Local newspaper uses pictures without permission


Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 8, 2004
1,255
0
0
near the Equator
#21
In past few motorsports events, it was pertinent that any request for media to be present had to be approved in order to manage their presence.

Secondly, it's better to vet the people who request to be given a photo pass, always assume there is a chance of under-handed tactics present to grab images.

Thirdly, don't splash your high resolution pics all over the place and be very careful over distribution of images to participants.
 

astroboy

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2005
549
1
18
Asia
#22
Dude
Click on www.sph.com.sg. It's stated SPH owns a 40% stake in Mediacorp Press which publishes Today. So in reality all the print media comes under 1 company's control.

In fact during the "merger", a lot of staff were laid off.


mediacorp is not owned by sph, neither sph is not owned by mediacorp..........

both are 2 separate companies owned by the government.

get the facts right.

i was from the media for 15 years.....:)
 

GavinTing

New Member
Oct 16, 2007
1,298
0
0
26
#23
Dude
Click on www.sph.com.sg. It's stated SPH owns a 40% stake in Mediacorp Press which publishes Today. So in reality all the print media comes under 1 company's control.

In fact during the "merger", a lot of staff were laid off.
No. SPH owns part of the newspaper. But not Mediacorp itself, as stated previously in the thread.
 

yamapi

Deregistered
Feb 27, 2008
288
0
0
29
#24
I already had one of the models whom i shot before using my pics for her blog as a weapon for her personal vendetta towards one of her readers.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#25
Amazing, although I'm wondering why there is any need to create fictitious names to report the incident. If you're worried about liability for defamation, changing Shin Min to Sierra Mike does not help you avoid liability. You might as well either name them directly as Shin Min, or totally not, such as "some newspaper". The middle ground is the most useless to take as far as liability for defamation is concerned.
 

akertesz

New Member
Apr 21, 2004
86
0
0
44
www.greymatterphotography.com
#26
mediacorp is not owned by sph, neither sph is not owned by mediacorp..........

both are 2 separate companies owned by the government.

get the facts right.

i was from the media for 15 years.....:)
I think they have part ownership in each other.
Streats (the free daily from SPH) is absorbed into Today and the TV side of SPH was likewise absorbed into Mediacorp.
 

Youhong

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2004
3,967
0
0
32
North
photofreak-alvinz.blogspot.com
#27
I am just curious on how the general public will respond to such case and to see the comments and opinions...

As mentioned in my very first post, the objective of the thread is to let fellow photographers know the unethical and despicable acts of a local media. In additional, their poor management and attempts to resolve the issue.
 

CanonS3IS

New Member
Sep 26, 2006
183
0
0
Toa Payoh
www.flickr.com
#28
Hmm...:think:
Can Stomp it to bring awareness? since they dun do anything can we bring awareness through various open media and let "people power do justice?" best get that journalist down.... since we cant hit the temple at least see justice done by getting the monk. Anyway the journalist don't seem to be responding and showing that kinda "Heckcare attitude."
 

mahojazz

New Member
Nov 20, 2007
175
0
0
#29
so hows the progress? any news? no apology? :(
 

madmacs

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2002
5,456
0
36
madmacs.multiply.com
#30
I am just curious on how the general public will respond to such case and to see the comments and opinions...

As mentioned in my very first post, the objective of the thread is to let fellow photographers know the unethical and despicable acts of a local media. In additional, their poor management and attempts to resolve the issue.
my guess is most will think "what's the problem? photos only mah...".
 

BoyCam

New Member
Aug 16, 2006
131
0
0
Sydney
#31
Wow, this is interesting... Just did a paper on photojournalism ethics, didnt really cross my mind that there is another perspective to ethical consideration. Should have included this in the assignment...:bsmilie:

Anyways, I thought this would be a clear infringement of IP rights. I am sure SPH/mediacorp have provided the 'victims' with some compensation for settlement?
 

tim

New Member
Nov 7, 2004
825
0
0
Eastern Singapore
#33
Try using one of the paper's image w/o asking and see if it's swept under the carpet with no compensation ;-)
 

jacob

Deregistered
May 11, 2005
3,059
0
0
Former CS Senior Member
#34
there's this thing call: big dog eats small dogs in sg.

how many small dogs willing to bite big dog without thinking far?
 

JacePhoto

Senior Member
Oct 1, 2007
6,499
10
38
New York City
www.flickr.com
#36
Newspaper selling close to $1.00 and they claim that images used are 'editorial' and hence they have the right to publish. Editorial images are also not for profit.

There are close to 300,000 newspaper (correct me if i am wrong) circulated everyday. Hence, the profit is SGD 0.3 Million.

How come they got the right to profit from the photographer's work?
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#40
Without delving in the complex circumstances involving this case, do note that there is provision within Singapore's copyright laws for unauthorized usage in some circumstances:
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/iplaw2.html
Permitted Acts

12.1.11 The CA has several provisions permitting certain acts which do not constitute copyright infringements. These acts are intended to strike a fair balance between the interest of copyright owners and the public interest. They include acts (popularly known as “fair dealings”) for the purposes of research and study, criticism or review, and reporting current events. To constitute fair dealing for research and study, not more than an article in a periodical or a reasonable proportion of a work (generally, 10% of the pages or a chapter) is to be taken, and the court is also to have regard to such factors as the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality of the part of the work that was copied in relation to the whole work as well as the effect on the potential market. In respect of fair dealing for criticism or review, or for reporting current events, there must also be a sufficient acknowledgement of the work.
The same applies even in the US where IP rights is much vaunted.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom