Regarding no photographs please rules

[cabbySHE]

there was one NMP who like to shoot nude of himself.

and once I was offered an assignment to shoot the exterior of the US Embassy... my reply, first you get the black and white clearance from the embassy before I quote anything.

( actually I'd like to say...you want to get me into trouble....cos the offer comes after 911 )

one info...all those hi-end resident who are directly opposite the Israel embassy at Dalvey road are being instructed NOT to point any image recording device ( camera. viewcam, handphone etc ) at the direction of the embassy.

 

[Sivakis]

Correct cabbySHE, shooting of embassy exteriors are a very big no-no. It doesn't matter if you are shooting it from across the road at a public bus-stop, or from the comfort of your own home etc.

Shooting of shopping centres, office buildings etc.. well, the security can actually stop you from doing so if they want to. And if you want to use these pictures, you would need written consent from the buliding management before doing so.

Public areas like Botanic Gardens or public shows / exhibits like Zoo/Bird Park - these pics you can use.

Pics of people - you would need a release form from the person/people before using it.

Most importantly, shoot responsibly.

 

[vince123123]

In the Singapore context, are you sure about this?

Pics of people - you would need a release form from the person/people before using it.

 

[zac08]

In the Singapore context, are you sure about this?

If that's the case... I'd be in big trouble over all the street pics I've taken over these years... :bsmilie::sweat:

 

[Edwin Francis]

Shooting of shopping centres, office buildings etc.. well, the security can actually stop you from doing so if they want to. And if you want to use these pictures, you would need written consent from the buliding management before doing so.

Do you mean IN shopping centres etc? Cause your sentence implies that I can't take a photo of the exterior of a commercial building, even if I'm shooting from public land, and I seriously doubt that to be true.
Except for the case of identifiable trademarked logos etc in a photo used for commercial purposes, in which case building mgmt permission wouldn't be enough anyway.

 

[+evenstar]

Shooting of shopping centres, office buildings etc.. well, the security can actually stop you from doing so if they want to. And if you want to use these pictures, you would need written consent from the buliding management before doing so.

Pics of people - you would need a release form from the person/people before using it.

these two lines are so wrong.

 

[Octarine]

Shooting of shopping centres, office buildings etc.. well, the security can actually stop you from doing so if they want to. And if you want to use these pictures, you would need written consent from the buliding management before doing so.
[...]
Pics of people - you would need a release form from the person/people before using it.
Most importantly, shoot responsibly.

Responsible also means: equipped with knowledge in the first place. From that angle please verify your claims again. Just do a search for 'model release' here in forum and you'll get the correct answers in context of Singapore law. Same goes for shooting in / around shopping malls and other buildings.

 

[Leong23]

Pics of people - you would need a release form from the person/people before using it.

Most importantly, shoot responsibly.

You mean ppls like Steven McCurry also ask that Afghan Girl to sign a release form.....?

 

[Yoricko]

You mean ppls like Steven McCurry also ask that Afghan Girl to sign a release form.....?

Best :thumbsup:

 

[vince123123]

My point exactly.

If that's the case... I'd be in big trouble over all the street pics I've taken over these years... :bsmilie::sweat:

 

[vince123123]

Taking of a photograph of a trade-mark does not infringe trade mark rights in the mark.

Do you mean IN shopping centres etc? Cause your sentence implies that I can't take a photo of the exterior of a commercial building, even if I'm shooting from public land, and I seriously doubt that to be true.
Except for the case of identifiable trademarked logos etc in a photo used for commercial purposes, in which case building mgmt permission wouldn't be enough anyway.

 

[Sivakis]

Apologies if what I wrote came out wrong. I was referring to the model's release form needed before using pics of the said model. Sorry for the confusion - guess I didn't write it properly to express myself properly.

I admit that what I wrote was simply based on what I "felt" was the norm and I haven't done any proper research into the matter - so... classic case of shooting my mouth off before it went through my brain... sorry guys

 

[vince123123]

Yup, and under Singapore law, a cause of action founded on a lack of a model release is a really doubtful one indeed.

Apologies if what I wrote came out wrong. I was referring to the model's release form needed before using pics of the said model. Sorry for the confusion - guess I didn't write it properly to express myself properly.

