Photo taken without permission
-
I have found a photo here which was posted by user, PIGFRDDOGFRD in this website. 2 complaints emails were sent to sggirls.
-
blame the technology..
-
this is an issue since day 1
ownership of fotos..
does it belong to subjects or the one pressing the shutter -
Who can I see to take immediate action on this?
-
SPF
-
I have sent 2 complaints and sggirls is not working anything on it. Does it mean that the person in charge is not going to remove the picture, simply overlooked it or yet to attend to the matter?
I've just spoke to my legal consultant yesterday. His advice was to wait for a while more since this is just a trival matter. Thou, my understanding is that the Law governing internet is still in an unclear stage.(I might me wrong as I am only trained in Biz Law many years back.)
If the person in charge is reading, I do hope that the action to remove the picture will be fast and without delay.
-
link the photo here pls
-
wah seh.. legal consultant worrrrrrr
-
Distributing itself is an offence...
-
Don't think Singapore got laws on privacy of individual. else you see all those pictures in stomp, all the posters will be screwed off their pants, ooops, I meant sued off their pants.
-
i believe there was a fine for the webpage owner some years back regards to photos published that has copyright issues.
Go search the judgements.
-
Please note one thing. Photos taken anywhere of anyone rightfully belongs to the person who take the photo, not the subject. And this is legal in Singapore. However, there are exceptions where the context of the photo is of a bad nature, or outrages the modesty of the subject. These photos will be deemed illegal as it's invasion of the privacy of others.
For example, taking a photo of a HDB block is perfectly normal. But the photo is a zoomed image into a person's apartment, it might be deemed invasion of privacy.
-
As long as the picture does not reveal the identity of the person, does it warrant an invasion of privacy?
If the person happens to recognise the picture taken was of him/her, does the person has the grounds to sue?
On what basis does the person recognise the picture taken was of him/her?
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
i believe there was a fine for the webpage owner some years back regards to photos published that has copyright issues.
Go search the judgements.
copyright another issue, depends if the picture posted was taken by him or someone else who has copyrights to the pictures. -
Originally posted by lifelikedrama:
Please note one thing. Photos taken anywhere of anyone rightfully belongs to the person who take the photo, not the subject. And this is legal in Singapore. However, there are exceptions where the context of the photo is of a bad nature, or outrages the modesty of the subject. These photos will be deemed illegal as it's invasion of the privacy of others.
For example, taking a photo of a HDB block is perfectly normal. But the photo is a zoomed image into a person's apartment, it might be deemed invasion of privacy.
Under which Act and section is this invasion of privacy law? -
unless the photo is inclusive or the private parts of the victim. there is no reason that picture should be taken down
-
Originally posted by dotaro:
As long as the picture does not reveal the identity of the person, does it warrant an invasion of privacy?
If the person happens to recognise the picture taken was of him/her, does the person has the grounds to sue?
On what basis does the person recognise the picture taken was of him/her?
Even if the picture reveals the identity of ther person, it doesn't mean invasion of privacy unless the picture is focused on 1 particular person or somehow, the way the picture is taken is questionable of its motive, then it might be counted as invasion of privacy.
If the person finds out that him/her is in the picture, they have no grounds to sue them unless they can prove that the nature of the picture is bad and is focus of him/her.
As for your third question, it's rather difficult to say. Maybe you compare two photos taken, one with the subject in the foreground as the focus, and another with the subject in the background [maybe an accidental inclusion in the picture].
Hope these clear your doubts.
-
If Singapore laws has rights to privacy, then the victims in STOMP would start sueing the pants of ST.
-
I think what upsets the TS is that the picture is not published in a decent place.
If its publihed in some professional magazine or high class website, the TS wouldnt be so upset.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Under which Act and section is this invasion of privacy law?There is currently no invasion of privacy law. I believe currently this is more of an ethic than a law. But definitely laws will be put into place to control this.
-
That appeals to norm pics...not nude pics...
-
Originally posted by dotaro:
Even if the picture reveals the identity of ther person, it doesn't mean invasion of privacy unless the picture is focused on 1 particular person or somehow, the way the picture is taken is questionable of its motive, then it might be counted as invasion of privacy.
If the person finds out that him/her is in the picture, they have no grounds to sue them unless they can prove that the nature of the picture is bad and is focus of him/her.
As for your third question, it's rather difficult to say. Maybe you compare two photos taken, one with the subject in the foreground as the focus, and another with the subject in the background [maybe an accidental inclusion in the picture].
Hope these clear your doubts.
Thank You for your clarification.
Though I still think it is very difficult to place a "relative" to as how questionable the picture is to the person taken and the person taking the picture. My engrish not good, hope you know what I meant....
-
So picture like this would be invasion of privacy?
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/viewContent.jsp?id=39679
-
anyhow let ex bf or lover take yr half naked pics la. now regret abit too late...