Local newspaper uses pictures without permission

[Zerstorer]

As expected by Ah Zhi, Mr Delta told Ah Zhi that the media can use the pictures for reporting and he quoted the following to Ah Zhi:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright Act Chapter 63
Fair dealing for purpose of reporting current events
37. A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of current events —
(a) in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made; or
(b) by means of broadcasting or a cable programme service or in a cinematograph film.
[Aust. 1968, s. 42 (1)]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah Zhi replied that the nothing in that part exonerates any media(s) from the responsibilities to inform and to seek permission from the person holding the copyright. In addition, it does not relief the media from having to comply with the terms and conditions stated by the source/person holding the copyrights.

Let's look at it this way, to my knowledge if permission has to be sought and granted beforehand, then it is no longer a case of "fair-usage" but having the usage rights granted by the IP holder himself.

Here's my interpretation of the above laws:
What is copyright infringement? Its unauthorized use of someone's IP.
What is fair-usage/fair dealing? Provisions within the copyright law for unauthorized usage of someone's IP for the purposes of review, critique, news reporting.

Its like somebody posting a shot he found on the net and makes comments on it "Good shot" or "Lousy Shot", while acknowledging the source he took it from. Its fair usage.

Likewise when one writes a thesis, when u lift or quote from certain academic journals, it is fair use as long as you acknowledge the source.

 

[Prismatic]

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?

These statements are faulted, you forgot to input the cost of printing the paper and labour costs. Actually for a lot of newspapers, the sale of the newspapers only offset part of the cost of printing. The profits comes mainly from the advertisements and classified ads in the paper.

 

[Zerstorer]

Some other related reading pertaining to copyright and fair use that may be of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
http://www.ifla.org.sg/documents/infopol/copyright/uses.htm

Why do copyright laws exist? Why do fair usage clauses exist?

 

[hongsien]

I believe the above provision is for using images like from a photo exhibition or a painting exhibit for the purpose of reportng about it in the paper.

Cause if they just can copy pictures (from another newletter) they can do that also by copying images from other (foreign) newspapers, but do they do that? No, they buy from the foreign press, like AFP, Reuters, even the stories are bought from them, not only images......and they usually write the source below the image or article, just check your newspaper

HS

 

[Zerstorer]

I believe the above provision is for using images like from a photo exhibition or a painting exhibit for the purpose of reportng about it in the paper.

Cause if they just can copy pictures (from another newletter) they can do that also by copying images from other (foreign) newspapers, but do they do that? No, they buy from the foreign press, like AFP, Reuters, even the stories are bought from them, not only images......and they usually write the source below the image or article, just check your newspaper

HS

Many laws are often interpreted based by the intent and actual usage.

For example, using a AP news image in your own article of covering the same news would constitute infringement unless you bought the rights to use the image.

However, if you took AP's image and used it in a commentary about AP's photo ethics or quality of images, then it would probably constitute as fair usage.

A similar case is illustrated here and with a reply from AP itself:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/257446.php

AP licenses its works (photos, news stories, video and so on) to newspapers, Web sites and broadcasters for the purpose of showing news events and to illustrate news stories or commentary on the news events.

If the entirety of the work is used (such as when a whole photo is reproduced), that is considered a substantial "taking" under fair use law. If there are many photos used, that is a substantial taking of AP's photo library.

In the case of criticism, the commentary or criticism has to be about the protected work, not commentary or criticism in general – not using, as in the case of Snappedshot.com, protected photos to illustrate something on which the blogger was commenting. One cannot post a copyrighted photo of President Bush to illustrate commentary criticizing the policies of his administration, for example.

Fair use does not give others the right to use AP content without paying for it, especially when the costs -- and risks -- of gathering news around the world continue to rise. As a result, the AP has been increasingly vigilant in protecting its intellectual property.

Hope the example is clear enough.

Hence, not everything can be claimed as fair-usage, neither can everything be claim as copyright infringement without clearly checking the details of the matter. This is just to clarify what constitutes fair usage.

The TS would do best to personally seek legal advice on the issue as no one can comment without reading the article and knowing all the events behind the scenes.

 

[night86mare]

first and last post here:

But how smart is this, really? Who's going to steal your 750 x 500 pixel image and use it for anything that they should have paid you for? Who makes any money by doing that? (Perhaps porn mavens, I don't know—then again, I doubt those types would be punctilious about the niceties of copyright.)

You just can't do all that much with a 750-pixel-wide JPEG. And, as I'm sure you've noticed, there are rather a lot of them on the World Wide Web.

What I would have done with the picture, of course, is to introduce it to a whole new audience and then link to the rest of the guy's work. I don't know if being seen by, I don't know, maybe thirty or forty thousand sets of eyes on TOP over the next week or two would have sold any prints for the guy. But it probably couldn't hurt. Again and again I get notes from people to whom we've linked telling me that we spiked their hit count big time.

Copyright may be important for the big shots whose work is in tremendous demand. But I suspect it just helps small fry remain obscure.

