Local newspaper uses pictures without permission

[justanut]

Aiyah... if put on internet, then be prepared that it'll be treated as available for own consumption in any way.

If you're concerned about it being taken and used without your knowledge, the best way i know of is to create the pictures using one of those FLASH programs. Disabling the right mouse click button protects you from the normal end user but not the HTML savy who will just grab the link off the source code.

This case is too small to garner much support. Unless you're living off these pictures and the "theft" has deprived you of your livelihood, in which case you might have a better case.

Edison Chen also can't get all those magazines, websites and newspapers to pay him for using his collection :sweat:

 

[garou12]

Aiyah... if put on internet, then be prepared that it'll be treated as available for own consumption in any way.

If you're concerned about it being taken and used without your knowledge, the best way i know of is to create the pictures using one of those FLASH programs. Disabling the right mouse click button protects you from the normal end user but not the HTML savy who will just grab the link off the source code.

This case is too small to garner much support. Unless you're living off these pictures and the "theft" has deprived you of your livelihood, in which case you might have a better case.

Edison Chen also can't get all those magazines, websites and newspapers to pay him for using his collection :sweat:

flash doesn't stop people from ripping your image le...

 

[harrynkl]

do u know i can just print screen :bsmilie: this edision taught me

 

[mattlock]

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.

Someone has already mentioned on fair use, and it's doubtful that this is a case of fair use.
How hard could it be to show that a newspaper profits from publishing your photo? newspapers sell papers based on a mix of writing and images. it may be hard to quantify an amount but surely it's not hard to show that a print medium that mixes text and images profits from using other people's images

If someone wants to put together a good lawsuit that has good legs, I can chip in more than a hundred for sure.

 

[mattlock]

Aiyah... if put on internet, then be prepared that it'll be treated as available for own consumption in any way.

If you're concerned about it being taken and used without your knowledge, the best way i know of is to create the pictures using one of those FLASH programs. Disabling the right mouse click button protects you from the normal end user but not the HTML savy who will just grab the link off the source code.

This case is too small to garner much support. Unless you're living off these pictures and the "theft" has deprived you of your livelihood, in which case you might have a better case.

Edison Chen also can't get all those magazines, websites and newspapers to pay him for using his collection :sweat:

I don't think this sort of thinking should be encouraged
I think we are all fully aware that putting things on the internet poses a risk of having it stolen for other usage, however that is what copyright laws are there for, to protect content creators such as us photographers.
There needs to be a precedent of sorts to remind companies that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and that photographs are a commodity.

 

[LazerLordz]

Next time, make sure the press do not get free access to any images you think they might want.

If you're the organiser, exercise media control by being stringent with the press and their journalists. Make sure that any image that is given to them comes from a central image pool that contributing event photographers have agreed upon.

 

[Prismatic]

Someone has already mentioned on fair use, and it's doubtful that this is a case of fair use.
How hard could it be to show that a newspaper profits from publishing your photo? newspapers sell papers based on a mix of writing and images. it may be hard to quantify an amount but surely it's not hard to show that a print medium that mixes text and images profits from using other people's images

If someone wants to put together a good lawsuit that has good legs, I can chip in more than a hundred for sure.

Actually, it's not as simple as it looks. The vast majority of profits from newspapers comes from their advertising space. The circulation of newspapers rarely fluctuates from day to day unless certain important stories or pictures are published (In this case, the exclusive value of a copyrighted picture can be more easily argued). The sales revenue of newspapers based on the demand of news stories and pictures contributes very little to their profits, if even at all. The sales revenues can be considered to offset the cost of bringing the news and information to the readers. This includes the cost of printing, cost of transmitting the data, cost of buying the data from other news agencies and cost of the staff.

Maybe I'm thinking too much, but I feel there's little significance in such a court case unless there's going to be a blanket restriction on newspapers using pictures without permission. However, I think it's highly unlikely, considering how it's going to affect the terms of fair usage in our laws. So in future, any case that makes it to court are still going to be judged on a case by case basis. However, if you feel strongly that you have been disadvantaged, then of course it's only fair to pursue the matter further.

Edit: I was speaking about the newspaper industry in general, not about the case as mentioned by the TS. I apologise if it's a bit OT.

 

[vince123123]

Just commenting solely on the part about advertising space and revenue, it can be argued that revenue is brought in by advertisements and not news, but what brings in the advertisements? The news! With popular news, newspapers bring in readership, and a high readership attracts advertisements. Hence I will not be so quick to dismiss measure of revenue based on the news itself.

 

[Prismatic]

After going through the TS's account of events again, there's still some parts that are quite muddy. Why does Ah Zhi considered that "frontpage damage" has been done to him? What exactly did SM publish about him personally?

To Vince: It can also be argued that there are people who buy newspaper solely for the advertisements too, such as for the classified ads. Just a question, is there a distinction between direct and indirect benifits in a court case or will it be up to different interpretations case by case? If it's the former, than my earlier comments can go down the chute then.

 

[mattlock]

Actually, it's not as simple as it looks. The vast majority of profits from newspapers comes from their advertising space. The circulation of newspapers rarely fluctuates from day to day unless certain important stories or pictures are published (In this case, the exclusive value of a copyrighted picture can be more easily argued). The sales revenue of newspapers based on the demand of news stories and pictures contributes very little to their profits, if even at all. The sales revenues can be considered to offset the cost of bringing the news and information to the readers. This includes the cost of printing, cost of transmitting the data, cost of buying the data from other news agencies and cost of the staff.

Maybe I'm thinking too much, but I feel there's little significance in such a court case unless there's going to be a blanket restriction on newspapers using pictures without permission. However, I think it's highly unlikely, considering how it's going to affect the terms of fair usage in our laws. So in future, any case that makes it to court are still going to be judged on a case by case basis. However, if you feel strongly that you have been disadvantaged, then of course it's only fair to pursue the matter further.

Edit: I was speaking about the newspaper industry in general, not about the case as mentioned by the TS. I apologise if it's a bit OT.

I think this matter should be looked into by a lawyer. there seems to be a misunderstanding with the term fair-use
it is not usual to use other people's photos without their permission to report on an event.

 

[ellery]

I think this matter should be looked into by a lawyer. there seems to be a misunderstanding with the term fair-use
it is not usual to use other people's photos without their permission to report on an event.

Fair usage is very common placed. I supposed one could sue to test the case but unless you have deep pockets sue a newpaper group is not something you want to do if they do decided to see you in court.....remember that's how the ex Mr NKF got his peanuts squeezed hard.

 

[Prismatic]

I think this matter should be looked into by a lawyer. there seems to be a misunderstanding with the term fair-use
it is not usual to use other people's photos without their permission to report on an event.

But I don't think there's anything in the statutes that states the copyright owner's permission is required in the context of fair usage. Actually, clauses like this are made used by newspapers broadly around the world and not just local newspapers. It's quite common to see Newspaper A having an article on how Newspaper B reported on an event and even include pictures from Newspaper B (Which I think is quite a silly practise).

 

[yqt]

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)]

Just my 2cts which is not to be taken as the legal truth:

Base on my understanding, the sprite of the above act is to help keep the general public inform about news and events with the help of an image.
It is applied to images which the reporting media is not reasonable able to produce on it's own, example:
the exect time of impact during an accident caught on camera by a passer-by, the image of the VIP tripping on stage, reproduction of a poster/ad/design, etc.
In a nutshell, images which can't be reproduced or replaced by another images. This would be considered fair usage because if they use any other image the actual message/news would be inaccurate or ineffective.
But if the reporting media simply did not sent their photographer to the event but choses to use your image, in my personnal opinion, this is not consider fair usage.

The problem here in SG is that no one have deep enough pockets and enough free time to pursue this against a powerhouse like the local newspapers group. And because of this, local news group just interpert this Act to their own advantage to cover their actions. And even if you win, how to quantify your loss? What will be the cost awarded against them? It's peanuts compaired to the cost you have to come up with to fight this case.

The above is just my opinion base on my past workings and dealings with news reporters and photographers.

 

[yqt]

But I don't think there's anything in the statutes that states the copyright owner's permission is required in the context of fair usage. Actually, clauses like this are made used by newspapers broadly around the world and not just local newspapers. It's quite common to see Newspaper A having an article on how Newspaper B reported on an event and even include pictures from Newspaper B (Which I think is quite a silly practise).

Well if Newspaper B is not able to reproduce the image reported in Newspaper A, than it is fair usage. They just need to credit Newspaper A for it.

Example:

A:
News Headline:
Paris Hilton fell on the red carpet showing her undies during the openning of The Simple Life 10 !!!!!

Newspaper around the world will be using that one and only photo which shows her undies when she fall. This will most likely be fair usage.

B:
News Headline:
Paris Hilton at the opening of her new season of The Simple Life 10

Newspaper which use another's photo of her at the event will most likely be sued because any image of Paris Hilton at the event will serves the same purpose, so the newspaper should have their own photographer there if they want to report the event with images.

At least that how I see it.

 

[Prismatic]

I agree with yqt's opinion as above.
To strengthen Ah Zhi's case, what he can do is to check with the event organisers if the newspaper was informed or invited to come cover the event, whether the reporter did go to cover the event. If both are positive, and then the newspaper simply chose to write an article simply based on the pictures by Ah Zhi, then it's not fair use at all, nor even proper news-reporting at that.

 

[mattlock]

Well if Newspaper B is not able to reproduce the image reported in Newspaper A, than it is fair usage. They just need to credit Newspaper A for it.

Example:

A:
News Headline:
Paris Hilton fell on the red carpet showing her undies during the openning of The Simple Life 10 !!!!!

Newspaper around the world will be using that one and only photo which shows her undies when she fall. This will most likely be fair usage.

B:
News Headline:
Paris Hilton at the opening of her new season of The Simple Life 10

Newspaper which use another's photo of her at the event will most likely be sued because any image of Paris Hilton at the event will serves the same purpose, so the newspaper should have their own photographer there if they want to report the event with images.

At least that how I see it.

Actually most of the pictures of paris hilton are bought from stock agencies specialising in celebrities.That's why the tabloid rags in america pay 5 to 6 figure sums to photographers for images of celebrities in compromising situations (on a beach with a lover, etc)

You can't just use a picture of paris hilton taken by someone else simply because she's fallen down.

 

[mattlock]

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)]

Just my 2cts which is not to be taken as the legal truth:

Base on my understanding, the sprite of the above act is to help keep the general public inform about news and events with the help of an image.
It is applied to images which the reporting media is not reasonable able to produce on it's own, example:
the exect time of impact during an accident caught on camera by a passer-by, the image of the VIP tripping on stage, reproduction of a poster/ad/design, etc.
In a nutshell, images which can't be reproduced or replaced by another images. This would be considered fair usage because if they use any other image the actual message/news would be inaccurate or ineffective.
But if the reporting media simply did not sent their photographer to the event but choses to use your image, in my personnal opinion, this is not consider fair usage.

The problem here in SG is that no one have deep enough pockets and enough free time to pursue this against a powerhouse like the local newspapers group. And because of this, local news group just interpert this Act to their own advantage to cover their actions. And even if you win, how to quantify your loss? What will be the cost awarded against them? It's peanuts compaired to the cost you have to come up with to fight this case.

The above is just my opinion base on my past workings and dealings with news reporters and photographers.

actually if this was the case then no one would be paying Associated Press or Reuters for every photo they use since our local media can't send their reporters everywhere.

This pertains especially to our local media because they buy a lot of stories and images from other news sources. If you open up today's papers you'll see photos credited to The Jakarta Post, AP, Reuters,www.AsianPhoto.org, AFP, within the first few pages.
You can be pretty sure that they paid for each and every photo they used
You just need to do a little google to find the stock sites that specialise in supplying up-to-date photos of news events ranging from war to entertainment. They all require payments.

It would be great if someone could get a lawyer's opinion on this situation.

 

[yqt]

yeap it would really be interesting to get a lawyer's opinion on this
Cheers!

 

[blackpearl]

I think, at the end of the day, as jacob had mentioned earlier, when everything is said and done, this is a matter of Big dog eats small dog. Even though the organizations know that it is IP infringement, they know they have the upper hand because of their deep pockets. They will wait and see how it goes. It's not a fair world we are living in.

So I think the best is to get some legal counsel and find out the legal merits of the case and the cost of perusing a legal case and the chances of winning the case before doing something. I sympathize with the affected party and wish him well.

 

[Prismatic]

I suppose it all boils down to intents and purposes in the end.

The reason why newspapers pay for news agencies subscription is quite simple; so that they can access and use the news and data as and when they need it. They can of course choose not to pay for pictures of breaking news, but then they will probably have to wait some other newspapers or publications to publish it first before they can use it. If they have to do it all the time, we will all be probably reading today's news tomorrow.

IPOS seems to have updated their pages on copyright issues, my personal understanding of their explanations is that our local laws give a rather wide coverage to newsreporting.
To not constitute infringement in a newsreporting context, it has to be a fair use in the first place. This will be judged based on commercial or educational use, intents and "possibility of obtaining work in a reasonable time" (as has been discussed).

I suppose the conflict arise with the part about commerical value, since most newsreporting are a commercial entreprise.