“No Photography” - Does we photographers have rights too?

[synapseman]

Why is it so difficult to let go? What I mentioned is NOT easier said than done. It is definitely do-able. It just all depends on you and how you want to approach things.

It really seems that you are adamant that you're in the right, so therefore you have the right of way.

If you insist on being like so, then what's the point of us discussing about this here?

 

[conquer500]

Maybe I will use an example here also and you can explain to me my rights to these photos:

a) My wife bought a LV bag for $2000 and I took a picture of her standing next to the bag at the street. b) she stood next to the same bag in the store and I took a picture of her.

According to your knowledge about IP regarding photo rights, Is there any difference regarding my rights to the photo a) and photo b)? From my layman's understanding, I have the IP right to the photo a) but not photo b) since in the case of photo b), the shop will stop me from taking the photo. They stop me not because they are afraid of me stealing the design since I already own the product and can always view them from their website with thousands of the photos they provided there. So what are their concerns and why are they stopping people from taking photos?

I will ask you with another example:
Right after she bought the LV bag, my wife stands in front of the same bag in LV store and I take a picture of her with both bags. Now, can you tell me if I violated any IP laws? If not, why will the store not allow me to take photo in their store?

you could be a rival stealing the shop design, you as a photographer should know better, whether discreet or what, its to them stealing design of the store.

its rich people like you that spoil the image of photographer in sg, showing off your big as* camera, thats why sg have such poor image of photographer.

 

[CS TAN]

Why is it so difficult to let go? What I mentioned is NOT easier said than done. It is definitely do-able. It just all depends on you and how you want to approach things.

It really seems that you are adamant that you're in the right, so therefore you have the right of way.

If you insist on being like so, then what's the point of us discussing about this here?

Come on, I posted a discussion item asking why there are "No Photography" sign all over the shops in Singapore and seems that I get advices only in the way how I should treat the shop employees. Ok, perhaps I should have left out my bad experience which causes everyone to flame me on my attitude and the defensive replies that I have posted.

My main objective is not to complain about the attitude of the shop employees but to find out why the shops put up the sign.

My discussion with tunster is really what I am looking for and this one is surrounding the IP rights and I was trying to understand the real reason(s) why the shops does not allow people to take photos in the shop. When the company put up their product photos all over their website, why is everyone still concern about "big a$$ rich Singaporean with big DSLR camera" trying to steal their designs. I don't even have to go to the store and I have all their product photos (sometimes in 360 degree) directly from their own official website.

Can we go back to what this thread is intended for?

 

[CS TAN]

you could be a rival stealing the shop design, you as a photographer should know better, whether discreet or what, its to them stealing design of the store.

its rich people like you that spoil the image of photographer in sg, showing off your big as* camera, thats why sg have such poor image of photographer.

As I have said in my previous post, with all the brand name stores serious about their online store, you have all the photos that you need to "steal" the designs so why worry about someone taking photos in the store? Do you get my point?

BTW, the LV example is just an example. It does not mean that I am a big a$$ rich Singaporean photographer doing all what you have mentioned.

 

[night86mare]

...so in short

you were looking for a lynch mob to join you in lynching every shop employee who stops people from taking photography.

yes, i know there are dumbos who just do it for the sake of making their day. the point is, why be so uptight about it? life is better when you live it with an open mind. you are not wrong to feel irritated. you are not wrong to feel that you should have the right to take photos nonetheless. i agree with that. what i disagree with is your reaction and methodology of handling the matter, and the fact that you are giving all sorts of justification for that over-reaction which you displayed.

we apologise for not being sheep who are orchestrated to your cause and banner, oh emperor sith. i apologise especially for the fact that i am pointing this out.

why can't everyone just be nice? if you are nice to people, unless they are abnormal they will be nice too. everyone has their bad days too. live and let live. forget and forgive.

as for why people do not want you to take photos about their products even though they put it up on website, it's simple. people are control freaks that are inferior to your open-mindedness.

for example, if i am say, a very famous hk star (coughhackcough) who has many notches under his belt (literally).. i take photos of a certain object in my life which gives me great pleasure. maybe i show it to a lot of people, but you see, i would like to reserve the right that only i can take that certain object. if not will get death threats from all sorts of people, because they are unhappy with that particular object and the people i am showing it to.

ok that's not a very good example. in any case, it is their product, it is their shop, it is their property. if you owned an ice cream shop, and you felt that no one else should take photos of it except you.. would you be happy if people disobey these rules? i think the main reason why you are confused here (if you really are, instead of using logic to absolve yourself) is because there are not very clearcut laws in place with regards to protection of privacy/property rights. but why should that be your concern, are you very gian to take photos of people's things?

from what i remember, you can take photos of people's private property when you are not standing on the property, and it is in plain public sight and you do not have to resort to unorthodox means to photograph it. if you are ON their property, however, then it is a different story. but honestly, i think it is always good to avoid trouble, and respect people's wishes. sometimes all they want is to have a little authority, chat with them nicely and ask nicely again, i'm sure if you are friendly and respectful and explain your reasons something could be worked out, god knows it's worked for me a few times already.

if you ARE really interested, you can read more about something about this here. there's a downloadable pdf file thing from some attorney dude that explains what people can do and cannot do with regards to your equipment and rulings under legal system.. although it is a us source though.

on another note, i wonder what happens if got say, a group of gangsters come up to confront you taking photos of them. i bet most of the people crying foul with regards to these security guard guys, police dudes preventing them from photographing stuff.. would just put down their camera and guai guai delete their photos without even a whimper. not that i'm saying that we should reduce ourselves to a primal level of violence, but it's just sad that we have double standards when it comes to the good guys versus the bad guys.

 

[CS TAN]

...so in short

you were looking for a lynch mob to join you in lynching every shop employee who stops people from taking photography.

yes, i know there are dumbos who just do it for the sake of making their day. the point is, why be so uptight about it? life is better when you live it with an open mind. you are not wrong to feel irritated. you are not wrong to feel that you should have the right to take photos nonetheless. i agree with that. what i disagree with is your reaction and methodology of handling the matter, and the fact that you are giving all sorts of justification for that over-reaction which you displayed.

we apologise for not being sheep who are orchestrated to your cause and banner, oh emperor sith. i apologise especially for the fact that i am pointing this out.

why can't everyone just be nice? if you are nice to people, unless they are abnormal they will be nice too. everyone has their bad days too. live and let live. forget and forgive.

See what I mean people? The thread has grow into the discussion on how a photographer should treat the shop employees when they come out tell you not to take photos of their store. Can we get back to what this thread was intended which is to discuss the reason why the shop put up the sign in the first place.

 

[NoMoney]

Perhaps no photo taking is to have the real shoppers who intend to shop to be present?

Imagine having so many cameras in the shop, who dare to go in?

 

[CS TAN]

Perhaps no photo taking is to have the real shoppers who intend to shop to be present?

Imagine having so many cameras in the shop, who dare to go in?

This is a good explanation and I can accept that. But standing outside their stores and take pictures from the street? That's what I can't understand. Perhaps as night86mare has said, "people are control freaks that are inferior to open-mindedness."

 

[night86mare]

See what I mean people? The thread has grow into the discussion on how a photographer should treat the shop employees when they come out tell you not to take photos of their store. Can we get back to what this thread was intended which is to discuss the reason why the shop put up the sign in the first place.

i added on to my post, please reread it again thx

we HAVE gone back to the original discussion, i have edited the post about 8 times only to add on more material on the matter

btw, this subject has been discussed to death, which is why i would assume that you are bringing nothing new to the table that has not been raised before

 

[night86mare]

This is a good explanation and I can accept that. But standing outside their stores and take pictures from the street? That's what I can't understand. Perhaps as night86mare has said, "people are control freaks that are inferior to open-mindedness."

from my experience, there are 3 types of employees:

1) employees who are bo-chup, they don't bother doing what their employers say, or the employers bo chup in the first place. i guess we will not care about these people since they are not factored in.

2) employees who do what they are told. there will be type 2a and 2b. 2a who knows exactly what is right and what is wrong - i.e. what he is allowed to do under legal systems and rights. 2b who doesn't know anything, but just parrots what his employer has said, sometimes getting it wrong. i think these people are forgiveable.

