Quickly bring out a copy and take it whenever you shoot around the building. Anyone stop you just show them the printout :bsmilie:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.