Another Problem YOG Thread :)

[Jed]

And yes, this is in the correct forum, I think

Okay, there's a pretty active thread about the state of food provided to volunteers at the YOG.

A lot of people are up in arms over the poor quality of food, some people are defending it.

At any rate my main point is slightly different (hence the new thread).

Within that thread there is a link to the online Straits Times, which shows a sample image.

Is no one bothered about the first thing that jumped out of me (admittedly helped by their kind capitalization)?

The caption reads:

"The meal in a box which was posted by a volunteer on his Facebook page. The caterer said it has taken action to improve the portions and variety of food served. -- PHOTO: FACEBOOK"

The byline is... very probably inappropriate unless Facebook has bought the image rights. The image might have been lifted from Facebook, but that doesn't mean the photo is either the property of Facebook nor should they be recognised as the author of the photo which the byline implies.

Second, did ST obtain permission to reproduce that image? From Facebook? From the original photographer? Given the byline's content, there's an implication that the photograph's author might not even know his image has been used...

I find it most troubling, as a photographer and photojournalist.

 

[blaz7]

Something from the FB

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

So anything you upload to Facebook, Facebook can use it, think this issue was discussed sometime ago in some thread.

 

[limwhow]

That is correct, blaz7.
In fact I was checking the Intellectual Property rights on FB after seeing Jed's thread.
What FB is saying is that by uploading our photos, we give it the license to publish it on FB.
But here, ST has lifted that photo from FB to put up onto its own site, of course meanwhile referring it back to FB saying that the photo is from FB.
I am not sure if there is any clause saying that once we put up our photo onto FB, it becomes public material usable by any 3rd party.

 

[sinned79]

ok, we can stop uploading photos to FB, the image quality sucks anyway since they compress our photos.

we will just upload casual photos of ourself + friends just for the sake of sharing with our friends.

 

[NazgulKing]

The quality of reporting on ST sucks royally anyway. What is new? That their journalism standards are pathetic?

 

[brapodam]

ok, we can stop uploading photos to FB, the image quality sucks anyway since they compress our photos.

we will just upload casual photos of ourself + friends just for the sake of sharing with our friends.

The purpose of uploading pics to FB is not only to share memories with friends, it can also be used to share information with friends. In any case, FB is a very convenient way of sharing such stuff, and that is why people use it. If not all the photos you will see on FB is camwhore pics.

I don't think there is anything we can do about this, it has happened many times already, SPH is a large organization, we play with them, they got more resources to play with us, nothing much we can do.

 

[daredevil123]

This is how it works here.

Not happy? immigrate lor...

Complain also no use.

 

[Jed]

This is how it works here.

Not happy? immigrate lor...

Complain also no use.

See, this is the problem... if everyone accepts it.

This is not about Singapore or standards of living, this is about photography. It's nice to see we can have a discussion about which lens to buy or lens A is sharper than lens B, but come something like this, the response is... /shrug.

It's not the way it works in the Singapore legal system.

And I have more or less migrated.

 

[Jed]

The quality of reporting on ST sucks royally anyway. What is new? That their journalism standards are pathetic?

Well, I haven't read the Straits Times in over a decade, so I couldn't honestly say

The point I guess is to get people aware that it's not the right thing... maybe you couldn't do anything about it, but as photographers, seeing something like that should be the first thing we get worked up about (a fellow photographer having his copyright infringed).

 

[denniskee]

i thought this issue had been discussed many times liao?

bottom line, ST has a big group of lawyers, individual has....... even if go court, how to win the case?:dunno:

 

[miaoteh]

ya i think this was discussed sometime back, just for discussion prupose, quote from IPOS's website HERE

In other cases, fair dealings for the purposes of criticism, review or reporting current events would not constitute copyright infringement. In the case of criticism or review and the reporting of current events in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is required.

so does it mean that ST can use any photo from anyone for "reporting of current events"?

 

[denniskee]

i think here in singapore, there is only 1 family can change this situation of papers using photos taken by others but not pay the photog any $$$.

 

[brapodam]

ya i think this was discussed sometime back, just for discussion prupose, quote from IPOS's website HERE


so does it mean that ST can use any photo from anyone for "reporting of current events"?

Yes, but they must acknowledge the photographer as far as I'm concerned. The issue here is they acknowledged Facebook and not the photographer. But then they will claim that since Facebook owns the IP rights of the photo since it's posted there, they should acknowledge Facebook.

 

[limwhow]

Yes, but they must acknowledge the photographer as far as I'm concerned. The issue here is they acknowledged Facebook and not the photographer. But then they will claim that since Facebook owns the IP rights of the photo since it's posted there, they should acknowledge Facebook.

I think they are taking the easy way out.
On one hand, they want to show that exact photo that was in contention, i.e. the precise one direct from the FB user.
On the other hand, they need to let it appear official, and thus the acknowledgement with the statement "PHOTO: FACEBOOK", hoping no one would raise too much of a ruckus on it.

But again, FB only holds the license to publish the uploaded photo on its own FB website, and FB itself made it clear in no uncertain term that the copyright still belongs to the user who uploaded the photo.

Thus my question that I would ask myself would be: Does uploading a photo onto FB automatically place it in public domain such that anyone and everyone can use your photo?
It would be so, if there is some clause in the fine prints of the T&C of FB that automatically states that the user would relinquish his claims to the photo... but I cannot find it any where inside.

Therefore I stand to be enlightened.

 

[lightning]

One way to get around this is not to upload images onto facebook, you provide a link to your facebook. That way facebook cannot clam rights to the photo/video.

I have never uploaded any photos unto facebook. Their rules are unfair.

 

[afipuffy]

One way to get around this is not to upload images onto facebook, you provide a link from your facebook. That way facebook cannot clam rights to the photo/video.

I have never uploaded and photos unto facebook. Their rules are unfair.

I agree to that. Thats why i never upload much images in facebook.

 

[hanqiang1011]

And yes, this is in the correct forum, I think

Okay, there's a pretty active thread about the state of food provided to volunteers at the YOG.

A lot of people are up in arms over the poor quality of food, some people are defending it.

At any rate my main point is slightly different (hence the new thread).

Within that thread there is a link to the online Straits Times, which shows a sample image.

Is no one bothered about the first thing that jumped out of me (admittedly helped by their kind capitalization)?

The caption reads:

"The meal in a box which was posted by a volunteer on his Facebook page. The caterer said it has taken action to improve the portions and variety of food served. -- PHOTO: FACEBOOK"

The byline is... very probably inappropriate unless Facebook has bought the image rights. The image might have been lifted from Facebook, but that doesn't mean the photo is either the property of Facebook nor should they be recognised as the author of the photo which the byline implies.

Second, did ST obtain permission to reproduce that image? From Facebook? From the original photographer? Given the byline's content, there's an implication that the photograph's author might not even know his image has been used...

I find it most troubling, as a photographer and photojournalist.

Seems like the food is worst than my NSmen Camp in ITI... Also by SFI... But the portion is fine.

Perhaps the doing of one of such workers... I think it is just an isolete case

 

[Jed]

But again, FB only holds the license to publish the uploaded photo on its own FB website, and FB itself made it clear in no uncertain term that the copyright still belongs to the user who uploaded the photo.

Yup, more or less the nail on the head as I see it.

Thus my question that I would ask myself would be: Does uploading a photo onto FB automatically place it in public domain such that anyone and everyone can use your photo?

No it doesn't. Even if for some reason Facebook swiped your images (which they don't), that wouldn't place it in the public domain.

 

[Jed]

ya i think this was discussed sometime back, just for discussion prupose, quote from IPOS's website HERE

That's very interesting, and news to me, because it diversifies significantly from the position in the UK:

"(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement." - UK CDPA (emphasis added)

What hasn't changed in either jurisdiction is the requirement to acknowledge the source, and failure to do so means an infringement has taken place. I would suggest that in this case a valid acknowledgement is not present. The copyright holder is not stated, and Photo: Facebook is about as specific as... Photo: Internet.

so does it mean that ST can use any photo from anyone for "reporting of current events"?

The Copyright Act in Singapore would appear to allow that, yes. Assuming that acknowledgement is provided where possible.

Not just anyone either, you do not have to be a news organisation to be able to take part in the discussion of current events... you could run a blog discussing this issue, and make a copy of that photograph (again, with an appropriate acknowledgement of the author - ie. you couldn't say Photo: Straits Times Online), or we could even do it on this forum for the purpose of discussing current events and news...

 

[Reportage]

well..a well-watermarked photo might have removed this problem entirely.

if the photo when at print doesnt show original watermark or was creatively cropped out...pretty much obvious with regards to above comments.

still wondering if the SYOG pics will be credited by photographer or organisation.