mind helping to provide the question and answer or content and have actually done so on many occassions in the past in response to threads started in CS, but someone else would have to do the organising of the various questions/answers into a sticky :P

    However, I think most of the various situation have been discussed before. The person doing the organising of that new thread can actually search, cut and paste, and then ask me what things which fell outside the gaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by hongwen37 View Post
    Yes... Security guards like us, have a job to do... and the last thing they ever want is for a person to explode in a building when they are on duty... We must put ourselves in their shoes sometimes... We must also understand the ignorance of the general public... I think more than half the population cannot differentiate between D90 and 700D,... to them, they all just look "pro"... Its best to have a win-win situation...

    I guess we as photographers need to know some of our rights too... Is there any thread (best to make it sticky) that list out some of the scenarios and the rights of us photographers? That would be very useful for us and we can then know what to do in different circumstances such as taking photos IN shopping mall, taking photos OF shopping malls, taking photos at PUBLIC Events eg NDP, concerts, etc..., taking photos of strangers and posting online, and the lists goes on... I hope those with more legal expertise (eg Vince) in CS can help and lead in this movement.. heh...

  6. #66

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by castwind View Post
    Just to share some of my own experience, I was walking in Biopolis and taking photo with my D300 and 80-200. Was stopped by the guard, and he told me that I cannot take photos within Biopolis. Not even on the road. Was damn pissed off. So I kept my cam and walked towards my friend. That guy continued to monitor me as I walked back. I was even more pissed off now. So I pretended to talk to my friend for a minute, pointed towards the direction of the guard, talk a bit more and then ran back towards him....

    I told him nicely that my friend is a lawyer and I asked him whether taking photographs within Biopolis is allowed and he said yes. The guard insisted no. So I asked him for his management number and called them on the spot using the phone there. I asked who was I talking to, remembered his name and questioned why they never put up "No photography" sign within Biopolis. They said I needed a media pass. WTF, so I asked" Is it ok that I write to Straits Times to clarify whether Mr XXXX is correct is saying that I cannot take photos within ST". Straight away, he told me to wait while he asked his management for approval.

    I walked off, still pissed and thinking how to write the letter to Straits Time, and even before the first 3 lines were formed. The guy told me that I can have the media pass and can take photos whenever I want. Yes! 1-0.
    I believe Biopolis, or ST or any shopping centres are all private properties, whether media pass or not, the general idea is that you need permission. Would you let any Tom, Dick or Harry to walk into your house and snap away?

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Australia->Japan
    Posts
    598

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    My own view is that the manner I deal with the guard will reflect the manner in which he chooses to deal with me. If he is nice, courteous and friendly, he will get accorded the same treatment; I may even choose to let my rights go.
    Should be the other way around. He's doing his job to make sure you do the right thing.

    If he is rude, loud and pushy, then I will not let up in pushing for the right to the maximum extent required. However, I will not be abusive, rude or otherwise aggressive, because in a dispute resolution forum (such as a court, the manager's office or wherever); the person who is rude always loses. Having the law on my side merely assists in making the rude person lose.
    That's a terrible attitude.
    Enlighten me...
    [Uluru]

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    10,596

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by liarliar View Post
    Hi just to communicate a little about photos for commercial use. Any buyers who are going to use it for business or commercial knows better photos with faces of people even if its general public they have to obtain signed model release without the risk of these people coming to them demanding for why their photos are published commercially without their permission. Only faces of famous people, politician, celebrities and so on may be allowed to be used for editorial purposes.
    If you are doing a posed shoot, then talent releases are a necessity. Otherwise, if you are in public, it's fair game. If you take a photo of someone in public, on what basis can they bring you to court for? Defamation? C'mon.

    CNA doesn't go on orchard road to take timelapse footage of the general public, then ask for talent releases from every single one of them, whether their face is in focus or not.

  9. #69

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikonnew View Post
    I believe Biopolis, or ST or any shopping centres are all private properties, whether media pass or not, the general idea is that you need permission. Would you let any Tom, Dick or Harry to walk into your house and snap away?
    The key here is where the perimeter of the private property ends, and public property begins.

  10. #70

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    i think, whatever the behaviour of security personnel, just being nice and firm is good enough.

    2 wrongs don't make a right. and sometimes, even if people are rude, if you show them a basic level of respect (whether they deserve it or not) , their attitude might change. and that's the way things should be.

    it is not just about having the law on your side. we talk about law, rights, but these are just listings, at the end of the day, there is also a human factor involved. that's really my point actually, and well, there are also bigger issues like how the photographers' community is represented.

    would you like to be known as part of a community that is polite, or one that just reads up on laws and rules just to make sure that they can get what they want, however they want it, in an ugly manner (i.e. jeering tone, condescending tone)?

    anyhow, i've said what i wanted to say. just hoping to remind everyone that yes, law is on one's side sometimes, sometimes people are ignorant too, doesn't mean that you suddenly gain the right and power to put others down.

  11. #71

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    unbeliveable! no photography at soccer match?!

    I'm really keen to know why man... even world cup games people even take video

  12. #72
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    The question is whether his view of "the right thing" is supported by law or otherwise.

