Local newspaper uses pictures without permission


Status
Not open for further replies.

Youhong

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2004
3,967
0
0
31
North
photofreak-alvinz.blogspot.com
I've stated my objectives of this thread in previous posts .

Much have been discussed about the copyright issues. At least the general public understand that the Copyright Act does not protect the media from being able to use copyrighted images or any other materials freely and that the "dealing" has to be "fair". As mentioned, we shall not put too much of our own understanding of the Copyright Act because our own understandings may not be correct.

Whether or not the "dealing" is "fair" or not, nothing in the Copyright Act exonerates any medias the responsibly to inform and to seek for permission from the person holding the copyright and most importantly, the section does not relief the media from having to comply with the terms and conditions stated by the source/ person holding the copyrights.

I hope more attention can be given to other parts of the discussion as mentioned in my objectives and not just the Copyrights issue.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
Youhong -

i mean this in all earnestness, but i do think you are being a tad unreasonable for a matter like this

"give and take", i feel, should be the keyword here, i do not understand how you feel that the drifter's reputation has been tarnished, i have not seen the article and i do not know what it is about. but based on your description, i still do not see eye to eye on that point - perhaps if there was a more detailed explanation.

personally, i would not even request for a public apology - especially if it is (it seems) a more tabloid style paper than the usual.. but because of the funny replacement names you use, i am really wallowing in guesswork here.

it is good that you have put up some qualifier about yoru purposes, else what you're just going to do is gather a whole big discussion of witch-hunters and copyright pet topic people which are frankly, more interested in furthering their own personal agenda, from what i see.
 

Youhong

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2004
3,967
0
0
31
North
photofreak-alvinz.blogspot.com
Youhong -

i mean this in all earnestness, but i do think you are being a tad unreasonable for a matter like this

"give and take", i feel, should be the keyword here, i do not understand how you feel that the drifter's reputation has been tarnished, i have not seen the article and i do not know what it is about. but based on your description, i still do not see eye to eye on that point - perhaps if there was a more detailed explanation.

personally, i would not even request for a public apology - especially if it is (it seems) a more tabloid style paper than the usual.. but because of the funny replacement names you use, i am really wallowing in guesswork here.

it is good that you have put up some qualifier about yoru purposes, else what you're just going to do is gather a whole big discussion of witch-hunters and copyright pet topic people which are frankly, more interested in furthering their own personal agenda, from what i see.
You have not read or full understand my objectives of having this thread.

Also, which part do you deemed that I'm unreasonable?
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
Whether or not the "dealing" is "fair" or not, nothing in the Copyright Act exonerates any medias the responsibly to inform and to seek for permission from the person holding the copyright and most importantly, the section does not relief the media from having to comply with the terms and conditions stated by the source/ person holding the copyrights.
Actually where did you get this steadfast belief from? The above totally negates the existence of the fair-dealing cause. Fair-dealing is meant to cover unauthorized usage, such that debate and free flow of information in society is not stifled. There are several links I posted that support this.

Let's apply logical analysis here, if permission need always be sought, its a simple matter of request and granting of usage rights. There would be no need to even consider fair-dealing.

What one feels should be legal is different from what one thinks is legal according to wording of the law.

I personally feel that the crux of your case lies in whether fair-dealing applies.

As I've mentioned previously, best that you seek advice from an academic if not a professional.

You can have a whole paragraphs of suppositions in your favour or against, but ultimately none of that may matter in the court of law. If you are looking for empathy that may be another matter.

Last post on this matter.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
You have not read or full understand my objectives of having this thread.

Also, which part do you deemed that I'm unreasonable?
did you even read my post?

if this is your behaviour in response, then i won't bother, last post here.

it is obvious that you already have enough people on your side.
 

Youhong

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2004
3,967
0
0
31
North
photofreak-alvinz.blogspot.com
Thank you for your above 2 posts.

But I think you have not read or fully understand my objectives of having this thread.

My objective is NOT to discuss about the Copyright Acts here. But to highlight the unethical acts of the media and their management to resolve the issue.
 

Gannic

New Member
Mar 29, 2005
10
0
0
Got no head no tail.
I flipped through that day's Shin Min paper, can't find any drifting cars or masked number plates.
r u talking about this article?








Since we're talking about whether the paper infringed any IP, not about the people in the article itself, so I think putting up this article here to highlight the situation is under the "fair use" clause you've mentioned.
 

