Shooting in Shopping Centres

[vince123123]

Well, that is up to the individual himself to think about whether he wishes to do that or not. Most people do not challenge a "No Photography sign". I'm merely laying out the legal position - what course of action to take after knowing the legal position, is up to each individual to decide for himself and responsibility for his/her actions would apply accordingly.

I'll give you a simple analogy. Company A signs a contract to Company B for something. Due to any variety of reasons, Company A is trying to get out of this contract. A lawyer then gives Company A the legal position on whether there are ways to get out of the contract, and what the consequences are for these options. Company A makes its own decision on what it wants to do.

Although I am not giving the legal position here in the capacity of a lawyer, the analogy is still applicable. Readers here will be educated by whatever legal input I have provided, and then make their own decision on what they choose to do with that education. I am not here to tell you what you should do or not to do, merely to provide my views on the legal position since that seems to be rather lacking in this forum.

Back to the Company A example. Is Company A wrong for breaching a contract? Maybe? Maybe not? Is the lawyer wrong for advising Company A on the legal position, including but not limited to ways to get out of the agreement? Who is to say?

However, with the knowledge provided by the lawyer, Company A now knows its position better and can then now make an informed decision, whichever the decision might be. In the same way, armed with the information and views provided, photographers can then choose to make their own decision on what they want to do when faced in a situation like this.

That is clearly a better position than trying to hide information from them in the hope that they will not do what you want them not to do.

As for your final example, as I have stated in the previous post, even if they stipulated such a condition, they cannot force you to part with your belongings, no matter what T&Cs they put. This is the same case as the SBS bus driver not having any statutory rights to confiscate your EZLINK card even though their internal T&Cs say they can. If they want to, then institute a court action to compel it.

it just seems like asking for trouble when entering a shopping mall knowing that a sign is displayed saying that no photo-taking is allowed, and yet still go around taking photos inside expecting that they respect your rights when you have disrepected theirs in the first place. that to me, is challenging the rules and acting gungho. morally or legally, i just hope that photographers do not take such challenging actions as it will only bring bad name to us, and will force malls to take away the goodwill. do we really want to come to a stage that malls have rules in black and white that they have right to confisicate our memory cards?

 

[DiGdUb]

then are security guards in shopping malls allowed to detain people? if so, i think it will be even uglier, right? they could just say that you are a suspicious character taking photos inside their malls and call the police. if you want to play with them, then they can also play with you. so legally or not, i hope we don't abuse the goodwill and give us a bad name.

 

[vince123123]

Ah this is a very good question, and in fact, was discussed in the newspapers before where a shopper was wrongly detained and it was discussed that he has a legal right to sue for false imprisonment.

In my view, they can try to detain people, but they would correspondingly open themselves to a risk of exposure for false imprisonment or wrongful confinement/restraint or the like.

They can say anything they want, but the key issue is whether they have a reasonable basis for their suspicions. If they do, then that would go towards mitigating their liability. That said, I'm not going to advise the building people on how to tekan photographers so this is about as much as I will say.

This is a photography forum and hence, I will only give my input on things which benefit the photographer and not against the photographer.

Hence, in such a case, I will advise photographers who are about to be detained by a security guard to take the following steps:

1. Inform the security guard that he may open himself, and his building management, to possible criminal liability for wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, possible civil liability for false imprisonment, and possible civil liability for defamation (because those people seeing you taken away will think you are a shoplifter or the like).

2. Inform the security guard that if he manhandles you or physically tries to move you, he will open himself and his employer to possible criminal liability for criminal force, assault and/or causing hurt.

3. Inform the security guard that you would like to talk to someone of authority, preferably a manager or the like.

4. Inform the security guard that you do not wish to be taken to a "quiet room" but wish to have matters conducted in the open. This is to prevent funny things from happening to you behind closed doors.

5. Ask the security guard for his full name and identification number. If he refuses to give, then refuse to further comply with any of his requests.

6. In an impasse situation, and in a case where you are very sure that you did not yourself, commit any criminal offence, inform the security guard that you wish to cease further correspondence with him and that you will be calling the police if he persists. If he agrees, then call the police and wait for them. Do not go into the "closed doors" room under any threat, coercion or the like.

You will realise that in the end, when the police come, nothing will happen and the police will just ask you to leave the place. Which you intended to do anyway.

There is no "who play with who". And bear in mind, in a case where the building/shopping mall tries to play with a customer in the way you suggested, the person at the losing end, is the shopping mall. Bad publicity hurts a mall much more than it hurst an individual, especially in cases where the guard is, as you say, out to "play" with the customer.

then are security guards in shopping malls allowed to detain people? if so, i think it will be even uglier, right? they could just say that you are a suspicious character taking photos inside their malls and call the police. if you want to play with them, then they can also play with you. so legally or not, i hope we don't abuse the goodwill and give us a bad name.

 

[Jester2003]

Just wondering on the discussion on taking of photos of the product in or out of the shop.
Isn't the product rights belongs to the shop?
And if it is taken without permission, doesn't he have the right to request for you to delete?

 

[Octarine]

then are security guards in shopping malls allowed to detain people? if so, i think it will be even uglier, right? they could just say that you are a suspicious character taking photos inside their malls and call the police. if you want to play with them, then they can also play with you. so legally or not, i hope we don't abuse the goodwill and give us a bad name.

As vince has pointed out there are several clear regulations about who is allowed to do what. Goodwill is nice but there are clear rules also and everybody - shopper, photographer, security guard and management - have to abide to these rules. This blur and unspecified threat about "they could just say that you are a suspicious character taking photos inside their malls" is, unfortunately, very common in these days. I would call it already abuse and paranoia.

 

[vince123123]

What do you mean by "product rights"? I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a "product right". Are you referring to copyright? Or registered design right? Or?

Just wondering on the discussion on taking of photos of the product in or out of the shop.
Isn't the product rights belongs to the shop?
And if it is taken without permission, doesn't he have the right to request for you to delete?

 

[DiGdUb]

In the first place, it is already stated that photography is prohibited in the premises, so why create more trouble and try to push the problem to the mall, when it is the photographer who was at fault in the first place by doing wilful things? On the side of the photographer? Sure, the photographer may win this once, but if malls decide to put down in black and white that any people taking pictures in malls will be prosecuted and photography is banned, who will have the last laugh? The ordinary shopper couldn't care less if any photographers are in the malls. And being the photographer's fault for ignoring the rules in the first place, the photographer will not get much sympathy in the end anyway. So why not create a win win situation, instead of creating more bad name for photographers? As it is, some inconsiderate photographers are already treating shows in malls as their personal shoots and blocking shoppers who want to watch the shows. There aren't any signs saying it is legally wrong to stand on a ladder in shopping malls to watch shows, and the photographer can argue with the security he is legally not wrong till the cows come home and walk off feeling smug and victorious, but in the end, its the photographer who really loses out. Yes, shoot based on the goodwill they give, but don't abuse it and start pointing fingers at everyone else when it is the photographer who started it by doing something he wasn't supposed to do in the first place.

 

[vince123123]

1. When did I say photographers should create more trouble and push the problem to the mall?

2. They can put anything they want in black and white, the legal position remains unchanged from what I said beforehand.

3. The ordinary shopper will also be affected because he/she will think that he/she can no longer take family snapshots in the food court, of their little girl playing next to the Xmas Tree setup etc.

4. Notice that I gave the legal position for both the situation where there is a sign, and where there is no sign. What are you talking about pushing the problem around? The decision is for each person to take, not for me to tell them what to do.

5. In the ladder case, the mall can say "ladders not allowed, keep it or leave". They cannot confiscate the ladder. Same principle. Don't know why you are bringing this up. You don't need a sign to impose a condition of entry to your premises. The mall can ban anything they want. Notice that I said they cannot confiscate your things, not that they cannot ban your activity. Again you are confused.

I think overall you are mixing up the issues into a convoluted emotional mishmash. I suggest you take a step back, read what I had posted again, this time slowly, and try to understand what I'm saying, and then after that post your next reply. Aside from confusing between legal and moral issues, you have also confused even the legal aspect of what I was saying.

In the first place, it is already stated that photography is prohibited in the premises, so why create more trouble and try to push the problem to the mall, when it is the photographer who was at fault in the first place by doing wilful things? On the side of the photographer? Sure, the photographer may win this once, but if malls decide to put down in black and white that any people taking pictures in malls will be prosecuted and photography is banned, who will have the last laugh? The ordinary shopper couldn't care less if any photographers are in the malls. And being the photographer's fault for ignoring the rules in the first place, the photographer will not get much sympathy in the end anyway. So why not create a win win situation, instead of creating more bad name for photographers? As it is, some inconsiderate photographers are already treating shows in malls as their personal shoots and blocking shoppers who want to watch the shows. There aren't any signs saying it is legally wrong to stand on a ladder in shopping malls to watch shows, and the photographer can argue with the security he is legally not wrong till the cows come home and walk off feeling smug and victorious, but in the end, its the photographer who really loses out. Yes, shoot based on the goodwill they give, but don't abuse it and start pointing fingers at everyone else when it is the photographer who started it by doing something he wasn't supposed to do in the first place.

 

[DiGdUb]

1. When did I say photographers should create more trouble and push the problem to the mall?

2. They can put anything they want in black and white, the legal position remains unchanged from what I said beforehand.

3. The ordinary shopper will also be affected because he/she will think that he/she can no longer take family snapshots in the food court, of their little girl playing next to the Xmas Tree setup etc.

4. Notice that I gave the legal position for both the situation where there is a sign, and where there is no sign. What are you talking about pushing the problem around? The decision is for each person to take, not for me to tell them what to do.

5. In the ladder case, the mall can say "ladders not allowed, keep it or leave". They cannot confiscate the ladder. Same principle. Don't know why you are bringing this up. You don't need a sign to impose a condition of entry to your premises. The mall can ban anything they want. Notice that I said they cannot confiscate your things, not that they cannot ban your activity. Again you are confused.

I think overall you are mixing up the issues into a convoluted emotional mishmash. I suggest you take a step back, read what I had posted again, this time slowly, and try to understand what I'm saying, and then after that post your next reply. Aside from confusing between legal and moral issues, you have also confused even the legal aspect of what I was saying.

ummmm... i was saying in general, not quoting you specifically in anyway, thats why i didn't quote your replies. if there is no sign, then its not the photographer's fault and the mall can't fault him. but if there is already a sign there, then i feel it is the courtesy of the photographer to delete the photos he took if requested, because he was the one who started it by pressing the shutter button in the first place. as for the confiscating, i don't think anyone is saying confiscating anything either, just request to delete pictures, and as i've said, if photography was prohibited in the first place, then i think its is courtesy to delete them as requested instead of fighting for my 'legal rights'. yes, legally there is nothing wrong, but do we want malls to slice the rules so thin such that photographers with dslrs are thrown out of malls on sight? i know that some malls already frown on photographers who takes pictures at the inconvenience of other shoppers or shops, and these are not the 'taking a snapshot' types. do we really want to make everything black and white, end up photographers and security throwing rules at each other and see who wins in the end? i hope we do not come to that stage.

nope, i'm not doing the emotional mishamshing thingy, just trying to see on both sides, instead of purely from the photographer's point of view.

 

[satan_18349]

Why not try this. Get a foreigner (Ah mo better) and get him to shoot in a mall. See what reactions or consequences (I doubt there's any) there might be.

 

[vince123123]

Okay in that case, my role here is done

ummmm... i was saying in general, not quoting you specifically in anyway, thats why i didn't quote your replies. if there is no sign, then its not the photographer's fault and the mall can't fault him. but if there is already a sign there, then i feel it is the courtesy of the photographer to delete the photos he took if requested, because he was the one who started it by pressing the shutter button in the first place. as for the confiscating, i don't think anyone is saying confiscating anything either, just request to delete pictures, and as i've said, if photography was prohibited in the first place, then i think its is courtesy to delete them as requested instead of fighting for my 'legal rights'. yes, legally there is nothing wrong, but do we want malls to slice the rules so thin such that photographers with dslrs are thrown out of malls on sight? i know that some malls already frown on photographers who takes pictures at the inconvenience of other shoppers or shops, and these are not the 'taking a snapshot' types. do we really want to make everything black and white, end up photographers and security throwing rules at each other and see who wins in the end? i hope we do not come to that stage.

nope, i'm not doing the emotional mishamshing thingy, just trying to see on both sides, instead of purely from the photographer's point of view.

 

[vince123123]

Yup, nothing will happen to him Ang Mo's enjoy a certain amount of immunity by virtue of race.

Why not try this. Get a foreigner (Ah mo better) and get him to shoot in a mall. See what reactions or consequences (I doubt there's any) there might be.

 

[gunawan]

Hi Vince,
Many thanks for your very indepth and mature legal analysis of the above thread. sounds like you are in the legal profession.

Anyway, having been in a few lawsuits myself, the morale of the story is:
If u have plenty of money, you can do what u want and get your lawyer to threaten to sue everyone that cheeses u off.
If u have no money, then better quiet quiet follow law, becos no lawyer = confirm lose case. In one case, tried to sue one shop, but in the end, both parties lose money and the lawyers win all the monies...:thumbsup:

I belong to the 3rd category: no money but dun like to follow law (esp dumb laws, like 70kph speed limit in KPE tunnel, cannot speed but can roadhog laws, etc)...

 

[boyboy]

Yup, nothing will happen to him Ang Mo's enjoy a certain amount of immunity by virtue of race.

that's one factor, true. another thing is, they tend to be more articulate and know how to stand up for the rights, or rights they think they have.

just MHO. if u are a shy ang moh, no offence meant :bsmilie:

 

[Octarine]

I belong to the 3rd category: no money but dun like to follow law (esp dumb laws, like 70kph speed limit in KPE tunnel, cannot speed but can roadhog laws, etc)...

Ok, this is OT now but just a remark: Have you seen how the tunnels in Alps looked like after the major incidents there? It always starts very simple but the confined nature of the tunnel tube turns simple accidents into disasters within minutes. Looking at the driving skills and behaviors of not only a few fellow Singaporeans I think 70kph is perfectly enough. Sad to say.

 

[Giorgio]

ummmm... i was saying in general, not quoting you specifically in anyway, thats why i didn't quote your replies. if there is no sign, then its not the photographer's fault and the mall can't fault him. but if there is already a sign there, then i feel it is the courtesy of the photographer to delete the photos he took if requested, because he was the one who started it by pressing the shutter button in the first place. as for the confiscating, i don't think anyone is saying confiscating anything either, just request to delete pictures, and as i've said, if photography was prohibited in the first place, then i think its is courtesy to delete them as requested instead of fighting for my 'legal rights'. yes, legally there is nothing wrong, but do we want malls to slice the rules so thin such that photographers with dslrs are thrown out of malls on sight? i know that some malls already frown on photographers who takes pictures at the inconvenience of other shoppers or shops, and these are not the 'taking a snapshot' types. do we really want to make everything black and white, end up photographers and security throwing rules at each other and see who wins in the end? i hope we do not come to that stage.

nope, i'm not doing the emotional mishamshing thingy, just trying to see on both sides, instead of purely from the photographer's point of view.

Digdub has a very valid point.
If photography is not allowed and the sign as posted,i don't understand why there are so many mindless shameless photographer who wants to argue and throw their rights till the cow comes home.What can be so difficult to understand with a sign that says
"NO PHOTOGRAPHY"
If the malls allow photography to be taken on their premises,it is out of GOODWILL and GRACIOUSNESS,NOT PHOTOGRAPHERS RIGHT.
Might the equiment belongs to the photographers,their rights should and naturally be limited to areas which doesn't says a "NO CAMERA" sign.
What about paid concerts?
I'm sure under the T&C stated no photography for certain genre but clearly we have people arguing with the security over photo taking when the ticket says "NO CAMERA"
Stupidity at it's best.

Remember malls having performance?
I get so disgusted when i see a row of photographers setting up their gears all directly infront,chopping the space hours earlier and leaving the family shoppers with their kids blocked by the gears and tripod.

I don't have to speak much about the recent case of 'photographers' snapping away the decease.Where is the respect?

Most time,it's not so the right per se but the charecter of the person holding the camera.
Once i was at the beach at night with a friend having a chat and this particular guy snap away from a distance.
What i did was to approach him and told him that i wish he would del it.
There are times when people aren't in the best of mood[no i'm not rferring to angry] and in the state where they wish others to give them the respect.
Can you imagine something happened to your friend and they're pouring out their woes and somewhere,someone is snapping away and when you approach them,they throw all their doo reh mi fa so la?
The word immature and quarelsome is written all over the face.
Laws to me are what unreasonable people resort to to throw their weight about when they lack the capacity to handle issues like civilise beings.


These acts live up to only a singular word-Shameless

 

[vince123123]

You should have stopped when the going is good.

This is by itself, an immature, uncivilised and unreasonable statement.

I guess you feel that the judicial system is only used by unreasonable and uncivilised people, and I guess when A decides to be violent and beats his wife; his wife, in applying for a personal protection order, is in fact, by your statement, an unreasonable person and not able to handle issues in a civilised manner. It only goes to show that you have no idea what the law stands for, and what the law is all about.

The uncivilised acts that you are complaining of, have nothing to do with the law. They are decisions made by people themselves. And in fact, some of the acts you mention, do not even rely on the law but purport to distort and misrepersent it.

Learn what something is before saying that it is unreasonable and only used by uncivilised people.

Laws to me are what unreasonable people resort to to throw their weight about when they lack the capacity to handle issues like civilise beings.

These acts live up to only a singular word-Shameless

 

[Giorgio]

You should have stopped when the going is good.

This is by itself, an immature, uncivilised and unreasonable statement.

I guess you feel that the judicial system is only used by unreasonable and uncivilised people, and I guess when A decides to be violent and beats his wife; his wife, in applying for a personal protection order, is in fact, by your statement, an unreasonable person and not able to handle issues in a civilised manner. It only goes to show that you have no idea what the law stands for, and what the law is all about.

The uncivilised acts that you are complaining of, have nothing to do with the law. They are decisions made by people themselves. And in fact, some of the acts you mention, do not even rely on the law but purport to distort and misrepersent it.

Learn what something is before saying that it is unreasonable and only used by uncivilised people.

I did not expect you to be picking out of context.
A wife being beaten up have the rights to apply for personal protection and hurl the abuser to court.
What i was getting about is,many a time,the position of law are being abused and in this case,quarelsome people[forget them carrying the title photographers]
A photographer trying to deny his wrongs and put his rights on the pedestal,aruging and throwing his so called 'rights' when clearly he's in the wrong?

Now tell me,what do you think is wrong here?
Food for thought

 

[Octarine]

Laws to me are what unreasonable people resort to to throw their weight about when they lack the capacity to handle issues like civilise beings.
These acts live up to only a singular word-Shameless

Sorry, I don't agree to that statement. I can understand some of your points mentioned and also the example of your friend being snapped at the beach. But the reason for having laws is a different one.
If you call a certain behavior 'shameless' then you are using a subjective term based on your social rule set and / or on your individual upbringing. You don't need to look far in small Singapore to see how different such social rules can be across different social and religious groups. In order to have a common baseline and understanding laws must be set as neutral ruler to overcome personal opinions and varying definitions by different people. I also prefer using common sense and the approach that you have in mind but not everybody does it this way and then laws are the 'fallback'. Good to know a bit.
If you read this thread you'll see how a simple question gets lots of answers which are sometimes contradicting and also full of personal perception and opinions that easily end up in heated debates - because they are just personal opinions based on individual social values. One cannot organize a society by personal opinions ... unless one has the position of a tyrant.
That's the point where vince stepped in and clarified the legal baseline which I very much appreciate. It gives a clear understanding about what is hard fact and what is just opinion. Nobody says it must always be handled that way, e.g. centre management enforcing "No Photography" signs with iron fist and hunting people with cameras bigger than a cigarette box. There are many cases of "laissez-faire" as you can see from all the families happily snapping away. But once you get people with an opinion and attitude of "I do what I want" then it's good to have more than your personal opinion to stop them. Which would then also help you in case the beach sniper refuses to stop taking pictures of your friend. Or do you consider using anything illegal? Good luck.

 

[Giorgio]

Sorry, I don't agree to that statement. I can understand some of your points mentioned and also the example of your friend being snapped at the beach. But the reason for having laws is a different one.
If you call a certain behavior 'shameless' then you are using a subjective term based on your social rule set and / or on your individual upbringing. You don't need to look far in small Singapore to see how different such social rules can be across different social and religious groups. In order to have a common baseline and understanding laws must be set as neutral ruler to overcome personal opinions and varying definitions by different people. I also prefer using common sense and the approach that you have in mind but not everybody does it this way and then laws are the 'fallback'. Good to know a bit.
If you read this thread you'll see how a simple question gets lots of answers which are sometimes contradicting and also full of personal perception and opinions that easily end up in heated debates - because they are just personal opinions based on individual social values. One cannot organize a society by personal opinions ... unless one has the position of a tyrant.
That's the point where vince stepped in and clarified the legal baseline which I very much appreciate. It gives a clear understanding about what is hard fact and what is just opinion. Nobody says it must always be handled that way, e.g. centre management enforcing "No Photography" signs with iron fist and hunting people with cameras bigger than a cigarette box. There are many cases of "laissez-faire" as you can see from all the families happily snapping away. But once you get people with an opinion and attitude of "I do what I want" then it's good to have more than your personal opinion to stop them. Which would then also help you in case the beach sniper refuses to stop taking pictures of your friend. Or do you consider using anything illegal? Good luck.

Ok as i said,i did not expect Vince and you and perhaps readers to pull out of context.Read what i typed to vince.

you nailed it.I was not directing at the placement of laws per se but the baseline of common sense that certain people[in this issue that happens to be photographers] lean on.
Why would these people argue when the management of the property has the right to deny anyone they wish?
Clearly it is stated before they enter the premises unless they happen to climb in from the roof.Same goes for photography in concerts.

I have nothing against what vince has clarified,it makes perfect sense and of course laws are neutral.But what i'm supporting here is what digdub has said and thus,qouting him.