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

[shadouphotography]

Great post CS Tan. In my opinion, you were well within your rights to stand on public property (the beach) and take pictures of some statues that one, belonged to another stall and two, had nothing to do with the ice cream place. For a staff member to come yelling and screaming or even telling you to stop taking photographs is just plain wrong. It's not like you were standing in front of the display counter taking macro shots of the ice cream displays. Sure, for something like that, maybe you would have to get permission from the owner before proceeding but standing on the beach shooting statues? I would have done exactly what you did and ignore him. If one person rude and yelling, why you have to be nice back?

Afterall, at the end of the day, no matter what the customer is always right! In this case you weren't a customer but that doesn't give someone else the right to come out and tell you to stop. You could have said let me speak to your manager and that would have probably solved the issue.

 

[CS TAN]

Afterall, at the end of the day, no matter what the customer is always right! In this case you weren't a customer but that doesn't give someone else the right to come out and tell you to stop. You could have said let me speak to your manager and that would have probably solved the issue.

Actually, I have been patronizing this shop frequently as I go to Sentosa at least once a week. The stall is manned by one person, he is the manager, stock taker, service staff as well as cleaner. :bsmilie:

 

[tunster]

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?

Since it is such a simple example, I will give you straight forward answer:

1. If you are using it for profits, yes you are violating their IP rights.
2. They can definitely stop you from taking picture of the shoproom (it's the IP right of the display designer, not the product itself). Just like you can stop anyone from entering your house. However, it's whether they want to do it or will they not.

 

[waileong]

I would suggest you check the sticky about copyrights and IP rights before making such answers.

Since it is such a simple example, I will give you straight forward answer:

1. If you are using it for profits, yes you are violating their IP rights.
2. They can definitely stop you from taking picture of the shoproom (it's the IP right of the display designer, not the product itself). Just like you can stop anyone from entering your house. However, it's whether they want to do it or will they not.

 

[CS TAN]

Since it is such a simple example, I will give you straight forward answer:

1. If you are using it for profits, yes you are violating their IP rights.
2. They can definitely stop you from taking picture of the shoproom (it's the IP right of the display designer, not the product itself). Just like you can stop anyone from entering your house. However, it's whether they want to do it or will they not.

Thanks for the clarifications. I can understand what the real concerns the store has with the displays' IP right.

I think the rights within the store is quite clear. The grey area is when someone shooting from the street at the display windows, does the shop has legal rights to ask the person to stop?

 

[nonchann]

Thanks for the clarifications. I can understand what the real concerns the store has with the displays' IP right.

I think the rights within the store is quite clear. The grey area is when someone shooting from the street at the display windows, does the shop has legal rights to ask the person to stop?

Well, I am not sure if they can legally stop you. It really depends, If the sign say " No Photography on Premises.", technically, being across the street should be fine. but if the sign states" No Photography of store and products", maybe it might lead to a different outcome?

I guess if the store-owners or workers feel uncomfortable because of the photographer's action, he/she may have the right to protest, even though you are not in the store. It's just a reaction to one's action.

 

[CS TAN]

These points are just for discussion so people have the basic knowledge on what is their rights. I am not advocating that we should always insist on our rights. Sometime we have to give and take a little as well. Anyway, taking photos is just my hobby. I have more serious things to worry about than to get aggravation instead of pleasure out of it.

 

[catchlights]

I though this is another "die die also must take" thread. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[madmacs]

Thanks for the clarifications. I can understand what the real concerns the store has with the displays' IP right.

I think the rights within the store is quite clear. The grey area is when someone shooting from the street at the display windows, does the shop has legal rights to ask the person to stop?

i doubt they can stop you, unless of course the shop is within a mall and the mall has "no photography signs".

if standalone stall like on sentosa then go ahead and shoot lah.

 

[tunster]

Thanks for the clarifications. I can understand what the real concerns the store has with the displays' IP right.

I think the rights within the store is quite clear. The grey area is when someone shooting from the street at the display windows, does the shop has legal rights to ask the person to stop?

You should be safe to shoot something else. Afterall he doesn't have the proof of you shooting at him nor his store. But the next move you did which you shoot back at his store is a big no ethically.

 

[CS TAN]

You should be safe to shoot something else. Afterall he doesn't have the proof of you shooting at him nor his store. But the next move you did which you shoot back at his store is a big no ethically.

I noticed you are from Hong Kong. Do you face similar problem there? With more shops (and i presume photographers) there, are people (shop owners/IP rights owners) there as paranoid as they are in Singapore?

 

[2.8photography]

i have experienced something similar before, abt july last yr. i was walking around a 'market' near some HDB blocks (cant remember the number), taking pics of some of the shops. it was fine for most of the time, but then when i decided to take some pics of a fabrics shop, the shop owner came out and asked me why i hadnt gotten his permission 1st. by then i had taken a few shots already. it was the kind of shop which displayed all its item outside of the actual store itself, and i was taking pics of the cloth there. since synapseman says that we are actually allowed to take pics of stuff we see from public places (it was the HDB block walkway), i shld have been allowed to do so. also, there wasnt a 'no photography' sign at all. fortunately, another customer came by and asked the owner some questions abt his fabrics, then i decided to walk away since i had gotten the shots i wanted

is it possible that such ppl can restrict photographers from taking pics at their shops where items are displayed (legally in) public places:dunno:

 

[CS TAN]

i have experienced something similar before, abt july last yr. i was walking around a 'market' near some HDB blocks (cant remember the number), taking pics of some of the shops. it was fine for most of the time, but then when i decided to take some pics of a fabrics shop, the shop owner came out and asked me why i hadnt gotten his permission 1st. by then i had taken a few shots already. it was the kind of shop which displayed all its item outside of the actual store itself, and i was taking pics of the cloth there. since synapseman says that we are actually allowed to take pics of stuff we see from public places (it was the HDB block walkway), i shld have been allowed to do so. also, there wasnt a 'no photography' sign at all. fortunately, another customer came by and asked the owner some questions abt his fabrics, then i decided to walk away since i had gotten the shots i wanted

is it possible that such ppl can restrict photographers from taking pics at their shops where items are displayed (legally in) public places:dunno:

This is the kind of discussion I would like to bring out with this thread. Most of the time, people (both shop owners and photographers) are ignorant of what their legal rights are and this will create conflicts at times. If you think you have the right to shoot from the street and the shop owner feel that you cannot, then unless you walk away, there will bound to be an argument.

From my own understanding, if you take photographs of a private premise from outside (public premise), it is perfectly legal. I recalled there was an argument among two of my neighbor regarding illegal parking in front of their house (very common in Singapore). One of them start taking video of his neighbor who was hurling abuse at him from his house. The other neighbor called the police and complaint about being videoed by his neighbor. At the end, if I remember correctly, the police just inform the one who make the complaint that he has no case against the other. Perhaps someone with legal background can comment on this (I am definitely not going to hold this against you).

 

[sillyme]

As a hobbyist, I won't take any photos that will cause discomfort to the subject (if subject is an object, then the person who owns the subject).

I think my character compels me to think of my responsibilities (what I should do) rather to think of my rights (what I can do).

Yeah, most things are not "die die must take" for me ;p

 

[tunster]

Well there are similar cases everywhere. Hong Kong is no exception. To summarize, legal actions can only be taken if there's proof of lost in reputation, money or business.

Normally people will stop you from taking picture. They have their right to do so. You can opt to follow, or you can simply walk away and ignore. Since there's still no sign of lost in anything.

Photographers always have the rights on the photograph they produce. However, if the subject is so obvious that it focuses on someone's work (like poster design or layouts) and losts are proven. The producers can legally ask for compensation. Well, you could say there are grey area on general street shots yes. Provided the subject is obviously street in nature then it should be ok.

 

[CS TAN]

As a hobbyist, I won't take any photos that will cause discomfort to the subject (if subject is an object, then the person who owns the subject).

I think my character compels me to think of my responsibilities (what I should do) rather to think of my rights (what I can do).

Yeah, most things are not "die die must take" for me ;p

Very well said. I am also no paparazzi, so perhaps I should learn from you and be a bit less confrontational even if I know I have the rights.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[2.8photography]

This is the kind of discussion I would like to bring out with this thread. Most of the time, people (both shop owners and photographers) are ignorant of what their legal rights are and this will create conflicts at times. If you think you have the right to shoot from the street and the shop owner feel that you cannot, then unless you walk away, there will bound to be an argument.

From my own understanding, if you take photographs of a private premise from outside (public premise), it is perfectly legal. I recalled there was an argument among two of my neighbor regarding illegal parking in front of their house (very common in Singapore). One of them start taking video of his neighbor who was hurling abuse at him from his house. The other neighbor called the police and complaint about being videoed by his neighbor. At the end, if I remember correctly, the police just inform the one who make the complaint that he has no case against the other. Perhaps someone with legal background can comment on this (I am definitely not going to hold this against you).

i guess its not so much abt it being something illegal, but just a matter of being considerate.

 

[CS TAN]

i guess its not so much abt it being something illegal, but just a matter of being considerate.

It seems to me that from the responses that I have received so far, most people will choose to be more considerate even when legally they have the rights. This is a bit of surprise to me in a place like Singapore when everything are going by the book and follow the law to the dot. I guess this forum has a group of very considerate photographers and I am glad I have a chance to exchange view points with you all.

 

[night86mare]

It seems to me that from the responses that I have received so far, most people will choose to be more considerate even when legally they have the rights. This is a bit of surprise to me in a place like Singapore when everything are going by the book and follow the law to the dot. I guess this forum has a group of very considerate photographers and I am glad I have a chance to exchange view points with you all.

if i'm not wrong however, on another point altogether

if your photographs have defamatory content and taken without particular subject's permission

you are liable for a lawsuit.

then again, almost anything can be twisted into something defamatory, if you have a lawyer good enough. possibly why most people like to avoid trouble.

but i might be wrong. of course this probably does not apply to shops and commercial activities. more of privacy issues. for example, i use a 600mm lens to shoot the hot girl in the next block showering. it is a pity for her that she didn't pull the shower curtain shut properly. am i technically allowed to take? probably yes, it is her private property or her parents' private property but i am sitting in my own place and well, she can be seen from anywhere public. do you think the police is going to entertain your argument though? :dunno:

 

[CS TAN]

And later found out the girl is under age? :sweat:

Or, the girl can be charged for indecent exposure? What if this is a man and not a girl?