Copyrights

[phototalk]

Scenario :

Photographer did a paid assignment for CC. Local newspaper wanted some photos for their publication but refused to credit photographer with name for photo used (not even talking about payment here), stating reason as "we don't credit outside photographers."
CC committee is obviously unhappy that they didn't get the publicity for the event.




Question :

Copyright is still with the photographer even though it's a paid assignment, especially since it's to be given to a 3rd party publication?

 

[satay16]

have to see the contract signed.

 

[tribal.snake]

yes and no.
copyright can belong solely to the photographer or the CC or joinly owned
largely depends on if there's an agreement sign and the terms within.
but my guess is, this is a freelance and rights belong to CC, since is their event and is a paid job. in any case, the photographer seems to be out of this disagreement between the CC and newpaper. maybe more info. would be good.

 

[phototalk]

Nothing was mentioned,verbal or otherwise. Usually,such assignments are at the last minute. The thing here is,it's perfectly alright for the CC to use the fotos for their own publications, newsletters, notice boards, website etc but now it's a 3rd party requiring them.
The newspapers dont send their photographers for such "small" events & knowing the CC would have their photogs, they only have to ask. So, they save on hiring more photographers! They still get the news, fotos flinched from photogs ( no credit or payment) and the newspaper sells!
Any photogs out there with similar experiences or any lawyers who care to comment?

 

[yanyewkay]

just move on, you aren't going to get ST to credit or pay you. It's just how they work. Even if you have full rights to the photo, what can you do? Launch a lawsuit against ST? They probably have their backs covered by some font sized 2 detail of some million-page thick law book.

 

[vince123123]

Nothing was mentioned,verbal or otherwise. Usually,such assignments are at the last minute. The thing here is,it's perfectly alright for the CC to use the fotos for their own publications, newsletters, notice boards, website etc but now it's a 3rd party requiring them.
The newspapers dont send their photographers for such "small" events & knowing the CC would have their photogs, they only have to ask. So, they save on hiring more photographers! They still get the news, fotos flinched from photogs ( no credit or payment) and the newspaper sells!
Any photogs out there with similar experiences or any lawyers who care to comment?

Scenario :

Photographer did a paid assignment for CC. Local newspaper wanted some photos for their publication but refused to credit photographer with name for photo used (not even talking about payment here), stating reason as "we don't credit outside photographers."
CC committee is obviously unhappy that they didn't get the publicity for the event.




Question :

Copyright is still with the photographer even though it's a paid assignment, especially since it's to be given to a 3rd party publication?

In the absence of an agreement, and since it was a paid assignment, I'd think that copyright vests in the CC.

However, in this particular situation, I take the view that whether the CC owns the copyright or whether it belongs to the photographer is probably not material. From your narration, both the photographer and the CC are against the usage of the photographs by ST.

Hence, if the CC tells ST "No way, unless you credit the CC or the photographer", then ST has to fly kite. I'm not sure what the issue is about.

just move on, you aren't going to get ST to credit or pay you. It's just how they work. Even if you have full rights to the photo, what can you do? Launch a lawsuit against ST? They probably have their backs covered by some font sized 2 detail of some million-page thick law book.

Whilst generally true that ST has large financial muscle, in this case, it seems pretty open-and-shut that they will not be able to get away with such blatant copyright infringement. Even if a suit is not commenced, the negative publicity (provided such is sufficiently generated) alone will affect them adversely.

 

[yqt]

Whilst generally true that ST has large financial muscle, in this case, it seems pretty open-and-shut that they will not be able to get away with such blatant copyright infringement. Even if a suit is not commenced, the negative publicity (provided such is sufficiently generated) alone will affect them adversely.

Open and shut case but ST may not care, if they credit one photographer once, they will have to credit other photographer next time. They will either not use your photo or go to court with you. ST have "in house lawyers" sitting in the office just to entertain issues like this while you will need to pay for a lawyer to entertain your case. So open and shut or blatant or not, money still plays a big part.

Neg. publicity? Where? in ST, LHWB, WB, BH, or on Stomp? ST is part of SPH which owns almost ALL the newspapers in SG including Stomp. Those that they don't own will not be interested in a small case like this or are aware of ST's possible reaction.

So it's a no win case.

PS* Anyone remember Mattlock's case where I think his face was printed in some publicity thingy ( I think, can't remember ) without his consent. He protested, we protested, an online partition was started. What happen in the end?

 

[yanyewkay]

it's his friend's pic IIRC, about blogging for "attention seeking thingy"

 

[yqt]

it's his friend's pic IIRC, about blogging for "attention seeking thingy"

Something like that

 

[vince123123]

Hmm that is probably true, the economics of a lawsuit are many times independent of the actual merits of the case. Then again, we can always say that big companies can do anything they like to screw small folks over because small folks have no money to sue. Maybe thats why we see a lot of cases where big companies dont care about product defects etc. However, some companies still care about their public image sometimes.

Well, I suppose you just have to harnass the Internet and post your story all over online - that seems to be the only way out then. Unfortunately, big companies always rule the small person.

As for STOMP - you can post there, the most they delete, you post again and again and again (and maybe get banned in the process haha). Just find some other avenue online to post.

Worst come to worst, you can try ask your MP and see if he cares

As for face printed - too bad - dont think Singapore has laws to protect this short of defamation or outrage of modesty. But I now note from the subsequent post that it was a similar case of copyright infringement.

In short, the only suggestion I can think of is spreading it far and wide online. Couch it in a sensational way that can slowly spread by itself and by others.

In fact, as an addition, write to ST and post their reply (or lack thereof) online as well Then they can't plead ignorance.

Open and shut case but ST may not care, if they credit one photographer once, they will have to credit other photographer next time. They will either not use your photo or go to court with you. ST have "in house lawyers" sitting in the office just to entertain issues like this while you will need to pay for a lawyer to entertain your case. So open and shut or blatant or not, money still plays a big part.

Neg. publicity? Where? in ST, LHWB, WB, BH, or on Stomp? ST is part of SPH which owns almost ALL the newspapers in SG including Stomp. Those that they don't own will not be interested in a small case like this or are aware of ST's possible reaction.

So it's a no win case.

PS* Anyone remember Mattlock's case where I think his face was printed in some publicity thingy ( I think, can't remember ) without his consent. He protested, we protested, an online partition was started. What happen in the end?

 

[phototalk]

Thank you all for your inputs. From that, I drew my own conclusion. It has happened before.
Thank you!

 

[yqt]

Hmm that is probably true, the economics of a lawsuit are many times independent of the actual merits of the case. Then again, we can always say that big companies can do anything they like to screw small folks over because small folks have no money to sue. Maybe thats why we see a lot of cases where big companies dont care about product defects etc. However, some companies still care about their public image sometimes.

Well, I suppose you just have to harnass the Internet and post your story all over online - that seems to be the only way out then. Unfortunately, big companies always rule the small person.

As for STOMP - you can post there, the most they delete, you post again and again and again (and maybe get banned in the process haha). Just find some other avenue online to post.

Worst come to worst, you can try ask your MP and see if he cares

As for face printed - too bad - dont think Singapore has laws to protect this short of defamation or outrage of modesty. But I now note from the subsequent post that it was a similar case of copyright infringement.

In short, the only suggestion I can think of is spreading it far and wide online. Couch it in a sensational way that can slowly spread by itself and by others.

In fact, as an addition, write to ST and post their reply (or lack thereof) online as well Then they can't plead ignorance.

Yeah, that's how the real world works.

Your suggestion of " the only suggestion I can think of is spreading it far and wide online. Couch it in a sensational way that can slowly spread by itself and by others ", it seems the only way but if others can read it, so can the " in house lawyers " from ST :bsmilie: they may just wait and if you make one bad posting ............ it's like you're a target and there's a shooter waiting behine you to get a clear good shot to shoot you :bsmilie: .

 

[vince123123]

I think if you present it in an unbiased, un-emotive manner of pure factual narration (ie avoid things like "XYZ is a thief! They steal people's photos!") and you are able to prove what you say, there is little risk that they will take out an unmeritorous action.

Then again, a large corporation can just throw money to win in a war of attrition.

And then again, maybe there's really nothing you can do.

Yeah, that's how the real world works.

Your suggestion of " the only suggestion I can think of is spreading it far and wide online. Couch it in a sensational way that can slowly spread by itself and by others ", it seems the only way but if others can read it, so can the " in house lawyers " from ST :bsmilie: they may just wait and if you make one bad posting ............ it's like you're a target and there's a shooter waiting behine you to get a clear good shot to shoot you :bsmilie: .

 

[LOTUSfairy]

i need help...
i have taken pics of some "subjects" and they like it...
it is non-profit organisation and for good cause (for presentation, not for advertisement/commerical use).

I still would like to draft out an agreement...

can help me and share some pointers what to write..:sweat:

grateful..

 

[vince123123]

If it is really important, you better pay for a lawyer.

If its heck care type, then go online and search for a mishmash of precedents and hope nothing goes wrong with your DIY contract.

i need help...
i have taken pics of some "subjects" and they like it...
it is non-profit organisation and for good cause (for presentation, not for advertisement/commerical use).

I still would like to draft out an agreement...

can help me and share some pointers what to write..:sweat:

grateful..

 

[yanyewkay]

here's a simple mix and match:
- All rights of photo belongs to LOTUSfairy
- Photos not to be used for commercial gains
- Use is restricted to only xxx medium (egublication in newsletter) for this period of time (eg:apr to may 07) Thereafter, the photo must be deleted.
- No part or whole of photo should be grossly manipulated without prior permission
- No part of whole of photo should be reproduced without prior permission

of course I'm no lawyer. I cut and paste over several place from the net :bsmilie:

 

[LOTUSfairy]

:bsmilie:

here's a simple mix and match:
- All rights of photo belongs to LOTUSfairy
- Photos not to be used for commercial gains
- Use is restricted to only xxx medium (egublication in newsletter) for this period of time (eg:apr to may 07) Thereafter, the photo must be deleted.
- No part or whole of photo should be grossly manipulated without prior permission
- No part of whole of photo should be reproduced without prior permission

of course I'm no lawyer. I cut and paste over several place from the net :bsmilie:

thankyou thank you..

 

[yqt]

i need help...
i have taken pics of some "subjects" and they like it...
it is non-profit organisation and for good cause (for presentation, not for advertisement/commerical use).

I still would like to draft out an agreement...

can help me and share some pointers what to write..:sweat:

grateful..

It all depands on yourself.
Since it for a non profit org and it's for a good cause, for me I'll just charge a token sum ( maybe $300.00 for a day ) but I'll insist that they can't release the rights to the image to a 3rd party without my consent. Release to 3rd party may be free, another token sum or full commercial rate depanding on who and what's the usage.

Hope this helps