Youhong

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2004
3,967
0
0
31
North
photofreak-alvinz.blogspot.com
Got no head no tail.
I flipped through that day's Shin Min paper, can't find any drifting cars or masked number plates.
r u talking about this article?

Since we're talking about whether the paper infringed any IP, not about the people in the article itself, so I think putting up this article here to highlight the situation is under the "fair use" clause you've mentioned.
As mentioned, the reason why I posted the details in a third party manner is to protect the identity of the other victims.
 

nabilmust

New Member
Sep 19, 2007
237
0
0
OK before I start, I have to disclaim that
1) I have a very rudimentary grasp of IP Law,
2) Am still in Law School and therefore
3) Am not qualified to give legal advice,
4) Do not claim to be giving you any legal advice, and
5) Request that should you decide to take any legal action, seek a qualified legal professional.

I do feel for you, Ah Zhi, I do. One thing that you need to keep in mind, is the one thing that the newspaper has done, that you haven't. They actually have a lawyer, and they've used him.

Here are some of my thoughts on your objectives:

1) unethical and despicable acts of a local media.
Look, they've given you some sort of credit. True, they didn't ask you. But the other truth is, they don't have to. All they have to do is acknowledge your work. Read the Copyright Act again.

a) Much have been discussed and debated on the copyright issue. However, only someone who really practice the law can give us the correct answer. I suggest that we shouldn't post too much personal opinions which may be misleading to other forumers. Whether or not there really is a case, it will take quite some time to find out.
True. And I cannot give you an answer, and will not comment on this further.

b) It is clear that the journalist wasn't present at the event itself. The report in her article were purely her own deduction based on the pictures she saw. In another words, she made up her own story - which the event organiser called to request her to correct her article. (with regards to this, what do forumers think?)
This is an issue of journalistic ethics. But if it really is her interpretation based on the picture, then it's her interpretation, like you said.

c) The journalist already know about the photographer's unhappiness of another forum using his pictures, yet she chose to use and even written it in her own article - ironic.
That's her job, no? Not using your pictures, but to write about these things?

2) poor management and attempts to resolve the issue
a) Low responds to emails and multiple reminders have to be sent

You could try to bring it up, but here's their answer: They were doing their legal homework, etc, and that's why they took so long.

b) The journalist did not come face to face to give any explaination to the photographer.
That's her organisation protecting her. And I think any boss would, or should do.


Again, I stress that I am not envious of your circumstances. But I think you need to take one step back, and size things up.

I think an apology was in order, but they don't have to give you one - and if they did, it would be an informal one, like the personal email, and it's only because they were being nice. Anyway, no paper runs apologies on the the front page, it's usually stuffed between articles in small print.

I hate to tell you this, but they did offer an amicable solution. You just wanted more, and you insisted on it. That's why they made that dramatic u-turn: because as it appears, they offered reconciliation, and you refused it.

I've tried very hard to refrain from legal interpretations, because, as you said, it's not about that. I do respect your work, which I am sure is valuable to you, and admired by our colleagues on this forum. What you should take away from this, is knowing it's your work - and people who matter to you, know that. No matter the paper, the journalist, their work ethic or their moral compass - the recognition of your effort from people who recognise your effort is untarnished.

The train has left the station, we should move on too.
 

Youhong

Senior Member
Dec 30, 2004
3,967
0
0
31
North
photofreak-alvinz.blogspot.com
my responds in red
.
.
.

Here are some of my thoughts on your objectives:

1) unethical and despicable acts of a local media.
Look, they've given you some sort of credit. True, they didn't ask you. But the other truth is, they don't have to. All they have to do is acknowledge your work. Read the Copyright Act again.
There's terms and condition of use in the website. There is a breach of terms and condition.

a) Much have been discussed and debated on the copyright issue. However, only someone who really practice the law can give us the correct answer. I suggest that we shouldn't post too much personal opinions which may be misleading to other forumers. Whether or not there really is a case, it will take quite some time to find out.
True. And I cannot give you an answer, and will not comment on this further.
N/A

b) It is clear that the journalist wasn't present at the event itself. The report in her article were purely her own deduction based on the pictures she saw. In another words, she made up her own story - which the event organiser called to request her to correct her article. (with regards to this, what do forumers think?)
This is an issue of journalistic ethics. But if it really is her interpretation based on the picture, then it's her interpretation, like you said.
As mentioned, she made up the story herself which had to be corrected by the event organisers. To make up a story is not ethical as a news person.

c) The journalist already know about the photographer's unhappiness of another forum using his pictures, yet she chose to use and even written it in her own article - ironic.
That's her job, no? Not using your pictures, but to write about these things?
This is about ethics again.

2) poor management and attempts to resolve the issue
a) Low responds to emails and multiple reminders have to be sent

You could try to bring it up, but here's their answer: They were doing their legal homework, etc, and that's why they took so long.
As mentioned, multiple reminder emails were sent. There was no acknowledgement at all. Not even a "will get back to you again".

b) The journalist did not come face to face to give any explaination to the photographer.
That's her organisation protecting her. And I think any boss would, or should do.
Since she is directly involved in the issue, she should be present at the meeting.
 

nabilmust

New Member
Sep 19, 2007
237
0
0
The little points are in your inbox, especially with regard to the legalese. In any case, I respect your sentiments on the issue, like I do everyone else's.

Again, I stress that I feel for you, for the passion and hours you put in to your art. I would feel just as frustrated as you are feeling now. I don't think the newspaper was very gracious in dealing with the matter. Sometimes life is like that, right?

Let's keep doing what we love doing, and don't let anyone stop us.


Best,
Nabil
 

zero o

New Member
Aug 8, 2007
306
0
0
www.flickr.com
Kudos to Nabilmust for writing a balanced and neutral opinion based on his personal perception of the given situation.

The crux of the matter, which is the title of this thread is that a local newspaper has used pictures without permission. We have 6 pages of opinions here. We can continue for another 6 pages and nobody would be any the wiser. The only way to get a real answer to this question is to bring it to a legal arena and examine the merits of each side's arguments taking into consideration the special circumstances that each individual case presents. This is where the term "put your money where your mouth is" applies, else its just noise. Sad but true :cry:

The second issue which is highlighted is the unethical and unprofessional way that certain parties in the newspaper organization has handled the matter. This has NOTHING to do with the copyright issue and is separate matter all together. At best, this remains an allegation of unethical and unprofessional behavior. How is one to seek recourse for something like this ? Take out a civil suit perhaps ?

It does not surprise me one bit that the reporter concerned is no longer in the picture. The reporter can promise and extraction / apology whatever, but it is up to the editor and in this case the legal department that dictates their next course of action. As an organization, they would do an assessment of the situation and determine whether there is a wrong to be righted and how best to go about handling the situation. By their actions, one can see that they are waiting for the so called victimized party to take the next course of action.

ANy recourse for this particular situation should be addressed through the proper channels. If the intention is to inform fellow CS members of the potential issues when dealing with Singapore newspapers, I think you have made your point. Just like nabilmust and a few others who have voiced similar opinions, its time to move on and let the matter rest in CS.

Just my 2 cents worth :)
 

zaren

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 27, 2003
10,961
29
48
Got no head no tail.
I flipped through that day's Shin Min paper, can't find any drifting cars or masked number plates.
r u talking about this article?








Since we're talking about whether the paper infringed any IP, not about the people in the article itself, so I think putting up this article here to highlight the situation is under the "fair use" clause you've mentioned.
ok....from this front page of shin min daily news, i am finally understanding the story better.

the photos were not actually about cars or drifters, but about pretty undergrad girls in see-through sleep garments and sexy dance moves, which probably explains why the pics were so hotly leeched everywhere.

funnycars.com = funkygrad.com
ah zhi = alvinz = youhong

will need more time to digest the rest of the arguments....
 

mattlock

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2004
1,871
0
0
www.superhyperreal.com
it would have been easier if you had been clearer about the situation in the first place...
that's a pretty bloody huge usage of images.
I feel sorry for you.

you do realise too that "ethics" is probably not something you associate with tabloids.
 

Kho King

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2002
2,513
0
0
41
shashinki.com
I think most big companies knew that we (poor citizens) do not have the $$$ to pursue the case to court. It involves time and money...where most will not want to spend...

In the end, there is nothing much you do, but to post in public forums, blogs, internet and make the case out loud in the cyberworld.

Why hide the name of the real newspaper? Make it public, make it clear.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom