Laws governing public photography
- Thread starter Big Blue One
- Start date
- Status
Maybe I should adopt the age old adage.
"Do what you want, but don't get caught". That would sound like most Encik WO1's for those guys that have served.
"Do what you want, but don't get caught". That would sound like most Encik WO1's for those guys that have served.
I am naive? Oh please, give me a break.
If you have nothing to hide, then you have no cause for concern when the police approach you.
Yes, please, pray, enlighten us. Sooooo interesting how someone can point out the wrong but not correct it.
maybe one of us should just take a walk to the nearest police post and have a nice chat with them? 
uh oh...did i just arrow myself? :embrass:
uh oh...did i just arrow myself? :embrass:
This my take on this topic.
There is nothing that prohibits you from photographing in public. But if you are on private property you have to get permission from the owners or the management of the property.
So if you are for example in Lucky Plaza trying to take a photograph with your DSLR, the security has every right to stop you from photographing. It is private property. The fear is that the photographer may use the image(s) for commercial gain or put the property in a bad light. That's why there is a Property Release, it is a release stating that the owner or management has given you permission to use the images, subject to their approval or without their approval.
I think some of the people in Singapore think that they have every right to do whatever they want where ever they want. And when stopped by security, they think the security are ignorant and don't know the law and try to act tough and try to bully the security. They are just acting on instructions handed down by the owners or the management. I think the people get stopped are ignorant of the law concerning photography on or in private property.
IF you so desperately want to photograph a building you can do so on public property. Then again having said that, commercial filming and photographing anywhere in the city sometimes requires that you get a permit. Not too many people know that you need to but sometimes the authorities close one eye when it comes to this.
I know that in the US, you do need a permit and you also need the police on location, just in case.
There is nothing that prohibits you from photographing in public. But if you are on private property you have to get permission from the owners or the management of the property.
So if you are for example in Lucky Plaza trying to take a photograph with your DSLR, the security has every right to stop you from photographing. It is private property. The fear is that the photographer may use the image(s) for commercial gain or put the property in a bad light. That's why there is a Property Release, it is a release stating that the owner or management has given you permission to use the images, subject to their approval or without their approval.
I think some of the people in Singapore think that they have every right to do whatever they want where ever they want. And when stopped by security, they think the security are ignorant and don't know the law and try to act tough and try to bully the security. They are just acting on instructions handed down by the owners or the management. I think the people get stopped are ignorant of the law concerning photography on or in private property.
IF you so desperately want to photograph a building you can do so on public property. Then again having said that, commercial filming and photographing anywhere in the city sometimes requires that you get a permit. Not too many people know that you need to but sometimes the authorities close one eye when it comes to this.
I know that in the US, you do need a permit and you also need the police on location, just in case.
not so sure about requiring a permit to take commercial photography. Think only applies if u come with lots of equipments or u barricade a certain portion of the public property and hindering access to other public users. :dunno:
owww. thats what will happen in britain
how about here in singapore? anybody tried? :bsmilie:
i was stopped by the security when i was shooting the F1 tracks (1 week b4 the F1)... but when he drove passed those ang mohs taking pics of the tracks, they didnt say anything. :angry:
I've not seen any kind of guidelines in any form on such OB markers.
I take a leaf from HK - when it does NOT say no u-turn, you can do so. If you cannot do a u-turn, there will be a sign saying so.
Likewise, if there is no "no photography" sign, I just go for it within limits of decency and privacy. Also, as a rule of thumb for myself, people are usually less receptive of their photos being taken at close range and in crowded places, e.g. in trains and buses.
Then again, in places like car shows where many "shooters" are present, one should expect to be "shot".
It all boils down to some give and take on both the photographer and the (unintended) subjects.
I take a leaf from HK - when it does NOT say no u-turn, you can do so. If you cannot do a u-turn, there will be a sign saying so.
Likewise, if there is no "no photography" sign, I just go for it within limits of decency and privacy. Also, as a rule of thumb for myself, people are usually less receptive of their photos being taken at close range and in crowded places, e.g. in trains and buses.
Then again, in places like car shows where many "shooters" are present, one should expect to be "shot".
It all boils down to some give and take on both the photographer and the (unintended) subjects.
Go look at the statutes in the AGC's website, there are legislation prohibiting photography at certain places.
And by seeing what is disallowed, avoid those places lah. The rest is pretty much common sense isn't it.
It's quite terrible to see paralysis of such nature, that we need to tell people that they can shoot, before they go ahead. In the absence of prohibition, do as you see fit.
Last edited:
It's not so much the hindrance your equipment causes to others, but the fact that you are using the location for commercial purposes. Because you are using it for your commercial gain, you need permission to use the location.
V
vince123123
Guest
Unfortunately YOU ARE WRONG, there is no general prohibition against public street photography. The security guard can call anyone he wants. The police can question me, but at the end of the day, there is no charge that they can make stick .
If the security guard oversteps his bounds, I will be the one raising a charge against him instead (criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, criminal force, assault etc all comes to mind).
The only prohibitions that I'm aware of is to take photographs IN a protected place (notice the distinction between, IN and OF).
.If the security guard oversteps his bounds, I will be the one raising a charge against him instead (criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, criminal force, assault etc all comes to mind).
The only prohibitions that I'm aware of is to take photographs IN a protected place (notice the distinction between, IN and OF).
V
vince123123
Guest
If you are on private property, you do not require permission before you can take photographs.
The law is simply this. In a private property which is open to public access, and where there are no clear notices prohibiting photography, you can take photographs all you please. If the building owner is not happy, he can then change the condition of entry to say that if you want to stay on grounds, you have to stop. If you refuse to stop, you are then trespassing. if you stop, then he can't do anything to you. The most he can do is to ask you to leave.
And in Singapore, just as with model releases, there is no law governing Property Releases, and the applicability of such is highly suspect. Any building owner who tries to take action based on a lack of a "Property release" will face an extreme uphill struggle trying to make out a new cause of action.
And contrary to your view, I think that more security guards are ignorant of the law, then photogrpahers are of the law. For sure, as a photographer, I know more about the law than he does. When they try to smoke me, just a few pokes crumbles their armor like a house of cards.
The laws in the US governing such issues are vastly different from those in Singapore, and hence any comparison is unhelpful.
The law is simply this. In a private property which is open to public access, and where there are no clear notices prohibiting photography, you can take photographs all you please. If the building owner is not happy, he can then change the condition of entry to say that if you want to stay on grounds, you have to stop. If you refuse to stop, you are then trespassing. if you stop, then he can't do anything to you. The most he can do is to ask you to leave.
And in Singapore, just as with model releases, there is no law governing Property Releases, and the applicability of such is highly suspect. Any building owner who tries to take action based on a lack of a "Property release" will face an extreme uphill struggle trying to make out a new cause of action.
And contrary to your view, I think that more security guards are ignorant of the law, then photogrpahers are of the law. For sure, as a photographer, I know more about the law than he does. When they try to smoke me, just a few pokes crumbles their armor like a house of cards.
The laws in the US governing such issues are vastly different from those in Singapore, and hence any comparison is unhelpful.
V
vince123123
Guest
From the Youtube video, I would say that the narration of UK law in that video appears more or less similar to those in Singapore.
- Status
Similar threads