I admit that what I wrote was simply based on what I "felt" was the norm and I haven't done any proper research into the matter - so... classic case of shooting my mouth off before it went through my brain... sorry guys

 

[RichardSeah]

I once read about the difference between Singapore and the US: In the US, terrorists bomb buildings. In Singapore, terrorists take photographs of buildings.

Regarding taking photos at MRT stations, SMRT ever replied in the newspapers saying it is NOT ALLOWED FOR SECURITY REASONS.

Yeah, for security reasons, gahmen has excuse to impose all sorts of rules.

 

[CYRN]

Regarding taking photos at MRT stations, SMRT ever replied in the newspapers saying it is NOT ALLOWED FOR SECURITY REASONS.

Yeah, for security reasons, gahmen has excuse to impose all sorts of rules.

IIRC after the Yishun incident, there was a gazette regarding classifying MRT stations, Airports..etc as some sort of protected infrastructures, thus no photography of it is allowed. :think:

But then again, it might be painting too broad a stroke.... :sweat:

 

[vince123123]

Erm, SMRT is a private organisation that has no power to make laws

They are not even the Parliament, much less the Government.

SMRT saying in the newspapers that you cannot take photos of their stations is the same as SBS Transit saying in the newspapers that their Bus Drivers have a right to confiscate your EZ Link card.

I once read about the difference between Singapore and the US: In the US, terrorists bomb buildings. In Singapore, terrorists take photographs of buildings.

Regarding taking photos at MRT stations, SMRT ever replied in the newspapers saying it is NOT ALLOWED FOR SECURITY REASONS.

Yeah, for security reasons, gahmen has excuse to impose all sorts of rules.

 

[vince123123]

Have not checked on whether they are indeed gazetted, but the last I checked, the Protected Places Act only expressly prohibits photography IN a protected place, not OF a protected place.

Maybe if there has been a change, someone can share some references with us so we can learn together.

IIRC after the Yishun incident, there was a gazette regarding classifying MRT stations, Airports..etc as some sort of protected infrastructures, thus no photography of it is allowed. :think:

But then again, it might be painting too broad a stroke.... :sweat:

 

[CYRN]

Have not checked on whether they are indeed gazetted, but the last I checked, the Protected Places Act only expressly prohibits photography IN a protected place, not OF a protected place.

Maybe if there has been a change, someone can share some references with us so we can learn together.

I got no reference... but IIRC is "of" the place... ie similarly you cannot photo a camp even if you are outside (but there are some differences in the terms they used I can't remember liao).... then again... camp I understand, but how to enforce for public places? :think::sweat:

I tried the Woodland checkpoint before and was requested politely to not take pics by a Mata.

 

[vince123123]

Army camps fall under the same provisions of Protected Place I believe. Not sure if there's a special distinction for them.

Most Singaporeans are quite "guai guai" one (as told to me by a Hong Konger) and hence, once a person of supposed authority e.g. mata, tell them something, most will not want to challenge the mata.

Look at all those cases where the mata tells them that XYZ is a "civil claim" when it is clearly a criminal offence; or where mata tells them "non-seizable so we can't do anything, kthxbai" when they should be telling the public "this offence is non-seizable under the law, and law prescribes you need to make a magistrate's complaint before we can investigate; this is beyond our powers under law".

Or cases where security guard tell you you cannot shoot; or SBS telling you they can confiscate your card, or the like. All of these "requests" are made by people of authority and hence, even though they may be on legally shaky ground, most guai Singaporeans still follow.

I got no reference... but IIRC is "of" the place... ie similarly you cannot photo a camp even if you are outside (but there are some differences in the terms they used I can't remember liao).... then again... camp I understand, but how to enforce for public places? :think::sweat:

I tried the Woodland checkpoint before and was requested politely to not take pics by a Mata.

 

[CYRN]

Army camps fall under the same provisions of Protected Place I believe. Not sure if there's a special distinction for them.

Most Singaporeans are quite "guai guai" one (as told to me by a Hong Konger) and hence, once a person of supposed authority e.g. mata, tell them something, most will not want to challenge the mata.

IIRC, there is a slight difference, like "protected area" and "prohibited area" or something to that extent... Not sure of the exact provisions, only understand it to prevent people from taking photos OF the place to facilitate tactical decision.