    Actually, its cannot be the other way around because in such situations, what always happens is the guard will first approach you, not I approach the guard. Hence, if he comes with his arms flaiing and barks at me as if I'm a dog, I will then exercise my rights fully.

    Note that by exercising by rights, I am still maintaining courtesy and decorum and am merely exercising firmly and politely what is legally correct. I'm uncertain why you say that is a "terrible attitude". Even if a guard is abusive and barking towards me, I will not retailiate with the same abuse. If that is called "terrible attitude" in your view, I guess you must be those who will listen to the guard's every direction; whether correct or incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MRSAMO View Post
    Should be the other way around. He's doing his job to make sure you do the right thing.

    That's a terrible attitude.

  13. #73
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Which is why I have maintained and recommend that whatever the behaviour of the guard, my attitude remains hte same; polite and firm.

    If they are rude, I will then push for my rights, in the same polite and firm manner.

    If they are nice, I may then not exercise my right (ie I give up my right because he's so nice anyway) to make his job easier and just agree to do what he says.

    You are correct to say that knowing the law and executing that knowledge are two different things altogether.

    And at no time am I condoning behaviour of uglying/abusing/jeering/etc in enforcement of one's right. When you are the polite guy, WITH the law on your side, you will come out whiter than white in a dispute resolution forum (police, court, manager's office, upper management's review etc)


    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i think, whatever the behaviour of security personnel, just being nice and firm is good enough.

    2 wrongs don't make a right. and sometimes, even if people are rude, if you show them a basic level of respect (whether they deserve it or not) , their attitude might change. and that's the way things should be.

    it is not just about having the law on your side. we talk about law, rights, but these are just listings, at the end of the day, there is also a human factor involved. that's really my point actually, and well, there are also bigger issues like how the photographers' community is represented.

    would you like to be known as part of a community that is polite, or one that just reads up on laws and rules just to make sure that they can get what they want, however they want it, in an ugly manner (i.e. jeering tone, condescending tone)?

    anyhow, i've said what i wanted to say. just hoping to remind everyone that yes, law is on one's side sometimes, sometimes people are ignorant too, doesn't mean that you suddenly gain the right and power to put others down.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by tunge View Post
    unbeliveable! no photography at soccer match?!

    I'm really keen to know why man... even world cup games people even take video
    Not no photography, just some instances.

  15. #75

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by Octarine View Post
    Cover the brand label with a sticker "Non-Pro"
    wah...i like this.

    how about covering the original brand and put one something like "Ah ben's brand" :P

  16. #76

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    den wad abt the liverpool match, so many professional cameras there. haha... bet they will be tiring themselves out as there are so many ppl compared to s-league.
    500D, 50mm F1.8II

  17. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,129

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    _____________n
    How about Can on
    _____________^

    Quote Originally Posted by Gizmore View Post
    wah...i like this.

    how about covering the original brand and put one something like "Ah ben's brand" :P

  18. #78

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikonnew View Post
    I believe Biopolis, or ST or any shopping centres are all private properties, whether media pass or not, the general idea is that you need permission. Would you let any Tom, Dick or Harry to walk into your house and snap away?
    The issue is not whether the property is private, but whether its a public AREA. A private property can be a public area.

  19. #79
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    The correct definition is "private property with public access". The owners can still evict you or deny you the access. However, I'm not sure if the roads on Biopiolis are such "private property". Hence, you are wrong to suggest that such places are free for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by peanutbutterjam View Post
    The issue is not whether the property is private, but whether its a public AREA. A private property can be a public area.

  20. #80

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Same.... i was shooting at Marina Barrage sometime back, shooting models to be precise with flash/lightstands and all on a TFCD. And I was shooed by 1 security guard after another - demanding letter. After 1 came, I clarified at the info counter that it's for personal and will not be published, I get the green light to continue. Then another came, and I had to go back to the counter to clarify again!

    I just tell them.. it is for personal... they look at my lights and camera.. and say "all these stuff here dont look personal. only commercial photographers have all these." i tell them, i am just like all the other photographers here, only with a bit more equipment. and i got pissed off already, and i say, "what you think i cant afford to buy equipment is it? or are non-commercial photographers not allowed to buy more equipment?" He went silent

    And then the security hang around the shoot and followed me wherever I go, and my model felt uncomfortable. I told her not to bother, and lets carry on the shoot.

    I see there're people taking wedding photos for brides and grooms too. Those are the real commercial photographers = photographers who earn money taking photos. The security never bothered them at all.

    And i don't see them with any letter of approval, they just walk from car park and start shooting. Nothing happened at all!

    Also, there're many ppl with dSLRs around the area. It is okay to shoot scenery, birds, boats and brides! But not models!

    I hope the management can resolve such unprofessional behavior.

    If they are paranoid of people taking pictures for fear terrorist may bomb the area, then they can reprimand that guy. But anyone with a tiny point and shoot can do that. Might as well just ban photography altogether. That, I will understand given how kiasi people can be.

    After that incident... I don't think I wanna go back there to shoot at all.

    Last edited by happyfrog; 7th August 2009 at 11:21 AM.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •