Will this happen in Singapore???
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=19324946
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=19324946
Photography banned Southbank - Melbourne
- Thread starter micah4
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure if it smacks of discrimination but taking NEL at times, I do notice trigger happy tourists not stopped by authorities.dr34mc4st3r said:
Was stopped once by a transit security personnel and told that me & my friend require 'clearance' for train photography. Ok... Not say it will kill me not taking photos in trains BUT, the fact that the guy kinda glued his butt to the last corner seat in the last cabin, closed his eye and Zzz... made me wonder if he's there just to add to the employment statistics?
Hmm... Photography banned in Southbank? Talking abt being draconian... :bsmilie:micah4 said:
Ok, that leaves 1 destination permanently ticked out for photography trips in the future.
I ever kena stopped by the melbourne airport security to take the airport buildings. Really pissed me off la
I don't think it's the whole Yarra. Just this public sidewalk @ the shopping center.
Look @ this article http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19913331-2862,00.html
Btw, anyone here in Melbourne? Can go take pics together
Look @ this article http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19913331-2862,00.html
Btw, anyone here in Melbourne? Can go take pics together
If you read the articale and other related stories. Taking photos there is actually not illeagal. As long as it is a public place the security guards have no jurisdiction and can not force you to stop taking photos. If they do, simply ask them to call the police to sort out the matter - no law broken, therefore no offence committed.
As for the comment by micah4 - how could a Sydney based group have any sort of effect in this situation - Yarra is in Melbourne.
As for the comment by micah4 - how could a Sydney based group have any sort of effect in this situation - Yarra is in Melbourne.
jsbn said:
Where can you find a job like that! Still get paid at the end of the day!LOL:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :sweatsm:
Golgotha said:
I been to Melbourne last year.... It is a lovely place to vist and take photos. But Yarra river look like coffe color.
But Like that they have to ban thing like online google earth (I love google earth) and etc. They have close up on this..
Gasp~! I went to Melbourne about two weeks ago. No one stopped me so far. Maybe I was just lucky. This photography ban is getting a little too much. What load of crap...
So ironic, stopping people taking photos of a tourist site they promote.
Interiors understandable, but exteriors?
Interiors understandable, but exteriors?
Promoting an area as tourism site, and yet banning taking of photos?
Why would a terrorist spend thousands of dollars on DSLRs, big lenses when he can buy a PnS, mobile phone with camera or even pinhole camera for fraction of the price?
Suan the guard. "You've got a cheap watch here, you must be always late for work"?
"You have cheap shoes, you must be very bad at walking" :devil:
Jokin la... :bsmilie:
Why would a terrorist spend thousands of dollars on DSLRs, big lenses when he can buy a PnS, mobile phone with camera or even pinhole camera for fraction of the price?
Suan the guard. "You've got a cheap watch here, you must be always late for work"?
"You have cheap shoes, you must be very bad at walking" :devil:
Jokin la... :bsmilie:
Quite silly actually. It's not officially happening in Singapore yet, but...you get the drift. It's been quite a while since I last lugged out a tripod for a night photography trip, because there's a chance I'd be stopped while I'm still trying to frame the shot.
The instruction always comes from the higher management, so say the security guards, and they have no real reason why it can't be done. They just say it's private property, so no photography.
As Redstone said, we're no terrorists. Besides, why would a terrorist want to stand out even more by using a big camera plus a tripod, and then spend minutes framing the shot and doing exposure?
From this day forth I shall carry a cheapo, small toy film camera and load up ISO 800 or 1600 film. I challenge security to catch me before I have taken photos of the CCTV cameras and hauled my butt out of the complex! :bsmilie: After all, a small camera suggests that I'm an innocent tourist.
Damn...even 'professional' terrorists don't use a tripod. They got to get this straight.
The instruction always comes from the higher management, so say the security guards, and they have no real reason why it can't be done. They just say it's private property, so no photography.
As Redstone said, we're no terrorists. Besides, why would a terrorist want to stand out even more by using a big camera plus a tripod, and then spend minutes framing the shot and doing exposure?
From this day forth I shall carry a cheapo, small toy film camera and load up ISO 800 or 1600 film. I challenge security to catch me before I have taken photos of the CCTV cameras and hauled my butt out of the complex! :bsmilie: After all, a small camera suggests that I'm an innocent tourist.
Damn...even 'professional' terrorists don't use a tripod. They got to get this straight.
Taking photos of a private non-legally-protected property outside ot it's private premises is not against any law.
So, you can stand outside the entrance of a building on the roadside and shoot it, the guard can scream all he likes, the management can make all the noise they like, BUT they can't do anything. It's not illegal. In fact you, theorectically can sue them for defaming you. :bsmilie:
So, you can stand outside the entrance of a building on the roadside and shoot it, the guard can scream all he likes, the management can make all the noise they like, BUT they can't do anything. It's not illegal. In fact you, theorectically can sue them for defaming you. :bsmilie:
redstone said:
Yes, I thought I read something like that. It's the loophole that makes it possible to take photos of private property.
Of course it brings in a lot of question marks. For example, photographing someone changing in their room from across the street. Sure, they should have drawn the curtains in the first place, but I personally wouldn't take a photo like that. When it comes to photography, I simply ensure that I do not photograph a person or a building in a way that is damaging to the reputation.
In night and architectural photography, we're always making things look grand. Isn't that good for them?
- Status
Similar threads
