Some legal/ ethical issues of shooting people


Status
Not open for further replies.

WuffRuff

New Member
Jan 10, 2007
1,124
0
0
opp. East Coast Park
#1
I'd like to get this straightened out.
Is it against the law or human rights or whatever to:
1) shoot people (with camera, not gun!) without their consent.
2) use photos shot of people in competitions without their consent.
 

jmmtn4aj

New Member
Jan 1, 2007
994
0
0
Singapore
flickr.com
#3
Taking pictures of people in public is not illegal, as far as I'm aware. But aim cameras at people while they're on their own property and it may be an intrusion of privacy, even though you can probably look inside without any special equipment (well duh, how else would you take pictures). If they object to you taking pictures of them, then obviously it's polite to delete them, though.

Using pictures of people for commercial purposes without consent is illegal, which is why model release forms exist. Not sure about contests.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#4
Find out more about the legalities of image use in this talk during Month of Photography 2007... details...

http://www.monthofphoto.sg/07/index_talks.shtml

scroll to end.
Good chance to ask questions like the one from the following poster (especially the underlined part, which is highly questionable under Singapore laws):

Taking pictures of people in public is not illegal, as far as I'm aware. But aim cameras at people while they're on their own property and it may be an intrusion of privacy, even though you can probably look inside without any special equipment (well duh, how else would you take pictures). If they object to you taking pictures of them, then obviously it's polite to delete them, though.

Using pictures of people for commercial purposes without consent is illegal, which is why model release forms exist. Not sure about contests.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#5
My view:

1) No,
2) No.

I'd like to get this straightened out.
Is it against the law or human rights or whatever to:
1) shoot people (with camera, not gun!) without their consent.
2) use photos shot of people in competitions without their consent.
 

May 19, 2007
24
0
0
29
bukit merah view
www.flickr.com
#6
SPEAKING of legal issues. DO you know that IF one is found with his handphone or recording devices on (camera or video mode), and IF someone spotted it and IF the somone had got nothing better to do, the one that posses the devices can be CHARGED. so to all people who fancy to take self posed pictures in the toliet, beware:angel:
 

chanjyj

New Member
Apr 8, 2007
1,909
0
0
#7
SPEAKING of legal issues. DO you know that IF one is found with his handphone or recording devices on (camera or video mode), and IF someone spotted it and IF the somone had got nothing better to do, the one that posses the devices can be CHARGED. so to all people who fancy to take self posed pictures in the toliet, beware:angel:
only for toilet ;)

Anything else, it is not illegal, even on private property. Even the security guard cannot stop you, and the police cannt stop you or confiscate your equipment. Take note that you can be wacked for trespassing though.

What will happen is if a police report is made, and the fella decides to SUE YOU, it transcends into a civil suit, not a criminal one. :)

Very diff from the United States. Take note if you ever travel to the US, there are privacy laws. You are allowed to shoot ANYTHING you see, provided it is in visible view from a public place. (public place=street etc). So theoretically if someone want to build his house made of half-glass and you take photo of him naked... well, he can't do a darn thing to you.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#8
At best he may only be liable for an "attempt", not the actual crime - it is easy to see that he did not take any actual photos of others merely by inspecting the device.

Still it would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indeed attempting to commit the offence in question.

SPEAKING of legal issues. DO you know that IF one is found with his handphone or recording devices on (camera or video mode), and IF someone spotted it and IF the somone had got nothing better to do, the one that posses the devices can be CHARGED. so to all people who fancy to take self posed pictures in the toliet, beware:angel:
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#9
One of the rare times that someone actually states the correct position and not the "kiasu position".

One small clarification though, "whacked for tresspass" may be a criminal offence (depending on whether the elements are made out) and not merely a "civil offence". When the police tell you its a "civil claim", what they sometimes mean (but are too ignorant to know better) is that you need to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint, aka private prosecution. This is distinguished from a civil claim, where the claim does not lie in criminal liability.

Anything else, it is not illegal, even on private property. Even the security guard cannot stop you, and the police cannt stop you or confiscate your equipment. Take note that you can be wacked for trespassing though.

What will happen is if a police report is made, and the fella decides to SUE YOU, it transcends into a civil suit, not a criminal one. :)

Very diff from the United States. Take note if you ever travel to the US, there are privacy laws. You are allowed to shoot ANYTHING you see, provided it is in visible view from a public place. (public place=street etc). So theoretically if someone want to build his house made of half-glass and you take photo of him naked... well, he can't do a darn thing to you.
 

chanjyj

New Member
Apr 8, 2007
1,909
0
0
#10
One of the rare times that someone actually states the correct position and not the "kiasu position".

One small clarification though, "whacked for tresspass" may be a criminal offence (depending on whether the elements are made out) and not merely a "civil offence". When the police tell you its a "civil claim", what they sometimes mean (but are too ignorant to know better) is that you need to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint, aka private prosecution. This is distinguished from a civil claim, where the claim does not lie in criminal liability.

You misunderstood the "wacked for tresspass"..
I meant the POLICE wack you for trespass, not the security guard or house owner. Yes,the police in SG are pretty competent but sometimes they use terms that are slghtly wrong.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#11
Hmm alright, well the view is the same - it is not a civil claim but private prosecution via a Magistrate's Complaint.

I think the term "slightly wrong" is understated, there's a vast difference between a civil claim and private prosecution. The Police often use it "wrongly" (whether in the know or otherwise) to dissuade complainants from pursuing it further. When people hear "civil" they will think "wah need lawyer, need $$, better don't do liao), which is the wrong impression given by the misuse of this "slightly wrong" term.

As for trespass, I think it is more often that it starts from private prosecution than from independent police action.

You misunderstood the "wacked for tresspass"..
I meant the POLICE wack you for trespass, not the security guard or house owner. Yes,the police in SG are pretty competent but sometimes they use terms that are slghtly wrong.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom