Photographer's or Model's rights?

[Zerstorer]

Technically, the photographer does not have to take down the photo. However, if the photo is somewhat degrading or has somehow put the person in a bad light, it may be good grace to keep it out of public domain.

In this case, we do not see the photo in question, so I'll just refrain from commenting more.
Life is not just about rights or laws, sometimes a little courtesy goes a long way.

 

[CreaXion]

does anyone actually have the S'pore Police Force's view on this matter? this is a controversial matter, and everyday some of us are out there with our cameras in public. its inadvertable or in some cases deliberate, that we get someone in frame. on the one side of it, i can understand the feeling of intrusion, but behind the lens, i see differently (pardon the pun). no point guessing and debating about rights, if someone can find, and post, some official word on such practices that would be good for everyone.

Correct me if I am wrong. If the photo captured is derogatory of a person, the photographer may be sued in a civil suit for intrusion of privacy if published or found with such photos but I cannot be sure.

 

[Trigger Happy]

Correct me if I am wrong. If the photo captured is derogatory of a person, the photographer may be sued in a civil suit for intrusion of privacy if published or found with such photos but I cannot be sure.

define degrogatory. the boundaries need to be black and white, not grey. the issue stems from the first act of taking the photograph, not even about publishing it or using it for whatever means. i guess no one actually knows what the legal guidelines are then?

 

[dawgbyte77]

define degrogatory. the boundaries need to be black and white, not grey. the issue stems from the first act of taking the photograph, not even about publishing it or using it for whatever means. i guess no one actually knows what the legal guidelines are then?

As what happened with Mattlock, and the recent New Paper where 10 photos taken randomly from the street and asking people to guess which are china girls and which are not, there was one sg girl, who also happens to have a few girlfriends from china, saw her photo along with the editorial and complained to the New Paper. Its kinda hard to explicitly define derogatory. In the front page, the editorial is about china girls coming to singapore with the intention of being a mistress. Not sure what happened next to both cases but I assume its already forgotten or dismissed.

 

[Canonised]

does anyone actually have the S'pore Police Force's view on this matter? this is a controversial matter, and everyday some of us are out there with our cameras in public. its inadvertable or in some cases deliberate, that we get someone in frame. on the one side of it, i can understand the feeling of intrusion, but behind the lens, i see differently (pardon the pun). no point guessing and debating about rights, if someone can find, and post, some official word on such practices that would be good for everyone.

the S'pore Police Force will not be bothered by such matters ..... since there is nothing criminal, unless you are using the images for some illegal applications.
Probably it will only be a civil compliant matter.:think: Only lawyers can make the matter look grave and intimidating, and both parties will make the lawyers richer.

 

[cityofangels]

Correct me if I am wrong.. But this issue of posting a picture without the Model's Consent may come under Chapter 22(Criminal Intimidation, Insult & Annoyance) of the Penal Code:

Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

 

[benedium]

Correct me if I am wrong.. But this issue of posting a picture without the Model's Consent may come under Chapter 22(Criminal Intimidation, Insult & Annoyance) of the Penal Code:

Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

COOL!!! Are you by any chance a lawyer?

 

[Trigger Happy]

Correct me if I am wrong.. But this issue of posting a picture without the Model's Consent may come under Chapter 22(Criminal Intimidation, Insult & Annoyance) of the Penal Code:

Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

which takes us back to square one - what constitutes intrusion of privacy? from our angle, its about taking photographs in public places, e.g. shopping centre, street, bus, mrt, food court... regardless of gender and assuming its not used with the intention of insulting the modesty of a woman (or man).

 

[cityofangels]

which takes us back to square one - what constitutes intrusion of privacy? from our angle, its about taking photographs in public places, e.g. shopping centre, street, bus, mrt, food court... regardless of gender and assuming its not used with the intention of insulting the modesty of a woman (or man).

I guess under that Chapter, when they say "intrudes upon the privacy of such woman", it can be subjective as well. Intruding upon one's privacy can entail posting a picture of a woman when she is caught unaware and upon seeing the picture online, she feels her rights have been violated. Trust me.. Nothing can be worse than a friend telling you that your picture is seen on sggirls.com :hung: And no.. I do not feel that it is a compliment.

In an ideal situation, consent of the subject would be sought prior posting his/her picture online. However, we do not live in an ideal world (unfortunately) and often, the rights of others may be breached (sometimes, unknowingly).

Most of the time when people feel offended upon seeing his/her picture online without his/her permission, it is often due to the fear that the picture may be misused by others (e.g. the wonders of PS can put someone in a very uncomprising or unflattering situation). :nono: Even if such Photography forums disable the "Right-Click-Save" button, there will always be other programmes that enable to screen capture or Alt-PrintScreen. :mad2:

I do agree that the issue at hand is a delicate balance between the subject's rights and the photographer's rights to be creative/artistic/expressive/ or perhaps earn one's keep.

In this case, I guess it is not an offense until someone objects to it. :bsmilie:

Hopefully others can shed some more light onto the matter. :think:

 

[vince123123]

In this discussion, please don't forget that s509 requires there to be an intention to insult the modesty of a woman.

 

[redstone]

In this discussion, please don't forget that s509 requires there to be an intention to insult the modesty of a woman.

So as long as we can fight the case that it isn't intentional... :think:

 

[n0d3]

Which is why I have this thing called a "Model Release Form"..

 

[cityofangels]

In this discussion, please don't forget that s509 requires there to be an intention to insult the modesty of a woman.

I don't know if it means, 'intending to insult the modesty of any woman or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman'.

Too many "or"s in the act.

 

[Trigger Happy]

back to basics, what about the act of photographing a person in public? and i'm talking about simple in-the-open decent shots of people in public, not those sneaky behind-the-bushes nor voyeuristic ones. i've had my fair share of glares from people who thought i was taking their picture, even though I wasn't, but luckily s'poreans are made that way. all bark and no bite. on the other hand some have gamely posed and again, even when i wasn't taking their picture... then obligated to take a shot or two and smile at them. we s'poreans are a curious lot. in western cultures (and no, i'm no banana or spg fan) people are more chin-chy about their pictures being taken, in the asian context we have to be a little careful before we find ourselves in a sticky situation without knowing our rights. like someone in this thread who mentioned a friend bending his tripod fending off an attacker - that person probably thought his privacy (doesn't take much to figure out what ppl do on east coast beach at night yah?) was being intruded upon :bsimilie:

 

[Cikgu101]

Another thing i wanna ask, is this applicable to a single person in the photo or a group of people?

If a photographer is taking a scene of a street ala people walking about. and the photographer must ask all those people's consent before posting it online?

Just wondering with so much furor about it around nowadays. :bsmilie:

 

[Trigger Happy]

Another thing i wanna ask, is this applicable to a single person in the photo or a group of people?

If a photographer is taking a scene of a street ala people walking about. and the photographer must ask all those people's consent before posting it online?

Just wondering with so much furor about it around nowadays. :bsmilie:

that's the problem i've faced before. i was shooting a crowd and some people gave me a dirty look and passed some snide remarks, thinking i was "targetting" them. i suppose until we get some offical word that we can print and carry around with us to shut up confronters, its best to just shoot and walk away, or continue to look fierce :bsmilie:

 

[Bleuwhale]

Which is why I have this thing called a "Model Release Form"..

Glanced thru the discussion...

I do not think the issue is if a Model Release Form is utilized a not.

Think the discussion is about "random shootings made in public"

Of course, random... for the purposes of "denying intention"


Cheers

 

[cityofangels]

Of course, random... for the purposes of "denying intention"

There's alot of play of words..

Anyone who majors in Law can shed some light on the matter?

 

[unseen]

Correct me if I am wrong.. But this issue of posting a picture without the Model's Consent may come under Chapter 22(Criminal Intimidation, Insult & Annoyance) of the Penal Code:

Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Not true.
You're warping the law with your comments.
You missed the fundamentals of what the section is based on. Not the phrase, "intending to insult"

If you purposely take upskirt/downblouse etc etc photos, it's very clear cut case.
It would be hard to prove such intent if we're talking about a head shot of a person who actually posed for your photo.

cityofangels => Actually, I think a number has already replied on this thread, and also replied you on this issue on this thread. You really don't need to press on with your version of the law.

 

[cityofangels]

Not true.
You're warping the law with your comments.
You missed the fundamentals of what the section is based on. Not the phrase, "intending to insult"

If you purposely take upskirt/downblouse etc etc photos, it's very clear cut case.
It would be hard to prove such intent if we're talking about a head shot of a person who actually posed for your photo.

cityofangels => Actually, I think a number has already replied on this thread, and also replied you on this issue on this thread. You really don't need to press on with your version of the law.

Unseen: I am merely seeking the opinions of others to enlighten myself (and others) on the current issue. I know that I am in no position to say whether the section of the Penal Code which I quoted applys to the current issue at hand. However, in my defense, I never had the intention of pressing "my version" of the law unto others. If I seem to be doing so, then I apologize if my intentions (if I had any) have been misconstrued. And as far as I have been following this thread, there was never any 'definitive' solution. So I can't see how I am wrong in trying to get inputs from others.