NO PHOTOGRAPHY - Wheelock Place

[yqt]

If you're on someone else's property, of course you have to follow their instructions. I'm not advocating breaking the law by trespassing per se. There's a difference between standing up for your rights and breaking the law. There's no point going to jail or paying a fine for photography. However, I doubt the police are going to come for every complaint made regarding unauthorised photography. And as Vince123123 said, if they manhandle you, they may be committing offences themselves. That said, one should be smart about it-- if someone breaks your bones or your head, your rights are no longer important.

But if you're on public property, they can't do anything to you. Your example proves the rule-- they didn't arrest you, did they? No one can fault the police for being extra cautious in this day and age, but they did make it clear they did not have the right to stop you from making a phone call, just that they were doing their job in checking all suspicious characters.

Is there a law against taking pix of sensitive installations, such as military facilities, etc? I don't think so, but I think anyone who does so will certainly be "invited" to tea with the men in white, even if they stand on a public road to do so. Lets not be stupid in trying to stand up for photographers rights. Even if there is no specific law, there is ISA in Singapore, that's something which most free societies don't have, but that's another story for another time.

Just finish a full day shoot and only see this now.

My post quoting you was just a caution note to newbies here who may get the wrong impression. You did afterall posted that:

It's not that difficult if you stand your ground. I doubt they will manhandle you. And most security "guards" in Singapore are not armed. You don't have to explain your actions to anyone, esp. if you're in a public place.

Going by your later posting, you do seem to agreed with me that on private property, you do have to follow the rules there hence having to explain your actions if you do break their rules ( if they said no photography and you shoot, you have to explain to them what you shoot and why ). On public property you need to explain your actions if the guys in blue ask you what you're shooting and you agreed that you may be having kopi with them if you were to shoot a military facilities, I'm very sure that if, on that day when I'm outside the police station, I'm pointing my camera towards the police, I'll be having an interview with them w/o the kopi :bsmilie

As a mamber of CS I just hope that newbies reading your post don't get the wrong impression that they can go around shooting anything they like and they don't have to explain their actions to anyone, esp. if they're on public property.

 

[wee_ly]

Maybe we should have these sticky posts here:

A) Photographer-Friendly Buildings
1. Raffles City
2. Takashimaya
3. Suntec City
4. Marina Square
5. Vivo-city
6. Scotts


B) Photographer-Hostile Buildings
1. Paragon
2. Wheelock Place
3. Raffles Hotel
4. AIA building (not even externally!!!) - damn (to the infinity) security guards told me because it was an American owned company. So what?
5.
6.
7.
8.

 

[waileong]

There's a difference between "have to" and "need to".

You don't "have to" explain your actions to anyone, incl. the guys in blue or the guys in white. The question is, what will happen to you if you don't. If you have not done anything unlawful (and taking pictures while in a public place is certainly lawful), there is likely no grounds for the police to arrest or charge you. Unfortunately, this is Singapore, and there is something called ISA. Very convenient for people to be arrested and detained without evidence and without open trial.

Whether you explain your actions on private property, and indeed, whether you follow anyone's direction on private property, is a separate matter. You can take the risk if you want that the owner of the property may call the police, who may decide it's worth their trouble to come down. You can also decide to take the risk that the owner may take legal action against you.

But remember that if you want others to respect photographers' rights, we as photographers have to respect other peoples' rights too. And again-- if the guy telling you not to take pictures is a night club bouncer, you better think twice about standing up for your rights even if you're in a public place. Not worth the broken nose, arms or legs, methinks.

Going by your later posting, you do seem to agreed with me that on private property, you do have to follow the rules there hence having to explain your actions if you do break their rules ( if they said no photography and you shoot, you have to explain to them what you shoot and why ). On public property you need to explain your actions if the guys in blue ask you what you're shooting and you agreed that you may be having kopi with them if you were to shoot a military facilities, I'm very sure that if, on that day when I'm outside the police station, I'm pointing my camera towards the police, I'll be having an interview with them w/o the kopi :bsmilie

As a mamber of CS I just hope that newbies reading your post don't get the wrong impression that they can go around shooting anything they like and they don't have to explain their actions to anyone, esp. if they're on public property.

 

[soma]

Maybe we should have these sticky posts here:

A) Photographer-Friendly Buildings
1. Raffles City
2. Takashimaya
3. Suntec City
4. Marina Square
5. Vivo-city
6. Scotts


B) Photographer-Hostile Buildings
1. Paragon
2. Wheelock Place
3. Raffles Hotel
4. AIA building (not even externally!!!) - damn (to the infinity) security guards told me because it was an American owned company. So what?
5. Millenien Walk (i think wrong spelling)
6.
7.
8.

Guess can skip all this Hostile place..

 

[yqt]

I have done that. I took a picture of a condo and was chased off by the guard, I just walk out to the main road outside and start shooting again. He came and ask me to stop and I told him that since I'm outside of the property, he have no right to stop me. His supervisor came along and agreed with me and ask me nicely if he can have a look at the image and what I'm shooting it for. I told him that I'm shooting for a friend who wants to sell a unit in the estate. The supervisor thank me and walk off.

It is not wrong to shoot in public place so long as the place you're shooting in and your subject are not of any sensitive nature ie: shoot a police station from across the road

You sure that the image you took today, with firm conviction that you're not going to sell it for a profit, will not be sold if someone were to offer you very good money for it some time later? Even if you can resist, how do you convince the guards about it. Even if the whole world knows that you are of such high moral standing that you will not sell your images, how can anyone be sure that the rest of the " Photogrphers, especially us amateurs " will be the same?

Photographers' rights is not about money. It's just about the right to take pictures. For $$ and copyright issues, please refer to the Copyright Act threads. Vince123123 has given very salient advice there.

Please read my posting again. I have not mention that photographer's right to take pictures is about making money.
The 1st para shows how we can stand up for our rights as photographers.
The 2nd para mention that we can shoot in public but must know our limits or where our right ends.
My last para is just to point out that, convictions today maybe reconsided tomorrow and it does seems to be a call to others when he mentioned " Photogrphers, especially us amateurs " hence the ending of my post.

 

[yqt]

There's a difference between "have to" and "need to".

You don't "have to" explain your actions to anyone, incl. the guys in blue or the guys in white. The question is, what will happen to you if you don't. If you have not done anything unlawful (and taking pictures while in a public place is certainly lawful), there is likely no grounds for the police to arrest or charge you. Unfortunately, this is Singapore, and there is something called ISA. Very convenient for people to be arrested and detained without evidence and without open trial.

Whether you explain your actions on private property, and indeed, whether you follow anyone's direction on private property, is a separate matter. You can take the risk if you want that the owner of the property may call the police, who may decide it's worth their trouble to come down. You can also decide to take the risk that the owner may take legal action against you.

But remember that if you want others to respect photographers' rights, we as photographers have to respect other peoples' rights too. And again-- if the guy telling you not to take pictures is a night club bouncer, you better think twice about standing up for your rights even if you're in a public place. Not worth the broken nose, arms or legs, methinks.

Sounds a little funny ........... if the police ask you " what are you doing here and what are you taking a photo of " you don't have to answer them? So you don't have to answer but the question is what will happwn if you don't.
Let see ..........,
if I don't answer, I can be ask to go for kopi on the spot.
I still don't answer during kopi, I can be held for not co-operating with the police.
I still don't answer ( this time without kopi ), I can be held further for refusual to co-operate
I still don't answer, I maybe arrested for obstruction of justice
I still don't answer, I may be lock up for contemp of court ( this time it's the judge doing the asking )
Somewhere along the line, "have to" will become "need to", if not, than I may end up in a cell.

I fail to see why you don't "have to" answer a question from the police? I though that when the police ask you a question, you HAVE TO answer for the very simple reason that you are asked a question by the enfocer of the law of the land. Maybe I don't "have to" answer them just because I want my lawyer to answer them. Yeah, I don't have to answer them.

 

[palvin]

I faced the same situation when i took pics of the National Stadium on a weekend.
The security said that i cannot take photos. And i'm not even allowed into the stadium.
I asked why and he said i need to have a written permission inorder to take pics inside.
Then he also said i cannot go into the stadium at all. Then i said "but i saw people jogging at the tracks!" Then he said they are different.

Ok, so i went away and then sneak in again. Was caught by him 3 times but he still patient with me.

 

[redstone]

I faced the same situation when i took pics of the National Stadium on a weekend.
The security said that i cannot take photos. And i'm not even allowed into the stadium.
I asked why and he said i need to have a written permission inorder to take pics inside.
Then he also said i cannot go into the stadium at all. Then i said "but i saw people jogging at the tracks!" Then he said they are different.

Ok, so i went away and then sneak in again. Was caught by him 3 times but he still patient with me.

What on earth?

 

[iria]

lets says there is a form that states you can take photos within the building but not for profits.

would any of you sign that form?

 

[iria]

i have also experience this. Was taking a long explosure photo of buckingham palace somewhere ard the evening, when this police car with black opaque windows, came and took a picture of me..

 

[waileong]

Be reasonable in your interpretation of what I wrote. What I said is, if you have not done anything unlawful, there's no need to answer questions.

If there is such a thing called human rights, it's in the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that you do not have to answer any questions you do not wish to. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. In the US, it's called the 5th Amendment. The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" or to "take the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could form incriminating evidence. This is meant to ensure that cases are tried on hard evidence, not on "confessions" or "statements".

Although there is no 5th Amendment here, the police still have to show reasonable cause. They are not all-powerful, as many in Singapore think they are. They can't hold you beyond 48 hours without producing you in court. If they seize your camera, and all they can prove to the court is that you took pictures of pretty women in Raffles Place when you were standing in the middle of a public road, there is nothing they can charge you with, whether or not you answer questions.

If they can't charge you with anything, they won't bring you to court. The PP's don't like to lose cases because you would raise the defence that there is no case to answer. The judges also like to scold PP's who bring frivolous cases. There's also wrongful arrest, for which you can get compensation.

Of course, if your pictures show all kinds of military facilities, then they will certainly apply to the court to hold you for investigations, and any reasonable judge will allow it. And you probably won't be asked any questions at this stage from the judge, it's just a formality the police have to go through if they want to hold you beyond 48 hours.

If that's the case, does it matter whether or not you answer any questions? If you denied you are a terrorist, would it matter? If you said you took these pix because you are a military enthusiast, would it matter? No matter what answers you give, I think it wouldn't matter. Because they have enough evidence to suspect that either you are a spy, a terrorist or wannabe. And they would probably use the ISA on you.

I think of the JI detainees who took videos of Yishun MRT and the US Navy facilities here and ask myself, would it matter if they denied being part of JI. Did it matter whether they answered questions in court. Not a single iota. Because the evidence against them-- the narrated video-- was so strong, how could it matter?

This is getting way OT.

Sounds a little funny ........... if the police ask you " what are you doing here and what are you taking a photo of " you don't have to answer them? So you don't have to answer but the question is what will happwn if you don't.
Let see ..........,
if I don't answer, I can be ask to go for kopi on the spot.
I still don't answer during kopi, I can be held for not co-operating with the police.
I still don't answer ( this time without kopi ), I can be held further for refusual to co-operate
I still don't answer, I maybe arrested for obstruction of justice
I still don't answer, I may be lock up for contemp of court ( this time it's the judge doing the asking )
Somewhere along the line, "have to" will become "need to", if not, than I may end up in a cell.

I fail to see why you don't "have to" answer a question from the police? I though that when the police ask you a question, you HAVE TO answer for the very simple reason that you are asked a question by the enfocer of the law of the land. Maybe I don't "have to" answer them just because I want my lawyer to answer them. Yeah, I don't have to answer them.

 

[iria]

If there is such a thing called human rights, it's in the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that you do not have to answer any questions you do not wish to. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. In the US, it's called the 5th Amendment.

err.. tgt its the other way round.. you have to prove that you are innocent in SG context.

 

[arpinkor]

I don't know why there is unhappiness over not being able to use your camera inside a building. If you go visit someone's house, you abide by their rules. If the host says you can't wear your shoes inside, then you just follow the rule and leave them outside. If it's your own house, then you can do whatever you want.

Public places, it's a different thing altogether. We photographers can always challenge the disapproving party if we are sure we are on the right side of the law. Security guards have no jurisdiction in public places, but the police have. If kena "interview" by the folks in blue, then it's best to just cooperate and show that you didn't break any laws, including showing them your pics to prove it. As long as you can prove your case, the police will not anyhow charge you one. If you don't cooperate, then you will be the losing party, not worth it.

 

[waileong]

err.. tgt its the other way round.. you have to prove that you are innocent in SG context.

That is not true, although it may seem so to many people. They still have to prove you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Although in some laws, that guilt is presumed (eg if you have more than 15g of heroin, you are presumed to be trafficking, so they don't have to find records of you selling heroin to anyone, just showing you had 15g of heroin is enough to hang you).

What is sad though is how many people give "statements" to Police without legal advice, and are then found guilty through these "statements".

 

[Picard]

Sharing my few cents worth.

Include into your Photog-hostile buildings are Plaza Sing and Orchard Cineleisure. Yes, me got told off by guards as well as shop owners inside.

Naturally I was quite annoyed but during a chance encounter with a Pro Photog, he mentioned that, some shopping centers regard their interior design and decor to be somekind of 'copyrighted'. And many actually pay lots of moolah to hire interior designers to make the interior 'swee-swee'. It's part of the 'competitive spirit' . So, if you go in there with Pro equipment, tripod etc... then you are inviting trouble. Most will tolerate little P&S. So there. And...don't ever think of shooting shop displays etc...same principle.

If you are so keen to shoot do write in. Don't get mad at the guards, they are just doing their job.


Of course there's the whole security-thingy. What can I say, from shopping centers, to schools , to construction sites...the world ain't the same no more after 9-11. Sigh.....

 

[vince123123]

Feel free to take a picture of them as well.

i have also experience this. Was taking a long explosure photo of buckingham palace somewhere ard the evening, when this police car with black opaque windows, came and took a picture of me..

 

[arpinkor]

i have also experience this. Was taking a long explosure photo of buckingham palace somewhere ard the evening, when this police car with black opaque windows, came and took a picture of me..

If the windows are opaque, how did you know they took a picture of you ?

 

[vince123123]

Just to add that the copyright in sculptures , buildings and other artistic works are not infringed by the taking of a photograph of those subjects, where they are displayed in a public place permanently.

Hence, these shop owners must have been very very ill advised.

Naturally I was quite annoyed but during a chance encounter with a Pro Photog, he mentioned that, some shopping centers regard their interior design and decor to be somekind of 'copyrighted'. And many actually pay lots of moolah to hire interior designers to make the interior 'swee-swee'. It's part of the 'competitive spirit' . So, if you go in there with Pro equipment, tripod etc... then you are inviting trouble. Most will tolerate little P&S. So there. And...don't ever think of shooting shop displays etc...same principle.

 

[centuryegg]

Nothing new... some high fashion shops at Paragon are very against photography... the ultimate was when I was taking photos with a Point and Shoot outside paragon. I was standing on the main pavement and taking a photo of a foreign friend. Their shop was just in the background. The staff came out and stood in front of the camera and said no photo taking of the shop. I was like huh???? They didnt leave until I left.... Stood in front of the camera like a police officer

 

[redstone]

Nothing new... some high fashion shops at Paragon are very against photography... the ultimate was when I was taking photos with a Point and Shoot outside paragon. I was standing on the main pavement and taking a photo of a foreign friend. Their shop was just in the background. The staff came out and stood in front of the camera and said no photo taking of the shop. I was like huh???? They didnt leave until I left.... Stood in front of the camera like a police officer

Standing on public space, you have nothing to fear, you have the legal right to shoot anything.