3) employees who just go out of their way to make everybody else's life hell. not just with regards to photography. these are the nazis who will just throw every rule in the book to make sure that you feel restricted, sian, and du lan. these are the control freaks i am talking about.

to be honest, if you are not on their property, and you are sure it is not their property, you can explain very kindly and nicely to them that they do not have a right (as best as you can, and meekly so that you don't get that "holier than thou" tone in your voice.. it's hard not to really sometimes, i agree) to prevent you from taking your photographs, and that you do not wish to cause any trouble to them, and that you will just take a few snaps and leave. most people will listen, some would not, in that case ignore them, for they are ignorant and should be beneath your notice. forgive them too, since they are misinformed and misguided. they can't do anything to you anyways.

 

[CS TAN]

I realized that you have edited your post:

yes, i know there are dumbos who just do it for the sake of making their day. the point is, why be so uptight about it? life is better when you live it with an open mind. you are not wrong to feel irritated. you are not wrong to feel that you should have the right to take photos nonetheless. i agree with that. what i disagree with is your reaction and methodology of handling the matter, and the fact that you are giving all sorts of justification for that over-reaction which you displayed.

Agree, I should just walk away instead of doing silly things like that. Sometimes on hind sight it is 20/20 and during the heat of the moment, it is 2/20

why can't everyone just be nice? if you are nice to people, unless they are abnormal they will be nice too. everyone has their bad days too. live and let live. forget and forgive.

I have moved on so perhaps I should not be so defensive in trying to defend myself in the subsequent posts.

as for why people do not want you to take photos about their products even though they put it up on website, it's simple. people are control freaks that are inferior to your open-mindedness.

This is kiasu and kiasi at its best in Singapore/

in any case, it is their product, it is their shop, it is their property. if you owned an ice cream shop, and you felt that no one else should take photos of it except you.. would you be happy if people disobey these rules? i think the main reason why you are confused here (if you really are, instead of using logic to absolve yourself) is because there are not very clearcut laws in place with regards to protection of privacy/property rights. but why should that be your concern, are you very gian to take photos of people's things?

One of the objectives of this discussion is to try to bring out exactly this. We can be a bit more informed about what we can and cannot do. Of course, as some of the CSers here said, even if you are in the right, you can choose to walk away instead of confronting them. This, I can perfectly understand.

from what i remember, you can take photos of people's private property when you are not standing on the property, and it is in plain public sight and you do not have to resort to unorthodox means to photograph it. if you are ON their property, however, then it is a different story. but honestly, i think it is always good to avoid trouble, and respect people's wishes. sometimes all they want is to have a little authority, chat with them nicely and ask nicely again, i'm sure if you are friendly and respectful and explain your reasons something could be worked out, god knows it's worked for me a few times already.

Good advice.

on another note, i wonder what happens if got say, a group of gangsters come up to confront you taking photos of them. i bet most of the people crying foul with regards to these security guard guys, police dudes preventing them from photographing stuff.. would just put down their camera and guai guai delete their photos without even a whimper. not that i'm saying that we should reduce ourselves to a primal level of violence, but it's just sad that we have double standards when it comes to the good guys versus the bad guys.

What's new? Everyone has practice this double standard before. This is call survival instincts.

 

[catchlights]

See what I mean people? The thread has grow into the discussion on how a photographer should treat the shop employees when they come out tell you not to take photos of their store. Can we get back to what this thread was intended which is to discuss the reason why the shop put up the sign in the first place.

why? this is my shop. I have no right to tell my customer what I don't want them to do in my shop??

to take photos of my products or my shop without my consent is one major issue, cos I can't control what usage and the area I don't want you to see.

taking the photos from the site is another thing, those photos are safe to be stolen.

 

[CS TAN]

btw, this subject has been discussed to death, which is why i would assume that you are bringing nothing new to the table that has not been raised before

I didn't realize that since I have tried to do a search on "No Photography" before I started this thread. Perhaps I am not searching with the right keywords. That explains why people seems to be so annoyed about this post.

 

[CS TAN]

why? this is my shop. I have no right to tell my customer what I don't want them to do in my shop??

to take photos of my products or my shop without my consent is one major issue, cos I can't control what usage and the area I don't want you to see.

taking the photos from the site is another thing, those photos are safe to be stolen.

You sounds like an emperor (or dictator) to me. Of course you have all the right as an owner. You also have the right to open a shop and prohibit everyone from entering it. It just doesn't make sense, does it?

As a consumer, I also have the right not to enter a shop that does not treat their customer fairly. I also have the right not to patronize the shop.

 

[night86mare]

I didn't realize that since I have tried to do a search on "No Photography" before I started this thread. Perhaps I am not searching with the right keywords. That explains why people seems to be so annoyed about this post.

ah, i think the right keywords to search for are photographer's rights

i apologise then, if you have taken the effort

there has been a huge upcry about all these things, especially since 911.. everyone is paranoid about such things everywhere.. in the uk it is especially bad, i am afraid to point my camera at kids even, since there have been incidents whereby photographers here have been arrested for being suspected paedophiles. even though it will be clear that i am not actually a paedophile i do not think the photographs worth a trip to the police station and the potential embarassment, even if i am absolved eventually. there is also the terrorism act which allows policemen to stop photographers if they deem fit and look at their photographs (though not delete them, if i'm not wrong).. and take down their details. most cases being described here have been relatively mild, though there are nasty events, like the one raised a few days/weeks back in kopitiam where some silly policewoman made the photographer delete his photos - she didn't have a right to. least of all when she wasn't even a full policewomen, they have less legal authority than a full one.

so this is my experience. in singapore, so far i have had no trouble, but it is probably because i do not really like shooting at commercial areas or buildings. quite hard for policeman to tell me to not take photographs of rocks at punggol beach right, though i did get instructed that i was not to take any photographs of the police post at the jetty once.

 

[night86mare]

You sounds like an emperor (or dictator) to me. Of course you have all the right as an owner. You also have the right to open a shop and prohibit everyone from entering it. It just doesn't make sense, does it?

As a consumer, I also have the right not to enter a shop that does not treat their customer fairly. I also have the right not to patronize the shop.

no la, catchlights is nothing of the sort, he's just trying to show you that well,

shopowners have a right to be emperors and dictators, so long as you are on their territory. obviously this amount of power goes up to a certain extent la, but it does extend to photography for certain cases.

it does not make sense, and you are right, consumers have the right not to enter and patronise the shop. but the market will clear, will it not? the emperors and dictators will have to suffer the consequences of their behaviour.

 

[voldisinarta]

There is actually an unwritten rule that the owner of an object or a location or an original work has the full right to prevent others from taking picture of the object / premises.

For example, I have full right to disallow people to take photo inside my flat, or even the outside part of my door's flat.

Just like your right to disallow people to take pictures of your girlfriend / wife. Of course you expect that person to respect your decision not to allow him to do so.

Will it be okay if that person mention to you that as a photographer he has the right to take picture of your girlfriend?

My two cents.

 

[CS TAN]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I do think most of this security-related restrictions started with 911 in 2001. I was on an Amtrak train to Washington DC last year and the track ahead was blocked by a car accident so it stopped at a station. I was stopped from taking photos of the train and the station on the platform by a security guard. But, the guard told me to stop in a very nice tone of voice and when I asked about the reason, he can quote me the regulation as well as explains to me in layman's term what it means.

 

[CS TAN]

Ok. I am pretty new to this forum so if I offended anyone, please accept my apology. I always thought I am a nice person but I also always standup for what I think is right.

 

[CS TAN]

There is actually an unwritten rule that the owner of an object or a location or an original work has the full right to prevent others from taking picture of the object / premises.

Agree. As long as this is in private premises.

For example, I have full right to disallow people to take photo inside my flat, or even the outside part of my door's flat.

I have to disagree on this part. As far as I understand, as long as I am standing on public premises, I have the right to take photos of the outside of a flat (for example).

Just like your right to disallow people to take pictures of your girlfriend / wife. Of course you expect that person to respect your decision not to allow him to do so.

Will it be okay if that person mention to you that as a photographer he has the right to take picture of your girlfriend?

My two cents.

Morally, you are right but legally, as I have mentioned above, if I am standing in the street, there is no law preventing me from taking a photo of your wife or girlfriend. Of course, having said that, I am not going to offend people by doing that myself. But you are talking about legality, I think there is a difference on what you have mentioned.