Places that ban shooting

[jamesow]

Hi guys/gals,
Do you know that some popular places in sgp forbad ppl from taking pics, esp on tripod for nite scenes? eg CHIJMES where the prominent church building stands, only allow ppl point and shoot. My impression is they are more tolerant to tourists. Ppl will SLR/SDSLR or tripod or look pro, will be requested to seek the management's approval on shooting on location.
That gives raise to another issue, will ppl get prosecuted by law if they post pics of such places on net?

 

[Clark75]

If you are within the compounds of Chijmes, then they have a right to stop you, but if you are talking from across the road, it should be perfectly legal!

Lawyers, please confirm.

 

[1Ds]

but if you are talking from across the road, it should be perfectly legal!

Lawyers, please confirm.

Not true

 

[vince123123]

This issue has been discussed many times, check previous postings by doing a search.

btw, 1Ds, why do you say it is not true?

Not true

 

[madmacs]

Not true

why not? unless their jurisdiction extends across the roads too.

 

[StreetShooter]

Well, if you use a Bengawan Solo cake tin, it's acceptable.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=59087

I was actually approached by a security guard wondering why I was sitting on the ground next to a cake tin after taking it out of a black bag in which I was rummaging (was I planting a bomb or what?). But I just smiled and he smiled back and that was that. Wonder what would have happened if I had more nefarious things in mind?

 

[glennyong]

Well, if you use a Bengawan Solo cake tin, it's acceptable.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=59087

I was actually approached by a security guard wondering why I was sitting on the ground next to a cake tin after taking it out of a black bag in which I was rummaging (was I planting a bomb or what?). But I just smiled and he smiled back and that was that. Wonder what would have happened if I had more nefarious things in mind?

wow... a pin hole camera..... wow... :thumbsup:

 

[Clark75]

Not true

Is it classified as a 'sensitive area'?

 

[Clark75]

This issue has been discussed many times, check previous postings by doing a search.

Hi vince123123, can you please advise what key words we should search for?

 

[1Ds]

why not? unless their jurisdiction extends across the roads too.

I did it once and was approached by a security guard advise me that images taken should not be use without granted by the management.

 

[snowspeeder]

Even if you're across the street, if the security feels from their point of view that you're suspicious, they could always alert the police who always have patrol cars roaming around the district to come check it out.

I know it seems silly, perhaps they have the impression or a certain profile of SLR users = possible suspects? In that case, the real terror people can just pretend to be tourists and use a PNS camera.

 

[silver.wolf]

Hmmm... I've been to Chjimes vicinity twice to take photos, one of them was during a wedding occassion held there. I remembered taking photos with the security guard in my sight but they never approached me to warn me or anything.

 

[jamesow]

Hmmm... I've been to Chjimes vicinity twice to take photos, one of them was during a wedding occassion held there. I remembered taking photos with the security guard in my sight but they never approached me to warn me or anything.

看幸衰 kua heng suai..

 

[snowspeeder]

They only act on 'discretion' and sometimes just to action a little here and there -- that's what their management wants them to do. The rationale being to make their presence and enforcement felt by the public.

 

[Clark75]

I did it once and was approached by a security guard advise me that images taken should not be use without granted by the management.

I do not think they have any legal ground to demand that as the image that you have taken is viewable from a public place such as the road.

Again, I would like to seek a CS member who is reading law to clarify our uncertainties. A lot of us are not aware of our legal rights.

 

[snowspeeder]

The issue here is not the image or where the camera was pointing at the time; but rather the user of the camera that they are checking into. If the security or the police feels (based on instincts which may be subjective) that the person has underlying intentions other than taking tourist/hobby pics, then they have the right to approach and check on the said person. And when you're being checked by the police, stating your rights to standing in a public place will mean nothing. Resistance is futile.

 

[Clark75]

Even if you're across the street, if the security feels from their point of view that you're suspicious, they could always alert the police who always have patrol cars roaming around the district to come check it out.
QUOTE]

Yah. I believe that anyone (Ah-Peh or Ah-Mm etc.) has the right to inform police if they suspect that illegal or dangerous activity is taking place. But doing so without proper justification can be a waste of the SPF's time. Anyway, I don't think it's a matter of Chijmes management's authority here.

 

[1Ds]

I do not think they have any legal ground to demand that as the image that you have taken is viewable from a public place such as the road.

Again, I would like to seek a CS member who is reading law to clarify our uncertainties. A lot of us are not aware of our legal rights.

They can't stop you for taking photo from a public place but they can stop you from using the images.

 

[snowspeeder]

Even if you're across the street, if the security feels from their point of view that you're suspicious, they could always alert the police who always have patrol cars roaming around the district to come check it out.
QUOTE]

Yah. I believe that anyone (Ah-Peh or Ah-Mm etc.) has the right to inform police if they suspect that illegal or dangerous activity is taking place. But doing so without proper justification can be a waste of the SPF's time. Anyway, I don't think it's a matter of Chijmes management's authority here.

You're right. If its outside their compound, its in the hands of the law enforcers. Probably most of the time, they don't want to waste the SPF's time so they cross that line a little to advise the camera user.
Imagine this scenario...if an argument/debate breaks out in the middle of the street, then again, the SPF will have to come by and that would certainly be a waste of their time then. :bsmilie:

 

[Clark75]

The issue here is not the image or where the camera was pointing at the time; but rather the user of the camera that they are checking into. If the security or the police feels (based on instincts which may be subjective) that the person has underlying intentions other than taking tourist/hobby pics, then they have the right to approach and check on the said person. And when you're being checked by the police, stating your rights to standing in a public place will mean nothing. Resistance is futile.

No disagreement there.

My point is that we shouldn't worry about taking photos in public places (sensative places should be avoided of course); if you have no ill intentions (and respect other people's privacy), you have got nothing to worry about.

I wouldn't worry about our police misunderstanding as their profiling is quite accurate most of the time.