No Photography - Does we photographers have rights too?
- Thread starter CS TAN
- Start date
- Status
Actually it all boils down to the time tested saying...
"You can do anything as long as you don't get caught."
If you really need to take a shot of something at somewhere you are not allowed to, and I mean die die must take, then take a quick one and walk off.
Dun like, you already know not allowed to take still you stand there, compose your shot, focus, set iso, shutter and aperture settings, do bracketing, take and then review on LCD, then make exposure compensation, then take a few more shots... I mean, shoot smart........
"You can do anything as long as you don't get caught."
If you really need to take a shot of something at somewhere you are not allowed to, and I mean die die must take, then take a quick one and walk off.
Dun like, you already know not allowed to take still you stand there, compose your shot, focus, set iso, shutter and aperture settings, do bracketing, take and then review on LCD, then make exposure compensation, then take a few more shots... I mean, shoot smart........
of course in singapore what some ppl say and do are completely the opposite :bsmilie:
The issue is not where you are shooting from but rather what you are shooting and whether there are any rights protecting such things against a third party making copies. I am sure pirated DVDs are not manufactured within Warner Bros premises.
If a store frontage contains content that is protectable by copyright, registered designs or trade marks, taking a copy (by way of a photograph) without permission from the owners may be an infringement of their rights.
I don't suppose anyone arguing with a store owner or store assistant will be able to resolve whether there are any legal rights to be protected at all so bottomline is, respect the owners of the premises and if they feel their rights are compromised by your phototaking, gracefully accept their request to stop as a gesture of courtesy.
in a way, there is a few issues that i feel strongly for it.
1. common sense on discretion, sensitivity and privacy
- despite of rules and regulations, there are things that is up to common sense, and photographers should be understanding in situations that reasonably deserves so, but only if it deserves so. one cannot use privacy as a blanketing excuse. i feel it is unfair to use examples that deserves understanding on situations where there is no good reason for harassment.
- taking picture of someone's body parts to a girl's face with his boyfriend around to a girl's face on the streets to a girl's face on the chingay festival are vastly different. i think we have to leave things contextual becos rights are not absolute, neither for the photographers nor the one being shot
- rights is something that is affected by reasoning of right and wrong, and culture. sometimes we see absurd and ridiculous things happening in places where rights seems to be everything, but we should always look back on our own culture. we should always balance legal rights and the reasoning of right and wrong together.
- rights is there to protect something reasonably to be protected, and not to allow people to abuse it and to discriminate. i can foresee disagreement with me but i think even if a "no photography" sign is up, it should only be up if there is a good reason (good reason generally means for common good, e.g. to prevent abuse of flash photography that may damage old relics, or the rule against tripod in reasonably crowded places that may obstruct traffic) to disallow photography and there should not be discrimination between compact users and DSLR users (unless there is a reason for common good).
- observing a physical distance according to the sensitivity of attention on the subject is something everyone got to learn along the way. you dun tread on the line, you will not learn where to draw the line. newbies should always try to align themselves, but oldbies shouldn't be too high handed too; besides what works for you may not works for others.
2. we should be nice about things, but the line shouldn't be stepped over.
- in the face of malign and insistance that you admit you are trying to steal other people intellectual property, would you put up a heated argument, be firm and make him understand he is wrong about you, defend yourself before walking away, admit in silence and walk away, or apologise for it? i'm sure many of us would at least defend and walk away, but i just afraid that those who just smile and walk away without defending yourself may be perpetuating the wrong ideas.
and while being calm and polite will reasonably tide over most or some incidences, i feel that we shouldn't perpetuate the wrong idea that being nice alone will always gets things over. we also should not assume that if one has been so far successful in tiding over these incidences is becos he is more tactful than others, one may just be more lucky.
3. dun give up on promoting the awareness simply when most people is unaware.
- DSLR users may be an increasing population, but nonetheless we have still little "voice" in affecting these policies and how things occur. there is much passiveness becos of such and becos of the local culture of "nothing's gonna change, so let's not do anything" or the "dun talk about it when you can't change things - that's whining.". i just thought at the very least, we should not perpetuate wrong concepts and discriminations simply for our own convinience by running away. if you can't educate the authorities, at least educate the person who thought he is doing the right thing and should repeat it to everyone. if you can't educate the general public, at least educate your friends and family. if you can't educate all photographers in singapore, at least educate our fellow forumers who read this thread.
my bottom line is as long as
1. appropriately due privacy (not just privacy claimed, or not to cover wrong doings) is not infringed on, photographers retain their rights to take photographs within the domain of the legal settings.
2. photographers, just as any normal individuals, should not behave rudely and cast bad representations in the public eye, but we should not be bullied too either. other than being nice, we should also make at least make an attempt to defend ourselves and for others in our situation.
3. the idea of right or wrong still exist whether or not we have any impact on policies made. shopowners dun have every right to themselves, those rules must be reasonable. i hope i won't be forced to give examples of rules that is made in discrimination.
i hope the thread continues in good faith.
1. common sense on discretion, sensitivity and privacy
- despite of rules and regulations, there are things that is up to common sense, and photographers should be understanding in situations that reasonably deserves so, but only if it deserves so. one cannot use privacy as a blanketing excuse. i feel it is unfair to use examples that deserves understanding on situations where there is no good reason for harassment.
- taking picture of someone's body parts to a girl's face with his boyfriend around to a girl's face on the streets to a girl's face on the chingay festival are vastly different. i think we have to leave things contextual becos rights are not absolute, neither for the photographers nor the one being shot
- rights is something that is affected by reasoning of right and wrong, and culture. sometimes we see absurd and ridiculous things happening in places where rights seems to be everything, but we should always look back on our own culture. we should always balance legal rights and the reasoning of right and wrong together.
- rights is there to protect something reasonably to be protected, and not to allow people to abuse it and to discriminate. i can foresee disagreement with me but i think even if a "no photography" sign is up, it should only be up if there is a good reason (good reason generally means for common good, e.g. to prevent abuse of flash photography that may damage old relics, or the rule against tripod in reasonably crowded places that may obstruct traffic) to disallow photography and there should not be discrimination between compact users and DSLR users (unless there is a reason for common good).
- observing a physical distance according to the sensitivity of attention on the subject is something everyone got to learn along the way. you dun tread on the line, you will not learn where to draw the line. newbies should always try to align themselves, but oldbies shouldn't be too high handed too; besides what works for you may not works for others.
2. we should be nice about things, but the line shouldn't be stepped over.
- in the face of malign and insistance that you admit you are trying to steal other people intellectual property, would you put up a heated argument, be firm and make him understand he is wrong about you, defend yourself before walking away, admit in silence and walk away, or apologise for it? i'm sure many of us would at least defend and walk away, but i just afraid that those who just smile and walk away without defending yourself may be perpetuating the wrong ideas.
and while being calm and polite will reasonably tide over most or some incidences, i feel that we shouldn't perpetuate the wrong idea that being nice alone will always gets things over. we also should not assume that if one has been so far successful in tiding over these incidences is becos he is more tactful than others, one may just be more lucky.
3. dun give up on promoting the awareness simply when most people is unaware.
- DSLR users may be an increasing population, but nonetheless we have still little "voice" in affecting these policies and how things occur. there is much passiveness becos of such and becos of the local culture of "nothing's gonna change, so let's not do anything" or the "dun talk about it when you can't change things - that's whining.". i just thought at the very least, we should not perpetuate wrong concepts and discriminations simply for our own convinience by running away. if you can't educate the authorities, at least educate the person who thought he is doing the right thing and should repeat it to everyone. if you can't educate the general public, at least educate your friends and family. if you can't educate all photographers in singapore, at least educate our fellow forumers who read this thread.
my bottom line is as long as
1. appropriately due privacy (not just privacy claimed, or not to cover wrong doings) is not infringed on, photographers retain their rights to take photographs within the domain of the legal settings.
2. photographers, just as any normal individuals, should not behave rudely and cast bad representations in the public eye, but we should not be bullied too either. other than being nice, we should also make at least make an attempt to defend ourselves and for others in our situation.
3. the idea of right or wrong still exist whether or not we have any impact on policies made. shopowners dun have every right to themselves, those rules must be reasonable. i hope i won't be forced to give examples of rules that is made in discrimination.
i hope the thread continues in good faith.
Very balance opinion.
My objective of this thread was trying to create better awareness about what rights the photographers has. I guess the other side also holds true that people in general should also be make aware/educated of what rights they have (and don't have) as this will avoid misunderstanding and reduce unnecessary conflicts.
The kiasu mentally in Singapore normally pushes the store owners to put up "No Photography" signs for no apparent valid reasons and some even enforce this rule without putting up the sign. I agree that there should be a valid reason for restricting photography in those situation and not just "because every shop is doing it, then we must also do the same" kind of mentality.
My objective of this thread was trying to create better awareness about what rights the photographers has. I guess the other side also holds true that people in general should also be make aware/educated of what rights they have (and don't have) as this will avoid misunderstanding and reduce unnecessary conflicts.
The kiasu mentally in Singapore normally pushes the store owners to put up "No Photography" signs for no apparent valid reasons and some even enforce this rule without putting up the sign. I agree that there should be a valid reason for restricting photography in those situation and not just "because every shop is doing it, then we must also do the same" kind of mentality.
I disagree. Maybe yes, there is no law here which specifically says about taking photo of someone's belonging. But in US and Europe, you can be sued till the kingdom come if you don't really observe the law that protects the full right of an owner to something he owns.
If your object is still underage you have to ask permission of his / her parents if you want to take a series of photos of him / her. It's because his / her parents are the lawfull "owner" of their child until they reach a certain age. For example some countries limit this at 18 yo, but there are also countries that limit this at 13 yo, like in many of the latin american countries. (So if you wants to shoot a lot of lolitas, you know where to go)
If you are in a public place, yes, you have the "legal" right to take photo of my wife or girlfriend, with note that they are also in a public place, e.g. you take photo of my gf / wife while she's shopping in orchard. But you will lose your "legal" rights as soon as I, as the "owner" of my gf or wife, disallow you to do so, even if it is in public place.
However, you have NO rights to take photo of my gf / wife if she is NOT in a public place, even if you ARE in a public place. For example, my gf / wife standing by the window of my flat, and you are outside the flat.
Yes, there is no real legal law on this, but I think we have to respect someone's right over what he owns.
I rest my case.
My two cents.
me thinks that if your wife stand at the window then the photographer can take photos if he wanted to - moral issues aside. but if she was inside say the living room or bedroom then privacy laws come into play.
of cos the law cannot enforce this supposedly simplified definition of "rights". there are a lot of things that are more complicated than what we are saying and when enforced by and insisted on simplified definition, are if you look carefully, can derive absurd results. the grey zone is there because it needs to exist.
the law, the public, the media, the photographers themselves all cannot come into a stringent conclusion. if someone is to take a picture of a crowd that shows 30 over faces, he will not be expected to ask for permission from every single person before he proceed. there is still a debate of whether to ask for or no need to ask for permission before photography, but we are missing the point of context.
taken to the extreme, it will be complete death of candid, streets, travel photography and photojournalism. some societies are insecure and unfriendly towards photography, we won't go against their wish but we can disagree with their mindset, for it is the loss of their society for we are churning out fantastic portraits from friendly societies in alternative locations.
take for the example, if my wife is by the window, say in a kampong, a photographer tooks it from 10m away, reasonable near. the photographer has the right to take that photograph. my wife has the right to refuse, if she noticed it before hand. my wife has the right to ask to see the photo if she believes she is taken as the main subject, and if she asked nicely. i has the right to ask, if it is reasonable that my wife is agreeable to my action and i can represent her in that situation. the photographer (digital) can show it as he has nothing to hide. my wife has the rights to ask for the photo to be deleted if she is the main subject taken but she is uncomfortable with it, but she must ask nicely. she has no rights to ask for a photo to be deleted if the main subject is obviously not her, and that infringes on the photographers right. i have no rights to ask for the photo to be deleted without my wife's permission, unless the photo is taken in such a manner that i can reasonably expect her to ask for the same thing and i can thus represent her wish. my wife and i has no rights to be rude and insult the photographer or to accuse the photographer of doing the wrong thing unless the photograph is taken in a lewd manner. well, define lewd if we must, but the same answer returns, be contextual.
legally speaking, by hearsay but no confirmations, it seems that the photographer has the right to shoot from public premises, a person also has the right to choose to be taken photograph or not (but practically not in all cases, a person walking out of court wouldn't be hiding if that is the case, and a prisoner can refuse his photograph taken too, bringing it out of the context just for the stated law), and the photographer is still subjectable to legal punishment if he takes lewd picture from public premises. and whoever is rude, use profanities or violence is the one in primary wrong.
actually, based on what i have read here and here which seems like a rather formalised writeup on such matters..
what you have said is not true, especially since the site is based overseas and not in singapore. it would actually be better if you stipulated clearly whether this is an opinion or truth - fact is it seems to be painted as the second, while it is to me, clearly the first.
second - if what you have said is indeed true and you would have it so that you claim that it is true.. then the papparazi would have a hard time, don't you think? all the celebrity hounding.. all the stolen shots from outside the premises.. yet you only see suing happening when the content is highly detrimental to the person in question or infringes other laws, like privacy rights, i.e. photographer snuck into the house or private premises.
truth is? if it is taken FROM a public place, i can take whatever i want to take. you can be unhappy with me, but in the eyes of the law i am relatively absolved since i have not infringed it. the key difference here though, is when i want to PUBLISH it, it seems. :dunno:
That is very true. But we are having double standard here esp between tourists (obvious tourists looks like ang-mohs) vs locals.
Take these scenarios for eg:
a) Try taking pics in places like Mrt stations with a DSLR/SLR and a tourist using the same cam.
b) Or You using a pns while a tourist using a DSLR at the same place.
For the sake of not starting another "right's" thread, i will be posting here.
I've read this thread and others as well with regards to rights to photograpy.
I just went to walk around Arab Street/Beach Road area today. Passing by The Gateway, I decided to look around for interesting angles to snap. I found one, took one photo, and this middle-aged Chubb security guard came out to tell me that no photography is allowed. I was not in the most pleasant of moods and thus decided not to argue/create a scene, thus i walked off.
Question is, does the security guard have the right to stop me from taking photos of the building? AFAIK, if i'm standing on a private plot then yes, he can stop me. Is this correct? In this case, what constitutes the "private plot" of The Gateway - even the sidewalk is tiled differently from normal sidewalks to fit the decor of the entire area?
FYI, a simple search on flickr will reveal photographs that have been taken at least in the same area as I was standing, and some even closer to the building itself. In fact, if I'm not wrong, this quarter's Nikon Focus magazine featured a shot of The Gateway which definitely would have been from a location not much different in proximity from my location.
If every security guard does likewise I think we will see a lot less entries for the SYPA Architecture Award. Hope this promotes greater discussion on such matters.
I've read this thread and others as well with regards to rights to photograpy.
I just went to walk around Arab Street/Beach Road area today. Passing by The Gateway, I decided to look around for interesting angles to snap. I found one, took one photo, and this middle-aged Chubb security guard came out to tell me that no photography is allowed. I was not in the most pleasant of moods and thus decided not to argue/create a scene, thus i walked off.
Question is, does the security guard have the right to stop me from taking photos of the building? AFAIK, if i'm standing on a private plot then yes, he can stop me. Is this correct? In this case, what constitutes the "private plot" of The Gateway - even the sidewalk is tiled differently from normal sidewalks to fit the decor of the entire area?
FYI, a simple search on flickr will reveal photographs that have been taken at least in the same area as I was standing, and some even closer to the building itself. In fact, if I'm not wrong, this quarter's Nikon Focus magazine featured a shot of The Gateway which definitely would have been from a location not much different in proximity from my location.
If every security guard does likewise I think we will see a lot less entries for the SYPA Architecture Award. Hope this promotes greater discussion on such matters.
If TS don't mind, I would like to share my experience here...
I send both my children to infant care and child care and have been shooting them in there regularly, especially on events. I also shot the other kids as well and I always print a copy for the parents, whom always thank me for the pictures.
One day, I arrived at the infant care earlier to pick up my child and intended to take some shots for record purpose. Saw a child in a nice position and smiling so I took a shot. However, the care giver told me nicely that I should not take picture of other child except my own. She must be new there
I saw the child's mother standing nearby and I showed her the picture. She seems glad on the picture taken. Then I did it.... I told her :"see, this is delete button. I pressed this, there... deleted. Sorry, didn't know not allowed to take other child's pictures."
The mother gave the care giver a ^%@$^%$# look
The care giver was probably doing her job in telling me not to take other child's picture, as part of the centre's rules. I was just trying to tell her in a different way the consequences of following the rules blindly....
I send both my children to infant care and child care and have been shooting them in there regularly, especially on events. I also shot the other kids as well and I always print a copy for the parents, whom always thank me for the pictures.
One day, I arrived at the infant care earlier to pick up my child and intended to take some shots for record purpose. Saw a child in a nice position and smiling so I took a shot. However, the care giver told me nicely that I should not take picture of other child except my own. She must be new there
I saw the child's mother standing nearby and I showed her the picture. She seems glad on the picture taken. Then I did it.... I told her :"see, this is delete button. I pressed this, there... deleted. Sorry, didn't know not allowed to take other child's pictures."
The mother gave the care giver a ^%@$^%$# look
The care giver was probably doing her job in telling me not to take other child's picture, as part of the centre's rules. I was just trying to tell her in a different way the consequences of following the rules blindly....
If TS don't mind, I would like to share my experience here...
I send both my children to infant care and child care and have been shooting them in there regularly, especially on events. I also shot the other kids as well and I always print a copy for the parents, whom always thank me for the pictures.
One day, I arrived at the infant care earlier to pick up my child and intended to take some shots for record purpose. Saw a child in a nice position and smiling so I took a shot. However, the care giver told me nicely that I should not take picture of other child except my own. She must be new there
I saw the child's mother standing nearby and I showed her the picture. She seems glad on the picture taken. Then I did it.... I told her :"see, this is delete button. I pressed this, there... deleted. Sorry, didn't know not allowed to take other child's pictures."
The mother gave the care giver a ^%@$^%$# look
The care giver was probably doing her job in telling me not to take other child's picture, as part of the centre's rules. I was just trying to tell her in a different way the consequences of following the rules blindly....
lol...i think you should have printed a copy for the mum. that would have been a more effective message :bsmilie:
- Status
