Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

[mattlock]

in today's (30th July 2006) The Sunday Times Lifestyle front page, the newspaper very blatantly infringed the Copyright Act by publishing pictures taken off various blogs without prior authorisation of a number of the photographers.

And I know this because one of the photos used in the montage is of me taken by my friend.
If anyone recognises any of the other parties in the pictures used in the montage on the front page of today's (30th July 2006) The Sunday Times Lifestyle section, please PM me with any way to get in touch with the owner of the photographs. Thanks

For further reference please refer to the link below

Copyright Act

and

IPOS

INFRINGEMENT

Infringement occurs when one does something that only the copyright owner has
the exclusive rights to do, without his consent, or when one commercially deals with infringing goods. Examples would be if one photocopies an article without the consent of the copyright owner or if one knowingly sells infringing goods.

It is important to note that one does not need to have reproduced the entire copyright
work before infringement takes place. It is an infringement as long as a substantial amount of the original work, quality-wise, has been copied.


REMEDIES

Remedies are the measures of relief that the Court can grant to a person whose rights are infringed. In civil lawsuits, remedies for copyright owners include injunctions (to stop someone from doing something), damages (whether actual damages, as proved, or statutory damages), and account of profits. Where it is proper to do so, considering the flagrancy of the infringement, the Court may also order additional damages to be paid by the infringing party to the copyright owner.

An award of statutory damages is a remedy that the Court may order against the infringing party without the need for the copyright owner to prove the loss he has suffered as a result of the infringement. This is subject to a per-work ceiling of $10 000 and to an aggregate ceiling of $200,000/- for the particular action.

[mattlock]

more info taken off IPOS:


CRIMINAL OFFENCE

In Singapore, criminal offences under copyright law include the following:

• making of infringing copies for sale;
• sale of infringing copies;
• possession or import of infringing copies for the purposes of sale or of distribution for the purpose of trade;
• distribution of infringing copies for the purposes of trade.

In any of the instances above, it must be proved that the infringing party knows or
ought reasonably to know that the copies were infringing copies.

Further, it is also a criminal offence if a person wilfully infringes copyright either to a significant extent or for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage.

Criminal Liability for Wilful Infringement

It is also a criminal offence if a person wilfully infringes copyright either for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage or to a significant extent.

Commercial advantage means any direct advantage, benefit or financial gain for a business or trade. As to whether the infringement is to a significant extent, this is judged based on the volume, value of infringing copies and whether the infringement has a substantial prejudicial impact on the copyright owner and all other relevant matters.

The penalties for such wilful copyright infringement are:

* 1st offence, a fine not exceeding $20,000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months;
* 2nd or subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding $50,000 and/or imprisonment up to 3 years.

Other acts that have civil and criminal liabilities include:

* circumventing a technological measure (page 10); and
* falsely removing or altering the rights management information electronically attached to a work (page 11).

[redstone]

Not only once but a few times too. I know a CSer whose photo of the Istana Woodneuk was taken off his photo site and placed in newspaper.

[mattlock]

Hrm yes I've heard that Straits Times has done this numerous times already... does anyone have knowledge of specific instances where Straits Times has infringed on copyrights of photos? including specific information on the date of the newspaper,section,page.
Might be good to keep a record somewhere for future reference heh heh.

If the leading newspaper in Singapore decides that it can just use anyone's photographs then perhaps we're all in for abit of trouble in the future.

[redstone]

Mattlock, open your PM.


It's sad to see the national newspaper doing such a thing.

[redstone]

Do you mind me posting this in another Singapore forum?

[hongsien]

I would suggest (after consulting a lawyer perhaps) that you write in the Forum in the Straits Times, they should get their act together! Writing so much about IP, Intellectual Property, and yet infringing it so blatantly.......let everyone know.

You likely have to write in BEFORE you start any legal proceedings......

Hong Sien

[undiscern]

Most likely you will get nothing out of it. at most a letter saying sorry.

[ortega]

call mediacorp news

[redstone]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7...board01hf9.jpg

[mattlock]

Yup, I'm not saying to SUE them but I think that for the national newspaper to do this is a blatant slap in the face.

I am going to call the editor tomorrow to see what their attitude towards this is.
It would be good to have an apology from them.

[mattlock]

yes yes please pass this information around to other forums too

not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill but then this is not the first time this is happening and I think the national newspaper needs to be reminded of the law once in awhile, even if photos are easily obtainable on the internet nowadays.

Yes will consult my lawyer friend to see what's a good way to deal with it
A lawyer letter to the straits times forum will probably hold more credibility

[redstone]

Mattlock, had any blogger or photographer been notified at all before this? Or none?

[mattlock]

Originally Posted by redstone Mattlock, had any blogger or photographer been notified at all before this? Or none?

I am in the group photo on the top right hand corner of the front page. None of us (including the photographer) were informed of the usage of the photo.

As quoted in the credits: Pictures from Singapore blogs and social networking site Friendster

I am trying to see if anyone else in these photos were consulted but I doubt it.
Plus I will be surprised if Friendster actually allowed The Straits Times to rip photos of people off its websites.

Plus the article was written in a negative light, which is pretty irritating.

[dr34mc4st3r]

Originally Posted by mattlock I am in the group photo on the top right hand corner of the front page. None of us (including the photographer) were informed of the usage of the photo. As quoted in the credits: Pictures from Singapore blogs and social networking site Friendster I am trying to see if anyone else in these photos were consulted but I doubt it. Plus I will be surprised if Friendster actually allowed The Straits Times to rip photos of people off its websites. Plus the article was written in a negative light, which is pretty irritating.

To be honest i was shocked when i saw the photos in the sunday life....i would be really PISSED if i saw my photo on the cover page WITHOUT ANY NOTIFICATION AT ALL from straits times.

wah a piece of crap paper

[redstone]

SOmeone posted this. Is it correct to say this?



"
You are right in a certain extent to say works done by me is copyrighted to me. BUT only if I have and went thru the proper documentation.

Do those pictures has disclaimer or any wordings like :

Copyright 12/03/06 by (name)

If not, then it can't be deemed as copyrighted.

Yes, they can sue the papers if they want to. Copyright law is civil law. You may sue the papers but it won't be charged a crime."

[mattlock]

Originally Posted by redstone SOmeone posted this. Is it correct to say this? " You are right in a certain extent to say works done by me is copyrighted to me. BUT only if I have and went thru the proper documentation. Do those pictures has disclaimer or any wordings like : Copyright 12/03/06 by (name) If not, then it can't be deemed as copyrighted. Yes, they can sue the papers if they want to. Copyright law is civil law. You may sue the papers but it won't be charged a crime."

Not true

This is taken from IPOS:

AUTOMATIC PROTECTION

In Singapore, an author automatically enjoys copyright protection as soon as he creates and expresses his work in a tangible form. There is no need to file for registration to get copyright protection.

[dts_spawn]

Cpoyright was also my 1st reaction when i first saw the page. But don't know much about it. Now, i know......

[Pro Image]

Hey our Little Princess is in there too......

[redstone]

Someone here is saying ST isn't wrong.

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thre...read_id=202606