I might be wrong about this. (Again: Oh well.) My advice, though: If you're worried enough about your little JPEGs to attach copytight notices to them, make sure you also put your contact information somewhere nearby, so people like me can get in touch with you if they want to threaten your rights with some valuable free publicity.

one of my favourite articles on top: link

 

[vince123123]

I think we shd try to confine ourselves to Singapore law - bringing in laws of other countries may only confuse the issues.

 

[Lmodel]

Perhaps you can try engaging a lawyer and enquire on the costs of a legal procedures.

Seriously, if every of us chipped in alittle, it should be a conservative amount. If we continue to do nothing, such cases are going to happen again and again.

In the very least, this is going to be a precedent case in the Singapore law of context. Maybe known as Clubsnap v XXXX (2008).

 

[mattlock]

Perhaps you can try engaging a lawyer and enquire on the costs of a legal procedures.

Seriously, if every of us chipped in alittle, it should be a conservative amount. If we continue to do nothing, such cases are going to happen again and again.

In the very least, this is going to be a precedent case in the Singapore law of context. Maybe known as Clubsnap v XXXX (2008).

Yes I agree.
If anyone is interested in a lawyer Samuel Seow specialises in dealing with the media industry
We need to protect our interests as photographers.

nightmare, you may be interested in knowing that 750 pixels can be scaled up very well. there is a 1600px low quality jpeg that I shot that's now a 8 foot poster in a store, and it looks acceptable.

 

[mattlock]

Also, why don't you try raising the matter with the PPAS first, they are supposed to represent the interest of professional photographers in Singapore after all
Having an organisation's support makes things much easier

 

[garou12]

you know what is the main lesson you should learn here? Don't post anything that the local media can use to blatantly use to rip off. That or take them to court if you think you can win against their deep pockets.

 

[garou12]

I think we shd try to confine ourselves to Singapore law - bringing in laws of other countries may only confuse the issues.

that and the judge will throw things out if outsider copyright law is brought in...singaporean context, singaporean laws...unless this is the high seas then can use international law...

 

[garou12]

Yes I agree.
If anyone is interested in a lawyer Samuel Seow specialises in dealing with the media industry
We need to protect our interests as photographers.

nightmare, you may be interested in knowing that 750 pixels can be scaled up very well. there is a 1600px low quality jpeg that I shot that's now a 8 foot poster in a store, and it looks acceptable.

yea aren't there software and plugins that are now avaliable for this use?

 

[vince123123]

How many people will be willing to "chip in" so to speak? A lawsuit will typically run into several tens of thousands, and you will probably need to find at least 100 people to chip in a couple of 10s of dollars each.

Additionally, ClubSnap is not a legal entity so its probably going to be Alvin vs Shin Min Daily

Perhaps you can try engaging a lawyer and enquire on the costs of a legal procedures.

Seriously, if every of us chipped in alittle, it should be a conservative amount. If we continue to do nothing, such cases are going to happen again and again.

In the very least, this is going to be a precedent case in the Singapore law of context. Maybe known as Clubsnap v XXXX (2008).

 

[boombox]

It's disappointing to see such a thing drag on for so long...

If there's a movement to chip in some money in for a lawsuit, do count me in.

 

[Lmodel]

How many people will be willing to "chip in" so to speak? A lawsuit will typically run into several tens of thousands, and you will probably need to find at least 100 people to chip in a couple of 10s of dollars each.

Additionally, ClubSnap is not a legal entity so its probably going to be Alvin vs Shin Min Daily

To begin with, I'll chip in $50 if TS is willing to take up the case.

If people are willing to pay this amount of money to shoot XMM, I don't see why they cannot forego one such shoot and contribute for a good cause. Afterall, it represents the whole local photography community. If it can happen to someone today, it can happen to anyone tomorrow.

 

[harrynkl]

:bsmilie::bsmilie: bring to the minister ,start a national campaign....:bsmilie:

 

[lsisaxon]

you know what is the main lesson you should learn here? Don't post anything that the local media can use to blatantly use to rip off. That or take them to court if you think you can win against their deep pockets.

Why not check with IPOS to see what they say?
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/

 

[Prismatic]

My opinion is that, the provision for a fair-use clause in copyright laws is so that the general interest of the public can be represented against the personal interest of the individual. I think the case will be greatly strengthened if you can show how this purported "fair use" has affected or diminished whatever benefits you might have gained if the picture in question has not been published. For example, if the picture depicts some trade secret information which after being published has been compromised. Or maybe it's some picture which you could have sold the exclusive copyrights to another news agency but after being published has lost its exclusiveness. Otherwise, it might be hard to show how it is not fair use and actually infringed on your copyrights. It can also be hard to show how the newspaper have profited from publishing your photos at your expense.

 

[vince123123]

Just to add, IPOS will not give any legal advice or opinions. That's their typical standard response.

Why not check with IPOS to see what they say?
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/