Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 128

Thread: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

  1. #81

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Agree with most. Know our rights well. Take photos with good heart. Pros do it with permission, permission not granted, walk away and shoot stealth.

  2. #82
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Isn't Marina Barrage a purely public area? What "counter" does one even need to talk to?

    Pardon if it is a stupid question, but I've never been to the Barrage before :P

    I think you should not let these people get ot you, because if you do, they will have won the day. Jsut go back and do the same thing. If I have time, I don't mind going with you to handle them.


    Quote Originally Posted by happyfrog View Post
    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 After 1 came, I clarified at the info counter that it's for personal and will not be published, I get the green light to continue.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.


  3. #83
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,390

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    I get the impression that certain people in lower management levels try to convert personal opinions and ideas about security into some funny rules and ask their security guards to enforce them - without having sufficient or even minimal knowledge about the legal background. Mixed with some weird impressions about supposedly professional photography it becomes annoying in best case or really troublesome.
    Does the management wants to avoid big signs about "Security Zone" in order not to draw attention to a vulnerable or important locations? "Security by obscurity" has never worked and guards harassing people will result in focused attention on that spot.

  4. #84
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,390

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Isn't Marina Barrage a purely public area? What "counter" does one even need to talk to?
    Pardon if it is a stupid question, but I've never been to the Barrage before :P
    Have been there only once at night, might not have seen all signs. But with public transport (bus) directly to the building, a carpark just 30m next and no traces of fences or gates it would be very difficult to stand any claims of "Restricted Area".

  5. #85

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    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.

    I had a feeling this is where all the grunt started, the definition of private property is not very well understood....it's private...period.

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Isn't Marina Barrage a purely public area? What "counter" does one even need to talk to?

    Pardon if it is a stupid question, but I've never been to the Barrage before :P

    I think you should not let these people get ot you, because if you do, they will have won the day. Jsut go back and do the same thing. If I have time, I don't mind going with you to handle them.

    Marina Barage is something like Biopolis... Might be a private area with public access.. So, we wont know whether the bridge, the grass patch (where numerous photos had been taken) and the walkways belong to them or not...

  7. #87

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by hongwen37 View Post
    Marina Barage is something like Biopolis... Might be a private area with public access.. So, we wont know whether the bridge, the grass patch (where numerous photos had been taken) and the walkways belong to them or not...
    there you go, if they never say "No U turn"" just turn, if they dont allow U turn, there will be someone there to let you know. But when that happens, just accept that as the wish of the property owner.

  8. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikonnew View Post
    I had a feeling this is where all the grunt started, the definition of private property is not very well understood....it's private...period.

    Thats why we need to create a list of circumstances and someone with legal expertise to advise on these...

    Our rights when

    1) shooting IN private areas with public access eg Biopolis
    2) shooting IN private areas eg inside shopping malls
    3) shooting AT private buildings eg taking photos of shopping malls
    4) shooting in public events (without tickets) such as outdoor performances
    5) shooting at ticketed events such as NDP, S-League, concerts etc.
    6) shooting strangers on the streets (whether we need model release form)
    7) commercial shoots
    8) Posting photos of FAMOUS people online eg Facebook, Blogs
    9) Etc
    10) Etc

    Whoever have have other situations can add on?

    Vince mentioned that most of these had been answered in other threads so we just need to search for the answer... But best if we can compile a list of rights and made it sticky...

  9. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikonnew View Post
    there you go, if they never say "No U turn"" just turn, if they dont allow U turn, there will be someone there to let you know. But when that happens, just accept that as the wish of the property owner.

    Haa.. But i dont like it when the property does not belong to them.. as in those grey areas and they say "No U turn"...

    Also, most lower management or security personnel dont even know where can U Turn or not... and they are telling us as if they know.... and i dont think i have to "lan lan" follow these ignorant people...

  10. #90

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by hongwen37 View Post
    Thats why we need to create a list of circumstances and someone with legal expertise to advise on these...

    Our rights when

    1) shooting IN private areas with public access eg Biopolis
    2) shooting IN private areas eg inside shopping malls
    3) shooting AT private buildings eg taking photos of shopping malls
    4) shooting in public events (without tickets) such as outdoor performances
    5) shooting at ticketed events such as NDP, S-League, concerts etc.
    6) shooting strangers on the streets (whether we need model release form)
    7) commercial shoots
    8) Posting photos of FAMOUS people online eg Facebook, Blogs
    9) Etc
    10) Etc

    Whoever have have other situations can add on?

    Vince mentioned that most of these had been answered in other threads so we just need to search for the answer... But best if we can compile a list of rights and made it sticky...

    Just when I thought this is all about interest and hobby, but again, some people do need rules , it will probably do a lot of people good if this list is available, but I will be surprised if it does.

  11. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    998

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Apparently the organizer of any public events has all rights to the venue premises and if the no photography rule is not communicated, then it is effected at the point when they inform the public.

    Maybe using the olympus or panasonic's mini SLR-like or a prosumer PnS will attract much less attention and be able to stay below the security's radar.

  12. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikonnew View Post
    Just when I thought this is all about interest and hobby, but again, some people do need rules , it will probably do a lot of people good if this list is available, but I will be surprised if it does.

    Well, Yes.. I agree that photography is for interest and hobby... But knowing our rights does not mean we will use it to pick up an argument with the security guards or management... It is more of a "self-defence" in case some security guards want to play punk with you, at least you know what they are doing is illegal...

    For eg, if you are taking photos of ION from the sidewalk and a security guard approach you and ask to see your photos and delete them, will you obey his order? or you want to have the "Photographer's Rights" at the back of your brain to know that what he is doing is wrong? Some people might just obey and delete those beautiful photos...

    Having said that, i feel that we must alway remember to try to be polite when we encounter difficult situations, guess that still works better..

    I found these on another thread... Can someone (who knows legal aspect) verify that these are true?

    The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography

    I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though itís technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

    II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, itís fair game.

    III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs.

    IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.

    V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.

    VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion:
    - accident & fire scenes, criminal activities
    - bridges & other infrastructure, transportation facilities (i.e. airports)
    - industrial facilities, Superfund sites
    - public utilities, residential & commercial buildings
    - children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
    - UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster,

    VII. Although ďsecurityĒ is often given as the reason somebody doesnít want you to take photos, itís rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a companyís trade secrets.

    VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.)

    IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you.

    X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you donít have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.

    What To Do If Youíre Confronted

    1. Be respectful and polite. Use good judgement and donít escalate the situation.

    2. If the person becomes combative or difficult, think about calling the police.

    3. Threats, detention, and taking your camera are all grounds for legal or civil actions on your part. Be sure to get the personís name, employer, and what legal grounds they claim for their actions.

    4. If you donít want to involve the authorities, go above the personís head to their supervisor or their companyís public relations department.

    5. Call your local TV and radio stations and see if they want to do a story about your civil liberties.

    6. Put the story on the web yourself if need be.

  13. #93

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    in my opinion, the rights of photographers standing in public areas eg on the road, in a public park, on a bridge etc needs to be more clear so that when we are harassed by guards or other strangers we now how to answer. As for the rights of photographers when shooting INSIDE private property ... I think better to let this remain unclear and gray, so that sometimes we can get away with smaller lens and also PNS. Otherwise an outright ban on photography may be contagious - one mall does it, the rest follow.

  14. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    This is an useful thread.... http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showt...ecurity&page=4


    I quote this from extradot's reply in that thread.....

    Seeing the interest in this topic I decided to do some cursory research into Singapore laws concerning Photography.

    It is misleading to query whether photographers have a right to take photos because such a question seems to imply that there is a substantive legal rule that must be found as the basis for that right. But there are no such explicit rights. Singapore’s legal system is based on the British common law system. The fundamental principle is that anything that is not prohibited is permitted. For example, nobody would begrudge you the ‘right’ to take a photo of yourself in your own house.

