Shooting in Shopping Centres

[vince123123]

That is because your statement is made in an absolute manner which is not in fact, picked out of context. I am commenting only on the last statement, not on the rest of the paragraph. If the last statement is removed, I will take no issue at the rest of your post.

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

 

[vince123123]

I appreciate this post - at least it goes to show that there are people still benefitting from the things I have to say, and that they actually can understand where I'm coming from.

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]

That is because your statement is made in an absolute manner which is not in fact, picked out of context. I am commenting only on the last statement, not on the rest of the paragraph. If the last statement is removed, I will take no issue at the rest of your post.

"Shameless"?
As said,I reserved this word for people who wants to continue pitting against authority/management and standing up to being quarelsome and then throwing laws and right about when they do not understand their position has changed ever since they stepped into private property unless they step out of that property.

It is none whatsoever an atttack to that you have said.

 

[ShutterCentral]

I appreciate this post - at least it goes to show that there are people still benefitting from the things I have to say, and that they actually can understand where I'm coming from.

Hi Vince, you have provided valuable information for us. I will always keep your comments in case where i am stuck in such situation. I hope not..

Cheers..

 

[Octarine]

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. [...]
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.

I don't think I was out of context, I was merely referring to your last line:

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.

This is not acceptable to me and that's what I have clarified in my posting. The rest of your posting is fine with me and as I have mentioned I do prefer using common sense prior to any legal battle.

 

[vince123123]

Nope, not the bit about shameless, the bit about what you think laws are for (also quoted by Octarine above).

"Shameless"?
As said,I reserved this word for people who wants to continue pitting against authority/management and standing up to being quarelsome and then throwing laws and right about when they do not understand their position has changed ever since they stepped into private property unless they step out of that property.

It is none whatsoever an atttack to that you have said.

 

[Giorgio]

Nope, not the bit about shameless, the bit about what you think laws are for (also quoted by Octarine above).

Then i didn't made it clear.I assume the general audience would run along my intended message.
My apology then

 

[Jester2003]

Thanks Vince. Sorry for the late reply.
I mean the copyright of the product belongs to the owner, and if taken without permission, doesn't he have the right to request for a delete.
Example, if one will to take a photo of a product in a LV shop....heehee. I'm sure the security will pounce.

 

[vince123123]

Let's take the example of your LV bag.

This is a more complex area of law where the laws of registered designs overlap with copyright. In summary, where an artistic work has been applied industrially (read, mass produced and sold), copyright cannot be enforced for 15 years from the date it was first sold.

The reason for this is because the owner ought to have registered the right as a registered design, which requires payment of fees etc etc, unlike copyright which arises automatically.

So the first question is, did the LV owner register the design of that particular bag?

Even if he did, the next question is, does taking a photograph of the bag, infringe the registered design right? As far as I can tell, a registered design is not infringed by the taking of a photograph of the article.

Feel free to disagree Like I said, this is a more complex than usual area so discussions are welcome.

Thanks Vince. Sorry for the late reply.
I mean the copyright of the product belongs to the owner, and if taken without permission, doesn't he have the right to request for a delete.
Example, if one will to take a photo of a product in a LV shop....heehee. I'm sure the security will pounce.

 

[Octarine]

Example, if one will to take a photo of a product in a LV shop....heehee. I'm sure the security will pounce.

Main question is: based on what will the Security pounce? If there is a sign "No photography" then we have the initial case as discussed before and the situation is quite clear. If there is no such sign then what is the reason for the guard to step in? A few more points I would raise:
- Shop owners not always own the shop directly (e.g. they are just manager). A lot of shops (especially selling branded goods like LV but also food) work based on franchise.
- Shops don't need to legally own the goods they sell, selling can be done based on commission.
This is something completely different from let's say a person crafting porcelain vases and developing an own unique design / style and selling them in the shop downstairs. The vase maker clearly has a point about copyright. I'm not sure about a sales girl in LV shops or any other branded fashion shops. And based on Vince's posting there are no copyright restrictions of taking pictures of goods presented in a shop for sale. So what is the point for the security to step in?

 

[unseen]

yo sin,

U can shoot anything u like (if the mall allows) and at any part as long as u dun shoot up the escalator when there's women in skirts...

As for irritating shop owners who tell u not to shoot at their products, I politely tell them I will respect their decision if I'm in their shop, but since I'm outside, their rules dun apply. But if they are nasty and insist, I'll stand where I am and take more pictures of the owner as well as her products just to piss her off (Provided the mall doesn't have rules against fotographing ).

better yet, fotograph her cheesed off face and post it in the net to advertise for her free...:thumbsup::rbounce:

Shopping malls usually have no photography stickers pasted prominently at the doors, that if you enter you're subject to their private property rules. If you violate it, they can eject you from the mall, but they can't touch ur photos.

I agree.
People have the rights to ask you to del the pictures u took of them.
if they don't compile,take out camera phone and snap them and tell them if picture appear on clubsnap,his/her pictures will be posted too

Actually they don't have such rights. If they force, I believe they would be commiting a crime.

Even if they call the police, the police also cannot view the photos in your camera unless you show them. They will need a warrant to do it.

Shooting people and property by right requires a thing called model or property release. Without these, the chances of you being sued (if they want to) is as easy as ABC. Easier for people to sue you if you shoot them as compared to you shooting property. So beware.

False. There's no such thing as individual rights here in Singapore, or privacy rights, thus the concept of model/property release is really within the legal system of Singapore. Afterall, you can't sign away your rights if you do not have them in the first place.

 

[unseen]

i think the building's security has the right to ask you to delete the photographs. say if its not a shopping mall, but a restricted military area. try that "this is my property" stunt and the consequences will probably be worse, maybe detained even. my colleague who took a civillian plane back to sg and landed in seletar airport and took photos from the tarmac area was asked by the security personnel there to delete pictures which she took of the plane. someone did tell me that in sg, if a person is inside an area/building, he has to abide by that building's regulations, if not he does not accept the terms, he has to leave immediately, and the regulations are legally binding. if he knowingly flouts the regulations, then he has to answer for it, and not challenge the people who set the rules and act gungho.

Hmmm i note that you "think" to someone who knows...

If taking in a restricted military area it's different. There's this Internal Security Act you know, the one where they can arrest and hold the person indefinitely for threatening the country's safety....