--- the only constant is evolution and change ---
--- the only solution is adaptation ---
It is not a bait, and in the same vein, perhaps you should either work in a law firm, or the AG's Chambers, or perhaps IPOS, or maybe clerking in the courts and maybe you will better appreicate what I'm saying instead of relying on industry practice which may not be applicable when pursuing or enforcing legal rights or causes of action in a court of law.
And it is not "general law" as you say, Intellectual Property Rights are a highly specialised area of law .
Yeap, it was good discussing this matter with you We can all learn together by sharing what we all know
As for Section 201B, I'm still not quite sure that the Government counts as a body incorporate - but I think that is probably not that critical now. If this point is important to you, let me know and I'll look it up further to confirm.
And yes, as with any suit against the Government, it is usually quite a uphill battle hehe
Secondly, whatever I have suggested you do so you know, I have already done it and am in the industry, so I would expect that you have worked in a law firm or AG's chambers or perhaps IPOS or the clerking office in the courts? Otherwise, your suggestion is not acceptable by me since you yourself have not done it and whatever you claimed is based on your own interpretation of the law, which to this point, has been a futile exercise in semantics. By the way, ad agencies, model agencies and commercial/fashion photographers DO have lawyers, an d in bigger firms, a legal department to handle such stuff. Since I have worked in or with most, if not all these bodies before, I would at least have that experience with the legal side of the business/industry. Now perhaps you should at least do the same and prove your qualifications?
Lastly, rather than going round and round in circles, this is what I propose: Do find and provide *irrefutable* proof that a model cannot seek claims if a photographer decides to use said model image for commercial and/or other purposes, other than portfolio or own marketing usage, without the express consent of the model in the form of a model release or similar contract, or in a similar scenario ( I have to add this because you have the uncanny ability to argue base on semantics rather than context) if the model do seek claim, that the courts or whoever decides will not rule in the model's favor BECAUSE Singapore do not provide such provision rather than evidence provided by the photographer to indicate otherwise, whether incidental, referential or circumstantial. Otherwise, please do stop this because I have noticed that you are not discussing nor debating for the benefit of the forum but simply vying for a one-upmanship in the arena of law.
As a post note and as an evidence of you using semantics rather than context, my reference to "general law" means an area as practice by lawyers; lawmakers; enforcers; watchdog etc but you can pick apart the words use to argue your way to a "specialized area of law". I do admit I am no lawyer and I may not know law per se, but I do, as a professional photographer, knows what photography practice is, and if the whole industry practice it, it WILL be enforced. So there. I am done. Unless you can either (1) provide background to your qualification to comment further or (2) provide irrefutable proof to refute my statements, it is helpful to all to just keep further personal intepretations and/or comments on this subject to yourself. Until then I await to be stand corrected.
Last edited by randytay; 14th December 2007 at 06:11 PM.
In order to prevent an ongoing discussion on a favourite (but often misconceived) topic from being prematurely terminated on the grounds of going off topic, I have taken the liberty of starting a new thread specifically to discuss the issue of model releases here:
A response to #70 may also be located there.
My apologise to the TS for going OT here, but with the new thread, this will be the last of such an occurence in this thread