On copyrights - PPA says differently from IPO

[sjackal]

See IPOS website:

http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/Ownership+and+Rights.htm

which basically says copyright of a photograph defaults to the commissioner/client

Then see PPA Singapore website: http://ppas.sg/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=9

Which says " The customer who goes to the studio and asks for his picture to be taken has merely consented to the photographer taking his picture and in return he pays the photographer for that copy of his picture. As far as copyright laws are concerned, the customer does not own the copyright but has merely contracted or paid for a copy of that photograph. He gets that single copy which he paid for but he has no right to make copies of the same unless of course, the photographer allows him to do so."

The PPAS article was wrote by an Associate Director of Keystone Law Corp.

Both sources are official websites of reasonable credibility but they say the exact opposite things. It is interesting how they differs. Any thoughts and opinions welcomed.

 

[Edwin Francis]

I'm no legal professional, but for what it's worth this is how I interpret the 'discrepancy':

- the IPOS website is stating the laws governing copyright protection
- the PPAS statement is an interpretation of those laws for a particular situation (the customer going to a studio to have his portrait taken).

How valid that interpretation is I can't say. That's the job of the judiciary.
Has there ever been a trial that sets a precedent? Seems unlikely.

It's been said before on CS, but it's important to have a good contract or set of terms and conditions in your quotation etc, that spell out specific details such as rights issues. That's not to say that a contract/T&Cs cannot be contested, but at least it lowers the likelihood of misunderstandings, and possibly legal action.

 

[kandinsky]

At the end of the day, just gotta check out the Copyright Act.

Can't follow your link (broken), but my layman's guess is that that particular interpretation *may* be valid as one part of the Act does mention "No assignment of copyright (whether total or partial) shall have effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor." So, it's something both parties need to be privvy to, and be explicit about? *shrug*

 

[sjackal]

At the end of the day, just gotta check out the Copyright Act.

Can't follow your link (broken), but my layman's guess is that that particular interpretation *may* be valid as one part of the Act does mention "No assignment of copyright (whether total or partial) shall have effect unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor." So, it's something both parties need to be privvy to, and be explicit about? *shrug*

Sorry, I have fixed the link.

The Copyright Act clearly states that the commissioner owns the right. That is why I am puzzled when PPAS website says differently, especially when it appears that the article was written by a law person.

And yes, it is something both parties need to be privy to, expressed and signed. Also there must be some exchange of benefits, like a consideration.

 

[sjackal]

I'm no legal professional, but for what it's worth this is how I interpret the 'discrepancy':

- the IPOS website is stating the laws governing copyright protection
- the PPAS statement is an interpretation of those laws for a particular situation (the customer going to a studio to have his portrait taken).

How valid that interpretation is I can't say. That's the job of the judiciary.
Has there ever been a trial that sets a precedent? Seems unlikely.

It's been said before on CS, but it's important to have a good contract or set of terms and conditions in your quotation etc, that spell out specific details such as rights issues. That's not to say that a contract/T&Cs cannot be contested, but at least it lowers the likelihood of misunderstandings, and possibly legal action.

Indeed.