Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Leeching of Photos: Discuss the law of copyright

  1. #21
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    CYRN, my friend who knows his fair lot in legal stuff, told me that in the end, I can only sue for damages. Which means NUMBER x VALUE OF PIC. So if I'm selling prints at 20 bucks, I can only claim damages of 4 x 20 == 80 bucks.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    CYRN, my friend who knows his fair lot in legal stuff, told me that in the end, I can only sue for damages. Which means NUMBER x VALUE OF PIC. So if I'm selling prints at 20 bucks, I can only claim damages of 4 x 20 == 80 bucks.
    Now, that's true. I think you wouldn't want to make a really big fuss over it anyway. An apology from them should be sufficient, right?

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    no, you did not. you said "fine prints". if you mean "terms & conditions", then say "terms & conditions".

    Write what you mean. Mean what you write.
    OK, my mistake (england from china lah) tot that both imply the same thing... anyway I was trying to say that nothing was stated anywhere about copyright loh.... then how?
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  4. #24
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    Now, that's true. I think you wouldn't want to make a really big fuss over it anyway. An apology from them should be sufficient, right?
    yup. apology letter was received, site was closed. the legal solution part, was raised to a friend months after i received and acknowledged the apology letter. but whoever the other party is, i have learnt to guard my rights ferociously, regardless if it's some site, or students, even students in the same U (NIE is part of NTU).

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    Patenting is only for innovative products. In short, patenting IS NOT copyrighting.

    In sehsuan's case, it's pure copyright infringment by NTU Runners' Club. By the way, that page is in not way "legally binding". That page is NOT a legal document.
    Patenting can also be for ANY products that uses non-existing method for existing solution... it's a way of preventing other's from stealing your product/ideas... while they are different terms they serve the same purpose in protection of IP.

    As for the webby... apologies again for my england... I ment that it can be use as evidence in the court of law... or something to that of an "official notice"? before taking legal action??
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mervlam
    Now, that's true. I think you wouldn't want to make a really big fuss over it anyway. An apology from them should be sufficient, right?
    So you are saying that if they choose to ignore you... then you can almost do nothing... unless you wan to make a big fuzz out of it... correct? In that case you need to pay the legal fees issit?
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    CYRN, my friend who knows his fair lot in legal stuff, told me that in the end, I can only sue for damages. Which means NUMBER x VALUE OF PIC. So if I'm selling prints at 20 bucks, I can only claim damages of 4 x 20 == 80 bucks.
    Does that mean that if you are not selling the pic... ie hobbiest like me... then you can't claim a single cent?
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN
    Anyway, if the govt wants to reduce braindrain in the "artistic" area... the copyright law might be revised to be more specific/ enforced... like those music infrigement via net DL.
    haha.. well that's a different case. Those have music companies whose interests & profits are threatened & they have the clout to push for such claims.

    For us photogs, esp amateurs & hobbyists, we don't stand to gain much outta any such actions, & we dun have that big an influence either to push for such laws.

    It's the case of who u offend that's all. U offend a big shot, consequences can be very serious. U offend a small fry, sometimes u might even get away with it.

  9. #29
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN
    So you are saying that if they choose to ignore you... then you can almost do nothing... unless you wan to make a big fuzz out of it... correct? In that case you need to pay the legal fees issit?
    practically, yes. i was able to get some clout because i know the NTU SRC staff, and the offenders were from NTU. Boy, was i furious then or what. I was thinking, "fine, each photo was taken with 6500 dollars' worth of equipment, so i'll multiply by four", compounded with the unauthorised modifications of the photos etc... which would, in my demands, hit 26+K. when my friend told me of the legal viewpoint when i asked him months after the event was over... you can guess how disappointed i was...

  10. #30

    Default

    Patent and Copyright...

    Patent protects an idea.
    The idea can be a product or a process.

    Copyright protects an expression of the idea.

    Both are protections. Have different requirements, different protections, but both of them serve to protect the intellectual properties we have.

    As I mentioned in my 2nd post, the law is there to protect but whether would someone pursue the case really depends whether is it worth it...

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bean
    Patent and Copyright...

    Patent protects an idea.
    The idea can be a product or a process.

    Copyright protects an expression of the idea.

    Both are protections. Have different requirements, different protections, but both of them serve to protect the intellectual properties we have.

    As I mentioned in my 2nd post, the law is there to protect but whether would someone pursue the case really depends whether is it worth it...
    The proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which was introduced in Parliament yesterday, could send someone to jail for infringing copyrights.

    The new laws are aimed at businesses which make use of pirated materials for financial gain, and not meant to put the average home user behind bars.

    But home users shouldn't push their luck.

    If your pirated music and movie collection is big enough to look like the inventory list of a small CD shop, you could either be fined up to $20,000, or jailed up to six months, or both
    ...............
    That will depend on how much you download, the value of the works you download, and whether your act causes substantial losses to the copyright owner.

    From the newpaper... will this be applicapable to photogs whom pics are "pirated" and used for "commercial" or "financial gains" reasons?
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN
    From the newpaper... will this be applicapable to photogs whom pics are "pirated" and used for "commercial" or "financial gains" reasons?
    I guess everyone is waiting for the first prosectution to take place to judge what are the yardsticks set for the amended act.

    Since infringement of copyright could be a criminal offence after the amendments, if I am not wrong, the matter had to be reported to the police, and they will have to decide whether to take any action.

    How much remedies the plantiff have? I guess, it would remain unaffected. Correct me if I am wrong...

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bean
    I guess everyone is waiting for the first prosectution to take place to judge what are the yardsticks set for the amended act.

    Since infringement of copyright could be a criminal offence after the amendments, if I am not wrong, the matter had to be reported to the police, and they will have to decide whether to take any action.

    How much remedies the plantiff have? I guess, it would remain unaffected. Correct me if I am wrong...
    So in sehsuan's case, if NTU did not respond to his request... he can report to police and let them take action? I'm not looking from the remedies point but rather deterrent POV. Thanks.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  14. #34
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    how about original photographers using pirated software?


  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    how about original photographers using pirated software?

    hahaha... needless to say.... find an freeware / open source version lah...
    Last edited by CYRN; 21st October 2004 at 10:28 PM.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  16. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN
    So in sehsuan's case, if NTU did not respond to his request... he can report to police and let them take action? I'm not looking from the remedies point but rather deterrent POV. Thanks.
    The offenders are from NTU Runner's Club, not the University.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •