Legality on shooting buildings

[sin77]

My boss wants me to shoot buildings, but I'm not sure if we're allowed to use them without permission, especially the following scenarios:

1. Whole building with name/logo.
2. Whole building without name without logo.
3. Part of a building but is very distinctive and anyone can identity which building was shot.
4. Part of a building which has common looking walls, glass, etc.
5. Whole or part of a govt, govt agency or govt-related building.
6. Interior of a school/shopping mall. (i.e. can see some shops and escalators)
7. Inside MRT train or MRT station. (i.e. already taken the shot without permission)

Kindly advise.

Thanks.

 

[sin77]

My boss wants me to shoot buildings, but I'm not sure if we're allowed to use them without permission, especially the following scenarios:

1. Whole building with name/logo.
2. Whole building without name without logo.
3. Part of a building but is very distinctive and anyone can identity which building was shot.
4. Part of a building which has common looking walls, glass, etc.
5. Whole or part of a govt, govt agency or govt-related building.
6. Interior of a school/shopping mall. (i.e. can see some shops and escalators)
7. Inside MRT train or MRT station. (i.e. already taken the shot without permission)

Kindly advise.

Thanks.

 

[JacePhoto]

Many different schools of thoughts. Some would clasify it under 'Copyright of building'. (Trademarks are definitely a no-no). Some would classified it under 'Editorial'... Public place, hence can shoot.

End day, when you go up to the judge, judge decides.... The law isnt black or white, its actually grey...

 

[catchlights]

since it is your boss who want it, just ask him write to all the building owner/management, government agencies to seek approvals to shoot and authorization to use the photos.

 

[sin77]

If legally this is not required, then wat for waste time n energy?

 

[catchlights]

If your boss own all this buildings, he can do whatever he please.

 

[sin77]

u mean this one also must get permission?

4. Part of a building which has common looking walls, glass, etc.

 

[2100]

MRT premises and trains cannot shoot with dSLR. Its very simple.

 

[sin77]

I have already shot the pics with dslr without being stopped. But is whether I can use. I think it doesnt matter whether shot by dslr or compact.

 

[Agetan]

I have already shot the pics with dslr without being stopped. But is whether I can use. I think it doesnt matter whether shot by dslr or compact.

U pass the legality to your boss lor...

Just say, here I click and the images... if you want to use them for commercial purposes, you go and arrange any necessary release.

Ask him to sign and leave it at that.

If you really want to find out, go and talk to IP lawyer.

Regards,

Hart

 

[sfoto100]

I have already shot the pics with dslr without being stopped. But is whether I can use. I think it doesnt matter whether shot by dslr or compact.

i always got stopped by the security, most of the time in CBD... they told me it is private property, u cannot shoot...

 

[Dream Merchant]

Threads merged.

Please do not spam.

Thank you.

 

[shaoken]

My boss wants me to shoot buildings, but I'm not sure if we're allowed to use them without permission, especially the following scenarios:

1. Whole building with name/logo.
2. Whole building without name without logo.
3. Part of a building but is very distinctive and anyone can identity which building was shot.
4. Part of a building which has common looking walls, glass, etc.
5. Whole or part of a govt, govt agency or govt-related building.
6. Interior of a school/shopping mall. (i.e. can see some shops and escalators)
7. Inside MRT train or MRT station. (i.e. already taken the shot without permission)

Kindly advise.

Thanks.

From my understanding, shooting a building from the main road, where is is easily visible by the public, you can do anything.
An example, shooting the HDB (@ Toa Payoh) building from the main road, they guards can't do anything as anyone passes by can take a pic of the building.

But when you're in the vacinity of building/company, they do have a right to stop you from taking photos.

 

[redstone]

There's no such thing as violating a design copyright of the building or the company logo by taking a photo of it.

You can shoot a building with the owner legally powerless to stop you if you're on the outside of the said property. You can stand on another building's property or on public property (roads, parks etc).

The above is true unless it's a Protected Place or Protected Area, with the giant red sign in 4 languages. Found in high security areas:

Flickr photo

If you're shooting inside a property, the owner can tell you to stop, but not tell you to delete the photos.


My 2 cents what I know.
Generally sg is a photography unfriendly place.

 

[Clown]

if you're standing on public grounds when you're taking the shot of the building, you can use it as a reference/editorial but not commercially.
if you're standing within the building/facility's private grounds, and the image is focussed on features which are unique and recognisable to the building/facility, permission should be sought before usage, even if you're using under editorial terms.

in a nutshell, if you use an image taken in a private area, and that image is used to generate money in any way (commercially), and somebody high up (maybe owners of the facility) sees it and is not happy about it, prepare for crap to hit the fan.

 

[MintChoco]

Me and my friend got stopped from taking photos of the Gateway building (is it the correct name? The flat blue and white building near Bugis) before, while we were standing on the pavement near the bus stop. Didn't want to attract any trouble so we just walked away

Now I'm actually wondering if security guards have the power to stop people if we're on public property or ask us to delete photos?

 

[weegk]

wondering whether the buildings should be covered with white cloth . . . to prevent us from taking the shots . . . :think:

Singapore is really an unfriendly place for building photography . . . i don't understand the logic of stopping us from shooting it . . .