    There are, however, several legal restrictions on the taking of photographs:

    (a) People. When you take photographs of strangers or of property belonging to strangers, it could amount to harassment. Unlike other jurisdictions such as the UK, Singapore does not have legislation regarding harassment, but the tort of harassment has been recognised in the case of Malcomson v Narseh Kumar Mehta [2001] 4 SLR 454. Having said that, it is unlikely that taking a photo would amount to harassment because the legal requirement is that there must be ‘a course of conduct that causes alarm and not a single incident’. As far as I know Singapore does not have any other privacy laws.

    (b) Private property. Owners of private property cannot stop you from taking photos of their property from public areas (unless it amounts to harassment as described above). If you are in private property such as a shopping centre, the owner of the private property can exercise control over the terms of entry. For example, many museums and concert venues impose a prohibition on photography as one of the terms of entry into the premises. If you ignore those prohibitions or enter the property without permission, you may be liable in trespass.

    Note, however, that in both instances (a) and (b) your digital images remain strictly your own property and others cannot compel you to delete your digital files or hand it over to them. If they take it by force, you have a legal course of action against them through the tort of conversion.

    (c) It is best not to venture into military bases, restricted areas of airports etc where you may fall foul of the Official Secrets Act. Section 4(1) states that “any person who within a prohibited place has any apparatus for taking or making photographs in his possession without a permit in writing in that behalf signed by the competent authority shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $200. Your camera may also be seized. See section 4(2).

    (d) You cannot take a photograph inside a court. That is why you never ever see pictures of criminals undergoing trial.

    (e) Check pornography laws (Penal Code, section 292(a)) if you are into nudes.

  15. #95

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    I - malls may have public spaces, but they are privately owned. very tricky.
    II - true, except for certain densely populated places which has a slight chance of you being labelled as a potential terrorist. e.g. photographing/ videographing an MRT station from the roadside. thanks to that terrorist last time. if you have been given this reason, better to keep your cam and walk off.
    III - true.
    IV - all governmental property is off limits to photography. even if it is an unused building. if you are able to shoot it, that's because they chose not to exercise their right to prevent you from doing so.
    v - kids swimming in a fountain - if the parents come up and voice objection, just walk off. there are child abusers who like to do this type of photography. I heard that in England photography of kids in playgrounds is banned. ATM situation ... totally agree!

  16. #96

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    well its a grey area there..

    theres no signboards or notices that say no photography/videography in mrt stations.. still they would 99% approach you if you shoot anything there.. same goes to privately owned places like esplanade and such.. even the waterfront area outside, i went filming with a more "pro looking" vid cam and they came.. while tourists wif handhelds can carry on..

    its probaby more of a mutual civial udnerstanding than criminal law.. but dont push it

  17. #97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    hongwen, what is the meaning of ‘a course of conduct that causes alarm and not a single incident’. if the conduct causes alarm then wouldn't it also be an incident?

  18. #98

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Just like drinking mineral water from a mineral water botter in a mrt station....
    and i almost got fined for that.....


    I would like to express my gratitude to stomp.com.sg for the successful pictures and complains. And resulting turning Singapore a even more fine city.

  19. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Toa Payoh
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by phazed1 View Post
    hongwen, what is the meaning of Ďa course of conduct that causes alarm and not a single incidentí. if the conduct causes alarm then wouldn't it also be an incident?
    I think in layman's terms, that "harrassment" means a number of incidents (course) that causes alarm and not just a single incident.

    Correct me if I am wrong

  20. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Discrimination towards dSLR Owners

    Quote Originally Posted by phazed1 View Post
    hongwen, what is the meaning of ‘a course of conduct that causes alarm and not a single incident’. if the conduct causes alarm then wouldn't it also be an incident?
    Quote Originally Posted by Calahan View Post
    I think in layman's terms, that "harrassment" means a number of incidents (course) that causes alarm and not just a single incident.

    Correct me if I am wrong

    I was thinking along this line too... but we need expert opinion on this.. i am in no capacity to tell you what it is when i myself am not sure... dont want to cause further confusion in this confused world...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •