Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Singapore Privacy Laws

  1. #1

    Default Singapore Privacy Laws

    Hi all,

    As advised by the mod, I will continue the debate about privacy laws in singapore.

    The background:
    Link: http://www.clubsnap.org/forums/showthread.php?t=212334
    Synopsis: Personal blog images published on a commercial newspaper without prior authorization of owners

    I though it was quite interesting that the newspapers' lawyers made the statement that
    [quote] "In addition, our lawyers had advised us that as there are no privacy laws in Singapore, the use of blog pictures does not infringe a person's privacy"

    Can anyone verify the truth to that statement? I am curious to what extent does this cover? For example, can i use other people's blog images on my commercial site for marketing purposes? Have a snapshot of some famous model to grace my Singapore commercial site?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Its their words against us ultimately.

    What to do?
    "Wonders of the Human Mind. Unfathomable to the highest degree."

  3. #3

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Guess I have always assumed that privacy laws apply to all. Hence it comes as quite a surprise that it is otherwise.

    Or is it that used for purpose of journalistic usages, privacy laws are not applicable?


  4. #4

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Yes, Singapore has no privacy laws.
    Shoot anyone in public, it's okay.

    This would be different in the US.
    But they are right. We have no privacy laws here.

  5. #5
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    you can shoot and use for non commercial purposes - no problem

    once it is for a commercial purpose then copyright comes into play

    it is different

  6. #6

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega
    you can shoot and use for non commercial purposes - no problem

    once it is for a commercial purpose then copyright comes into play

    it is different
    yeah ... kind of agreed ...
    AMPA * WPPI * J team

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    129

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Wow. I'm surprised

  8. #8

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Isn't the newspaper a commercial business? You mean they selling newspaper cost to cost meh?

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega
    you can shoot and use for non commercial purposes - no problem

    once it is for a commercial purpose then copyright comes into play

    it is different

  9. #9

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by jeryltan
    Isn't the newspaper a commercial business? You mean they selling newspaper cost to cost meh?
    IIRC.. commercial biz thingy dosen't apply to news.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  10. #10
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    take for example stock photography

    if you take a picture of a person and want to use it in an ad, you would need a model release

    but if you use it in an editorial, you do not need a model release

    Advertising is commercial and editorial story isn't

  11. #11

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by jeryltan
    Isn't the newspaper a commercial business? You mean they selling newspaper cost to cost meh?
    Yah, dun understand the difference... mine is a commercial site, theirs is a business too!!!
    They are using the pictures to capture attention too rite?

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by radura
    Yah, dun understand the difference... mine is a commercial site, theirs is a business too!!!
    They are using the pictures to capture attention too rite?
    Yes, but not really to make money, just to tell a story. Its a very thin line though and If it went to court Im sure it could probably go either way.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,164

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN
    IIRC.. commercial biz thingy dosen't apply to news.
    I think the contention is the difference between news and editorial. The incident is about using a photo without asking, writing an editorial about the people in the photo that they are attention seekers (without even interviewing them), and misleading the public because the people in the photo does not necessarily mean they are the blogger, hence the alledgedly attention seeker. So I would not really count it as news in my personal definition.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by dawgbyte77
    I think the contention is the difference between news and editorial. The incident is about using a photo without asking, writing an editorial about the people in the photo that they are attention seekers (without even interviewing them), and misleading the public because the people in the photo does not necessarily mean they are the blogger, hence the alledgedly attention seeker. So I would not really count it as news in my personal definition.
    Then all paparazzis eat grass liao.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    actually you will have to look at the US laws about this
    privacy laws are applicable under certain circumstances, not necessarily all.
    many artists take photos of people on the streets and they are not always legally obliged to get model releases
    it becomes abit of an issue about ethics

    Complicating the matter are various laws in differing states. I believe that in California there is a law that gives abit more protection due to the high number of celebrities in that region (but I am not exactly sure, will need to do abit more research on that)
    But most of the times paparazzi aren't breaking laws

    here are some links to a case about Phillip Lorca diCorcia who is an artist who did a series of photographs of strangers on the street and sold the pictures for hundreds of thousands of dollars
    http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001665.html
    http://www.gothamist.com/archives/20...g_portrait.php
    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/17/news/lorca.php

  16. #16

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by radura
    Yah, dun understand the difference... mine is a commercial site, theirs is a business too!!!
    They are using the pictures to capture attention too rite?
    Yes, they are using the pictures to attract attention, but they are not using it in an ad. In this case, it does not violate any laws if they put up your photos without permission. It is still counted as news.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,688

    Default Re: Singapore Privacy Laws

    Quote Originally Posted by dawgbyte77
    I think the contention is the difference between news and editorial. The incident is about using a photo without asking, writing an editorial about the people in the photo that they are attention seekers (without even interviewing them), and misleading the public because the people in the photo does not necessarily mean they are the blogger, hence the alledgedly attention seeker. So I would not really count it as news in my personal definition.
    It just means that the writer of that story is writing her/his own interpretation of the blog.......whether it was a correct interpretation or not, is not the question.

    The article in ST I think was just her/his conclusion....apparently, she/he made a wrong conclusion....:-), Maybe she/he had a negative view on blogs anyway. Journalists are supposed to be impartial, but they are also human. But I think in this article they were not trying their best to be impartial........hopefully the Singapore readers are mature and smart enough to see through this, and have different opinions than the writer.


    And: No there are no privacy laws here
    HS

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •