Provided there isnt a "no pictures" sign, so its just to play safe to ask. I wasent stopped when I proceeded to snap the interior architecture of the building either. I suppose the initial query helps put them at ease.+evenstar said:
- Status
Which section of the copyright act?vince123123 said:
My analogy is simple. Claiming that an act is not an infringement by insisting one is outside the premises of the said subject is as good as a peeping tom insisting he has the right to look anywhere from the comfort of his own home.
V
vince123123
Guest
Once again, you have confused yourself.
First, I did not say that the act is not an infringement BECAUSE one is outside the premises.
Second, the threshold of whether you are inside or outside relates to the law of trespass, not copyright - that is why I didn't raise it, but you decided to put this into my mouth (which I didn't)
Finally I quote the relevant section for you as requested:
"The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the bulding or model or by inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.
Hope you now have a better unconfused view - indeed, things aren't as simple as your simple analogy.
First, I did not say that the act is not an infringement BECAUSE one is outside the premises.
Second, the threshold of whether you are inside or outside relates to the law of trespass, not copyright - that is why I didn't raise it, but you decided to put this into my mouth (which I didn't)
Finally I quote the relevant section for you as requested:
"The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the bulding or model or by inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.
Hope you now have a better unconfused view - indeed, things aren't as simple as your simple analogy.
huaiwei said:
Thank you very much for the quote. I hope it comes of use the next time I whip out a camera in a showflat for the next condominium with the intention to snap the building's model, only to be told politely that the model is copyrighted and cannot be photographed?vince123123 said:
Anyhow, a simple review of the past conversation show that I responded based on your statement, and I interpreted it accordingly. Should this be different from your intended message, then there is always the option to clarify things. Dismissing others and claiming they are in a "confused" state of mind is perhaps reflective of one who refuses (or is simply unable) to see things from another perspective.
I speak based on my interpretation. That you take it to be an assumption that you are part of this interpretation is of little concern to me, because I dont exactly hold you accountable for any such misinterpretations. Your worries appear to be unfounded.
V
vince123123
Guest
huaiwei said:
It will come of use, the only question is whether they will care about the state of the law, or just make up their own laws.
I'm not sure how your simple review could support an interpretation that I said that you don't infringe the copyright in the building because you are standing outside. Be that as it may, the position is now clear.
I don't think that it is unreasonable for me to assume that I am "part of this interpretation" especially since you quoted my post to arrive at your interpretation, and then suggested that your interpretation was based on something that I did not say. If you wish to make a general statement based on your holistic interpretation of everything in the thread, perhaps you might wish not to quote any particular post. No worries generated as I'm sure of what I have said in this thread, and do not backtrack when a challenge is thrown.
V
vince123123
Guest
Not having a "no pictures" sign doesn't prohibit the building management to stop you from taking photos on their premises.
huaiwei said:Provided there isnt a "no pictures" sign, so its just to play safe to ask. I wasent stopped when I proceeded to snap the interior architecture of the building either. I suppose the initial query helps put them at ease.
So based on this, do you feel property owners/designers have the right to restrict reproduction of their property/"works of art" given the existance of that law? When someone is denied the right to photograph a model in a showflat, can he haul the management to court for "flouting state laws"?vince123123 said:
And may we have your particulars, in case I need you to represent us in a lawsuit?
This time, I am confused. So the position of the photographer is back into the equation now? Confusion begots confusion I suppose.vince123123 said:
But as I said, I could not care less what your assumption should be. Still, it cannot be helped that I am directly responding to your message, so quote it I have to. I am more then open to admit that my interpretation might be not what the speaker intended it to be, and which I have already done so, quite unlike others who remain utterly stubborn and myopic (and apparantly considers that a virtue).vince123123 said:
Anyhow, this is just a sidedish. I am much more concerned over that interpretation of the law concerning photography of buildings and models.
You are free to expand the definition, or to take it literally like a stoic civil servant (with all due respect to them).vince123123 said:
V
vince123123
Guest
V
vince123123
Guest
huaiwei said:
I'm in no position to give any opinion on what I "feel" - you can feel whatever you like too.
Nope - think you have a wrong concept on the laws. The person who stops you from taking a photo isn't committing any offence himself either. Both are entitled to do as they choose - he can stop you, you can continue to take.
Not sure what you mean by "back into the equation".
Being abrasive won't earn you any favours.
huaiwei said:
these are two different things. vince is explaining it comprehensively. appreciate that.
V
vince123123
Guest
Thanks mattlock - its heartening to note your vote of confidence and appreciation.
mattlock said:
Haha haha haha some laughter to defuse the tense situation.... Guys I think everyone is just trying to see how we can better take pictures without getting into unneccessary trouble. Relax relax.... We have enough stress at work.... think we can loosen up alittle here at our hobby yah??
Yeah...but I was curious about photographing a building/model. So, quoting a section from the relevant act is considered a "comprehensive" and supposedly definitive reply. Why the existance of this thread then?Ren_Hao said:
As I said, I hadent faced much of a prob personally at the Esplanade itself, but I have had plenty of occasions in which I was told not to snap photos (nicely or otherwise). Most memorable was how, in one day, I was scoulded on two different occasions by security guards who refuse to allow me to take photos of other buildings from within theirs. One of them basically yelled at me to stop.
Copyright issue? Probably not. The management in the UOB probably closed their viewing gallery for fear that JI would launch missles from there at Parliament (even thou they can prob get another shot from the restaurant on top) but then again, I am still curious as to what security issue there may be about me snapping building models in showrooms and showflats if it is not about copyright?
I am still awaiting a comprehensive and definitive answer to this. Or at least a useful one I can use while on my rounds.
It is alright to take shot at anybody or anything as long as you are in a public place. e.g. for any building, the perimeter fencing is always the boundary. Outside the boundary you can use tele super tele, wide or super wide lens to capture whatever you want.
But..... but... please be sensitive to the owner or the management. What if some undesire elements trying to capture the picture or...... with some motive.
Singapore is a safe country and we wish and hope to keep it that way!
But..... but... please be sensitive to the owner or the management. What if some undesire elements trying to capture the picture or...... with some motive.
Singapore is a safe country and we wish and hope to keep it that way!
espn said:You'll never see the guards appearing if the shooter is a tourist and/or foreigner, it's always SGeans that kena
A Citizen of his own country and yet being restricted of his right to photography his country landscapes;( Tell those busybody security guards to go fly kites!
i took a photo inside esp before n was stop , so i walk away, then i ask my wife to take same place n spot using my camera nikon slr, but no guard stop her ley.
think most guards are train to horn in on guys with cameras, especially those biggies type camera.
think most guards are train to horn in on guys with cameras, especially those biggies type camera.
huaiwei said:
I believe we were talking about snapping pictures of buildings, mainly from the outside in PUBLIC space.
You may want to check up on wikipedia. That applies to US law though, consult a singapore lawyer for differences in relation to copyright. your analogies and questions are confusing the issue....invasion of privacy is not what we're discussing here so peeping into someone's flat is not part of the equation...neither is taking photos of models in showflats. You are in private property once you're in a showflat.
"The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work – but only if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."
Also consider what is public and private property. The walkway of Orchard Cineplex extending to just next to the road is owned by Cathay Management, as is the overhead bridge connected to Far East Plaza (owned by Far East...whatevercompany.can't remember the name sorry)
there's no need to start passing sarcastic or glided remarks...we're all here to help each other. =)
huaiwei said:
regarding your analogy of a peeping tom, which is another story altogether, maybe you want to check up the law on that. offensive part is probably more related to outrage of modesty.
but I'm no expert on peeping tom laws.grin.
Do consider that paparazzi get away with shooting from public spaces with their telephoto lenses.
Anyway in response to "sensitivities", remember as photographers our job is to dig our nose in closely to get our shots. understanding our rights under the law will give us more confidence. so don't be afraid to stand up for your rights, stand up against stupid security guards.
- Status
Similar threads
