TNP yesterday. Photography permitted??


Status
Not open for further replies.

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#1
read this report in TNP yesterday. the legalities of it had been covered in our forums.
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
#6
I suggest the Chinatown shopkeepers should get a digital camera, so they can shoot the photographer while the photographer is shooting them, that should scare away most photographers, no need to use law.
 

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#8
most of the time, the law is not on their side, anyway.
I suggest the Chinatown shopkeepers should get a digital camera, so they can shoot the photographer while the photographer is shooting them, that should scare away most photographers, no need to use law.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#10
good news to those "die die I must take photos" people, can print the news article on a T shirt and wear it, go everywhere for photo outing.
lol lol lol

yar, sometimes i think photographers can go out of their way to be obnoxious.

yes, security guards don't know what is going on, yes, they are clueless, but i don't get the approach of "this is my right", that never works. talk to them nicely, explain properly, and i'm sure with the right approach, the impression of photographers will improve in the long run, and things will be easier for the entire community.

it takes two hands to clap. being nasty to people who are seemingly unreasonable does not really solve the root of the problem...
 

zero o

New Member
Aug 8, 2007
306
0
0
www.flickr.com
#11
good news to those "die die I must take photos" people, can print the news article on a T shirt and wear it, go everywhere for photo outing.
yup yup .. best to get a copy with the New Paper Logo / heading and print that - gives it more credibility :)
 

shootjutsu

Deregistered
Jun 7, 2009
160
0
0
#12
shucks. i didn buy yesterday's TNP sad :bsmilie:
 

ricohflex

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2005
3,353
8
38
sing
#13
I experienced this 20 years ago in a hotel. Think it was PanPacific.
Indian security staff said I cannot take photo. But he also said tourists can.

No fuss, just let it go.

What's the joke?
Nowadays, most of them are foreign workers coming from another country and telling you what you cannot do.

Want to test a person's character flaws?
Just give him/her a little authority and watch if they abuse it.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#15
Well, I've said the legal position many many times over and over again in this forum already :) :).

With the second article, I hope naysayers will now not question the accuracy of my previous comments :)
 

Last edited by a moderator:

zero o

New Member
Aug 8, 2007
306
0
0
www.flickr.com
#16
Well, I've said the legal position many many times over and over again in this forum already :) :).

With the second article, I hope naysayers will now not question the accuracy of my previous comments :)
Thank you for your patient and tireless efforts over the year(s) in addressing this much asked topic. :)
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#17
You're welcome; and it is nice to be appreciated :) :) Thanks! :)

Thank you for your patient and tireless efforts over the year(s) in addressing this much asked topic. :)
 

Virgo

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2003
4,816
0
0
West of Singapore
www.pbase.com
#18
You're welcome; and it is nice to be appreciated :) :) Thanks! :)
We all along appreciate your input mate! Everytime I kenna stopped, I'll think of you! :bsmilie:

Now these article really re-emphasized what we all along believed in.

Another question, if we're doing TFCDs in these locations, can we still flash out the article? ;p

How can they know that we're doing this commercially or non-commercially? The subject has agreed to be photographed right?
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#19
Hahahah, well its good then hehee :)

If you ask me, legally speaking, flashing a newspaper article featuring a lawyer's opinion isn't really a good defence because lawyers can be wrong too :) It isn't as good as say, a Minister's comment or a court decision.

However, that should be good enough to stop most less-than-savvy security guards in their tracks. Particularly if you are shooting at those places mentioned in the article.

Legally speaking, so long as it is a public place, it doesn't matter whether you're doing a TFCD, shooting the grasshopper, or just shooting your own feet.

Also, whether it is commerical or otherwise, makes no difference legally. Further, agreement of the subject is not a legal consideration at all.

Those factors are just brought up by the spokespersons for those places putting what THEY feel are morally right or wrong factors to decide. Moral factors can differ vastly from legal factors of consideration.

You can easily see this illustrated when you read the lawyer's opinion side by side with the views given by the spokespersons of those locations.

We all along appreciate your input mate! Everytime I kenna stopped, I'll think of you! :bsmilie:

Now these article really re-emphasized what we all along believed in.

Another question, if we're doing TFCDs in these locations, can we still flash out the article? ;p

How can they know that we're doing this commercially or non-commercially? The subject has agreed to be photographed right?
 

Virgo

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2003
4,816
0
0
West of Singapore
www.pbase.com
#20
Thanks mate. That's good stuff to re-emphasize what we already know. :thumbsup:

I just find it sick that we Singaporeans cannot even shoot our own mother/father land, while tourists can! :angry:

Hahahah, well its good then hehee :)

If you ask me, legally speaking, flashing a newspaper article featuring a lawyer's opinion isn't really a good defence because lawyers can be wrong too :) It isn't as good as say, a Minister's comment or a court decision.

However, that should be good enough to stop most less-than-savvy security guards in their tracks. Particularly if you are shooting at those places mentioned in the article.

Legally speaking, so long as it is a public place, it doesn't matter whether you're doing a TFCD, shooting the grasshopper, or just shooting your own feet.

Also, whether it is commerical or otherwise, makes no difference legally. Further, agreement of the subject is not a legal consideration at all.

Those factors are just brought up by the spokespersons for those places putting what THEY feel are morally right or wrong factors to decide. Moral factors can differ vastly from legal factors of consideration.

You can easily see this illustrated when you read the lawyer's opinion side by side with the views given by the spokespersons of those locations.
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom