pls dun accuse him of whining. that's not very respectful of the efforts and it's hurting to say that.Originally Posted by centuryegg
Alright I apolgise, whining might not be a good term to use and I am sorry for that. My only aim is to bring across my opinon that is my own and you guys and girls can choose not to take it.
I shall say it once and for all here. Why I said let and let live is that I noticed that photographers here, seemed to like to whine and complain about everything and anything. About security guards, about places that cannot shoot, about police, about rights, about each other. However when solutions are offered, it is still complain complain complain. And end of the day no photos.
Why not take these obstacles as challenges? Instead of whining about it? Or is Singaporeans really a whining bunch as SM Goh once said?
Originally Posted by centuryegg
Our terms for the request for an apology is listed in the petition. It is not a matter of ego. Let me make it clear that I am not getting anything out of this and I am more in a position to lose because of the nature of my work. if I were interested in whining alone then this letter would never have existed.
Let's make it clear, photographers complaining about police, security guards, each other, has been beneficial to the community of photographers. In the nature of internet forums, there tends to be quite a high number of emotional outbursts but the sharing of experiences among the photographers has educated a significant number of us on the finer points of our rights under the law.
I hope you understand that an institution like the Straits Times has to set a good example of respecting IP and in case of any error hold itself up to the highest level of accountability. If it was some tom dick or harry frankly I wouldn't even have bothered with the letter.
btw the number of photographers signing the petition made up only a fraction of the signatories.
I like your attitude of taking obstacles as challenge. I take the obstacle of the venerable ST infringing copyrights as a challenge and am trying to make sure that this apology makes the public record otherwise it is easy to deny this in the future.
So to make it clear, the solution to this is easy. We just want an apology in print in the newspaper which the offending article was published in. And if anyone wants to whine about it, do feel free to give the editors below a call to make yourself heard. Each person's voice does make a point, and the number of signatories in the letter did make a point.
Han Fook Kwang
Editor Office: (65) 6319 5421
Home: (65) 6288 2696
Deputy Editor Office: (65) 6319 5313
Hp: (65) 9683 0663
Ms Sumiko Tan
Life! & Sunday Life! Editor Office: (65) 6319 5345
Kong Soon Wah
Forum Page Editor Office: (65) 6319 5438
Internet Memories are short, newspapers are forever (in the public record). (Hey! sounds like the pitch for the next ST ad campaign)
Last edited by mattlock; 15th August 2006 at 07:20 AM.
I think the point here is to retract. The example is if I tell the world you're a [offensive description]. Then I apologize to you. But to the rest of the world you are still a [offensive description]. So in some cases, live and let live doesn't apply. And if I have apologize to you, how difficult would it be for me to tell the world that I made a mistake and you are not a [offensive description]? Just my view because I would definitely feel offended if a photo of myself is used out of context and in a derogatory manner.Originally Posted by centuryegg
I'd be really keen to see how humans take such "obstacles" as challenges. if the law is the obstacle, are you willing to challenge it? if there are restrictions (clear or unclear), will YOU be the very first person to say "I CHALLENGE THIS" ?Originally Posted by centuryegg
we don't have to be reminded how many times policies were "CHALLENGED" (WHETHER or not justifiable) to know the eventual fate!
I can't believe you actually made that statement.
I'm glad that Sumiko Tan made an in-the-forum apology. However, i think the extent of the effect of what was published on the papers had far reaching consequences. some of those whose pictures were on the papers are already already shying away from any form of "public exposure" again. if this trend is allowed to go ahead, WITHOUT due considerations, i'm afraid sooner or later, we'll have a country whereby, we can effectively be just introverted robotic clones!
I personally feel that if ST runs a note of apology, it'd be in the best interest of everybody and it'll definitely appease most if not all those affected.
Originally Posted by dawgbyte77
Isnt this place about free speech? or only free speech reserved for those who write in petitions? Its my personal view that it's kicking a mountain over a mole hill so why should I be apologizing for my opinion? I am apologising for using the term Whine.
This is what I mean about being taken out of context. I am refering to the topic between ST and TS and the apology between the 2 using an analogy.Originally Posted by centuryegg
I wonder how will you feel if ST posted your works without your permission on the front page and did not make any complimentary remarks about you and your works? Will be ignore it?Originally Posted by centuryegg
I feel that Mattlock is right in bringing out this issue to them. Especially when they treat copyright infringement of their property so much and yet disregard other's IP.
Lastly, this is not about compensation, etc. So there is no need to whine so much about Mattlock's thread.
Otherwise, welcome to the community of whining photographers! hahaa
Last edited by Ashleyy; 15th August 2006 at 08:08 PM.
I find it admirable that Mattlock has mustered so much courage and persistence in pursuing this matter, and it's really for a good reason and cause.
I'm inclined to believe that most others, probably myself included, would have not taken on The Straits Times. Well, you all know Singapore, and Singaporeans, in general.
I like Sumiko Tan's writings, and I hope it was really her apologising in the forum. It puts her in good light.
I like your words "introverted robotic clones" but I think many Singaporeans are already like that. Perhaps Mattlock should lead the way in making us more extroverted individuals.Originally Posted by plsoong
Do not take on the behemoth over trivial issues.
Do not be goaded by lawyers into such action.
This sort of thing, once fired out cannot be retrieved.
Approach the management of ST in soft approach.
Let them know they may have infringed.
They may acknowledge.
Once you shoot this letter out, it becomes a FIGHT.
Lawyers are happy.
You may lose.
If countersuit is successful, you can lose few hundred thousand $.
That is excluding lawyers' fees.
hey thanks for the advice. As I said earlier on, this letter is not looking to sue or anything. It's termed in legal language to highlight the seriousness of the matter here, infringement of copyrights. A printed apology in the newspaper is crucial for a matter of public record for future reference.Originally Posted by ricohflex
I am e-mailling a request for an apology in accordance to the criteria listed in the earlier letter.
will keep you guys informed on the response
Last edited by mattlock; 16th August 2006 at 08:18 AM.
Upz for you and I am interested in the results!
Sometimes, even where you did not have any intention to sue, you may be drawn into a suit commenced by the other side in response to the issuing of your letter of demand.
Best of luck - I also hope to see positive results in an example of the small man against the large company!!
Originally Posted by mattlock
I think there are two extreme to things....
One is really making a mountain out of a molehill... (I dont think publishing my photos on national newspapers without my permission is considered making a mountain out of a molehill. It is simply trying to tell someone who made a mountain that IT IS A FRIGGIN MOUTAIN)
The other extreme is..... shying away from everything. The "let it be" attitude... While SM Goh said that we are always whinning... arent we on the other hand trying to create a society that develops "CRITICAL THINKING"?
I am behind you MATTLOCK.... For every one comment that is negative... I can see so many that is positively behind you...
too many people are like this unfortunately
Originally Posted by ajneo
Regardless of the course of outcome,
I hold Mattlock in high admiration.
It's is not in our everyday life that someone speaks up for his own beliefs and on behalf of Singaporeans.
Looking at mrbrown's plight, freedom of speech in Singapore is all but just an illusion.
M once said to J (a university student) that free speech is everywhere. M has got friends who will teach J to set up blogs and websites.
Fair enough, B's blog was not suspended but column was taken off.
But Mattlock, as long as you have a strong case to stand for, ST will probably not take chances and counter-sue because of the potential "hoo-haa" it will generate.
All the best mate!
M = Mini Mentos
J = Jay-me
B = bur-rown
It would be great comic relief over dinner to see a media behemoth toppled.Then again, I am not holding my breath for airborne porkers.
Still, something being done beats apathy, which is like slow-acting acid. It will kill you in the end.
We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde
it is with regret that I inform everyone that The Straits Times has not replied to the second letter sent to them. In light of this, I will be sending an email out to the Forum page.
So although nothing big came out of this, I am thankful for everyone who has supported the letter,and remind everyone to be aware of their copyrights and be unafraid to pursue the matter so that in the least, the paper will be aware of its readers' feedback.
email to Forum page:
On the 30th July 2006 issue of The Sunday Times, 24 pictures of bloggers taken from their blogs were used in a montage with the title " iwant2befamous.com", without their permission.
In light of this infringement of the Copyright Act, 86 of us signed a petition stating our displeasure, which can be found at http://www.petitiononline.com/STCopyr/petition.html
This letter was sent out to the Forum Editor, The Editor, the Deputy Editor and the Life! Editor, via registered mail on 7th August 2006.
As of today, The Straits Times has yet to provide any printed response to the letter.
We would like to ask if the sentiments of 86 people towards copyright infringement is not worthy of The Straits Times' attention. One would expect more accountability from a leading media publication in Singapore.
We express our disappointment at The Straits Times for its indifferent attitude towards intellectual property and the Copyright Act, and the blatant disregard of the concerns of its readers.
1.Originating thread of discussion http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=212334
2.Letter Expressing Displeasure against Infringement of Copyrights by Straits Times http://www.petitiononline.com/STCopyr/petition.html