Newspaper used my photo without permission
- Thread starter Draken413o
- Start date
true..
just like a TFCD..the model can use the photos in any way. TS did not mention to the performer in any way that the pic is for personal use only.
No...you should be laughing at these incompetent fools... its not worth getting mad of these dumbass.
I think TS can contact the editor... if they deny it, put it up stomp and blow the matter
who said sph has incompetent ppl?:think: thats an unfair statement. sph has a few very talented photographers infact. just google, u will realise how wrong u are. i know at least 1 very famous one.
as for ts, since u gave the photo to the performer, i suggest u move on. unless u had specifically told the performer how photos are gonna be used, u kinda cant do anything. they could say its shared rights since u gave them. they can say a lot more. just cut the paper and keep it in ur portfolio say its ur photo...
post images on places where u know the rights still belong to u, like flickr. then u pass performers the link. if performers use the link image, dl for personal use, then u can claim.
or elsei can see many potential loopholes that sph can use.
hmm...yes for sure there are good photographers in SPH...but i think what virtualme78 is talking about are the journalists (who use other people's photographs) and the editors (who allow them to). No one is complaining about incompetent photographers in SPH.
oh. under impression that they had no good photographers, so end up no good shots have to use others.
anyways, i dun think the journalists actually did anything wrong when they got the image from the performers. i'll say probably ts didnt expect his photo to be used in the first place, hence didnt take the necessary steps to protect his images.
i'll give an example. for yog, i'm not allowed to give images to the athletes if they want. but i'm allowed to use for my portfolio. so i upload on flickr then pass the athletes the link. like that wont have any problems, rights of photo still belongs to syogoc. its one way where u can protect the rights to ur image, by just passing a link from a page where the rights still belong to the uploader. so they get their photos, i get my portfolio, no one gets into trouble. even if the athletes use the image for commercial uses, i can safely say it was for my portfolio only and they ripped off for commercial purposes.
Last edited:
Copyright Act (Cap. 63)
Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news
111. A fair dealing with an audio-visual item shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio-visual item included in the item if
(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the first-mentioned audio- visual item is made; or
(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of broadcasting or a cable programme service, by any other means of communication to the public, or in a cinematograph film.
Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news
111. A fair dealing with an audio-visual item shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio-visual item included in the item if
(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the first-mentioned audio- visual item is made; or
(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of broadcasting or a cable programme service, by any other means of communication to the public, or in a cinematograph film.
finally, someone has dug this up...
this topic has been covered many times previously...
How about Reuters, AFP etc? They sell pics (worldwide) for the purpose of news, are you saying the (local) law says that local newspapers can use their images for free?????
No they don't as far as I know, the (have to) pay Reuters, AFP etc, handsome money for their images........
HS
This could still be challenged, what constitute sufficient acknowledgment? if I am the original maker.. I can say I was not sufficiently acknowledged, no $$ means no acknowledgment. But who the heck wants to waste effort and time over a single photo? that is the main issue... couldn't there be a watchdog org to protect the small time studio/photographer?
Actually the blame lies solely on the performer who gave the photo to Tamil Murasu but maybe I'm wrong. I mean,the paper wouldn't ask for a photo if they have no intention to publish it or use it right?
I guess U can call or email them and talk to them. They probably thought the copyright belongs to the performer who gave them the photo.
Good luck
I guess U can call or email them and talk to them. They probably thought the copyright belongs to the performer who gave them the photo.
Good luck
what they sell are not just the images but also access, network, and support...
news coverage is about timeliness... if one can only get hi res images by scanning the images off their competitors' publications, then they loose out on timeliness, not so much an issue on the web as images don't have to be very hi res and they can just copy from web images, but an issue for print publications or those who have both print and web publications (that is if they care about image quality)...
they also provide access to a wide network of photographers' images to choose from in centralized marketplaces...
and some of those companies also provide editorial support for the images, in both image and writing...
they are service providers and not just merchants of images... and if one uses their images without paying them, they might not be able to prevent it's use due to fair dealing, but they can choose not to work with anyone anymore...
First of all, I think your photo is great!
Regarding your problem, I'm not a legal person so I can't provide a good framework of legal advice.
If you wish to pursue, I feel that you will need to establish the following points of contention:
1) Was there an explicit right-of-use when the photograph was given to the performer?
2) Was the original exif information included in the photograph that you had given to the performer?
If the answer is no to any of the above question, then the liability will fall on of both the newspaper as well as the performer for infrigement of copyright.
If the answer is yes to the above questions, you may be able to claim damages from the performer since there was explicit copyright protection over the use of the image. Problem is, the performer may have given the image to the newspaper for zero charge. You may not be able to sue for any money from the performer although you can argue that you suffered a "loss of potential income" and sue the performer for it.
I do believe that newspapers usually prepare a standard form to contributors of the images to grant them additional use (and maybe even exclusive use) so they can reuse the photos again or sell or redistribute the photo to other publications.
Therefore, you should firstly established the fact that you are the original and rightful owner of the image. Therefter, you should decide either to stop them from further use or request for subsequent payments for further use in which case, they may give you the same form to sign or buy the image from you for $x of money.
Again, the above does not constitute legal advice. Best to check with a lawyer.
Regarding your problem, I'm not a legal person so I can't provide a good framework of legal advice.
If you wish to pursue, I feel that you will need to establish the following points of contention:
1) Was there an explicit right-of-use when the photograph was given to the performer?
2) Was the original exif information included in the photograph that you had given to the performer?
If the answer is no to any of the above question, then the liability will fall on of both the newspaper as well as the performer for infrigement of copyright.
If the answer is yes to the above questions, you may be able to claim damages from the performer since there was explicit copyright protection over the use of the image. Problem is, the performer may have given the image to the newspaper for zero charge. You may not be able to sue for any money from the performer although you can argue that you suffered a "loss of potential income" and sue the performer for it.
I do believe that newspapers usually prepare a standard form to contributors of the images to grant them additional use (and maybe even exclusive use) so they can reuse the photos again or sell or redistribute the photo to other publications.
Therefore, you should firstly established the fact that you are the original and rightful owner of the image. Therefter, you should decide either to stop them from further use or request for subsequent payments for further use in which case, they may give you the same form to sign or buy the image from you for $x of money.
Again, the above does not constitute legal advice. Best to check with a lawyer.
Clients of wire agencies, who are mainly major print news publications are bound by a contract. I doubt they will take the legal risk of using wire images without paying or from a previously published source and using fair dealing as a defense clause.
and what is their basis to sign such contracts?... access, network, and support, as was mentioned in my previous post... lets face it, no logically managed company will willingly pay money unless they really need to, as proven by all these "free" images harvested by the media companies from websites... and these fair dealing laws are not restricted to Singapore but are also present in some form or other amongst Common Law jurisdictions, which include quite a number of countries with influential media companies, like the US and the UK...
