Personal work used without permission, and tides turned.

[zaren]

facts:

1. the production house admitted they DO NOT own the video, or have any written consent from the real owner of the video to publish/broadcast it.
2. no other person besides yourself has claimed ownership of the video.
3. you own the RAW files used to make the video.
4. you are willing to (or have already) made a sworn statement before a Commissioner of Oaths stating your ownership of the video, albeit on a date after the date of production of the video.
5. the production house has in principle agreed to pay you provided you show "proof" of ownership, which they claim you have failed to do.

looks like a pretty clear cut case to me. if you need help sending a letter of demand to them without using a lawyer, publish the email exchanges here and i'm sure the friendly bros here can lend you a helping hand.

 

[SNAG]

Been following this thread a while, but felt compelled to reply.

To all the commenters in the past few days, I see the issue as more of the TS's un-willingness to act, despite all the resources/aid provided by this community for the past few weeks.

I'm not in the media industry, but many of my friends do. Unfortunately, media is an extremely cut-throat industry. If the TS doesn't want to reinforce his rights as a creative individual (regardless of individual resources and all the help here), I'm not sure if he's ready for this industry. To a larger extent, how much one reinforces his/er IP is a reflection of how much the individual respects his/er own work. Sorry to pull off the boxing gloves (and victimizing the victim), but its a harsh world out there.

Anyway, hope the TS truly reflects from this incident, and no, learning a lesson doesn't equate to watermarking your work going forward. It's a much bigger lesson you gotta learn.

Suggest all of us close this chapter and move on, unless the TS really wants to pursue the matter.

 

[mardellion]

Hi all,

Thank you all for the follow ups till now. I do not know how I came across as unwilling to act but I am in fact not. I in fact heeded the advices and took one step at a time (negotiating with them about using my RAW files as proof etc), but have not thought of going into the legal aspect due to some constrain on my end. I hope constrains doesn't render me as unwillingness..

I have to emphasize, I was about to head down to Commissioner of Oath on Monday but decided to call them before I head down just to confirm that they will pay me after I show them the required document they requested for. They then tell me 'kindly proceed in acquiring a legal document stating the proof of originality of the files that you have used in the video', and telling me that Commissioner of Oath is not legal when it was them who proposed in the first place.

Legal advices are in progress, and I have to make sure I know what I am getting into before I go ahead. Again, I must emphasize, I really am not unwilling to act. Sigh.

I'm not sure if I should reveal the company's name, in case this may cause me to lessen the chance of claiming more than supposed to if i were to open a case.

 

[foxwagon]

Why don't you just release the name of the company which stole your videos or pictures?
Whether or not you intend to pursue the matter or be able to get what you want.
Don't let this incident affect your interest in the hobby.

 

[G-man]

Hi all, Thank you all for the follow ups till now. I do not know how I came across as unwilling to act but I am in fact not. I in fact heeded the advices and took one step at a time (negotiating with them about using my RAW files as proof etc), but have not thought of going into the legal aspect due to some constrain on my end. I hope constrains doesn't render me as unwillingness.. I have to emphasize, I was about to head down to Commissioner of Oath on Monday but decided to call them before I head down just to confirm that they will pay me after I show them the required document they requested for. They then tell me 'kindly proceed in acquiring a legal document stating the proof of originality of the files that you have used in the video', and telling me that Commissioner of Oath is not legal when it was them who proposed in the first place. Legal advices are in progress, and I have to make sure I know what I am getting into before I go ahead. Again, I must emphasize, I really am not unwilling to act. Sigh. I'm not sure if I should reveal the company's name, in case this may cause me to lessen the chance of claiming more than supposed to if i were to open a case.

Fact: this company's used your work without expressed permission from you. Whether you name the company or not does not change that fact. So it is really up to you whether you want to name the company or not. Personally I would not be as tolerant as you. The company has been given lots of chances to make things right.

 

[kelvinleeks]

Hi Mardellion

Just my 2 cents worth. Being in this industry for 13 years as a producer and i must say this is a classic case of being bullied. I would suggest you name and shame, as you're not the only one in this position (as a freelancer), throughout my years, i have gone without claiming daily wages to certain companies pushing me cheques only after 1 year of delay (when the amount is les than $200).

no harm to you, because if they come out and threaten legal action when you shame them, you are the original content creator and thus with your timestamps, RAW files, etc to back you up, the production house in question would be rash to take this long drawn legal battle with you.

Dont let ppl back you into a corner. Stay true to your original content and dont let the guys bully you.

 

[kandinsky]

...telling me that Commissioner of Oath is not legal when it was them who proposed in the first place.

Seriously, now they're denying Singapore law. :think: :sweat:

Making a false statutory declaration has pretty severe consequences.

Making of false statutory declaration an offence
14.—(1) Any person who —
(a)
makes in a statutory declaration a statement which is false, and which he knows or has reason to believe is false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used; or
(b)
corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any statutory declaration made in or outside Singapore knowing the same to be false in any material point,
shall be guilty of an offence and —
(i)
if the person made the statutory declaration for use in any stage of a judicial proceeding or, as the case may be, used or attempted to use the statutory declaration in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to a fine; or
(ii)
in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and shall also be liable to a fine.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...99ae4d26" Status:inforce Depth:0;rec=0#P1III-.

 

[Kermitfm]

An analogy - When I was not looking, someone took my wallet which I left on a table. Luckily I saw the person who took it. Told him thanks for retuning the wallet. Instead of giving me back the wallet, the person ask me for proof - like the serial numbers of the dollar bills in the wallet, the exact contents and the proof of purchase of the wallet. Told me that I need to make an oath, as this is to protect the interest of the real owner (which of course they would not divulge). Familiar?

At best, the production house is a free loader. That would be just too kind. They are thieves, the despicable type who, when caught, bully their victims. Remember those types that were found in SL Square.

They have forfeited their right to be treated with respect when they started the bullying. It is very difficult to catch such acts and your case is one of those that seems to be a slam dunk case. Yet, you are unsure and hope that the folks act reasonably using a light approach. I don't think they will. We, the hobbyist and freelancer in clubsnap, were excited that at least some justice may be done but it may not be so.

As I do not have the full picture of what your concerns are, I will have to respect your approach. The advice here is either to drop the case as any 'light approach' will be frustratingly futile or get back into the ring fighting. The longer you wait, the weaker your case will be as you are accepting the rules as defined by the production house.

How should the analogy above end? - just use the already defined rules of engagement - call the police.

Good luck bro.

 

[hamanoshun]

Hi all,

Thank you all for the follow ups till now. I do not know how I came across as unwilling to act but I am in fact not. I in fact heeded the advices and took one step at a time (negotiating with them about using my RAW files as proof etc), but have not thought of going into the legal aspect due to some constrain on my end. I hope constrains doesn't render me as unwillingness..

I have to emphasize, I was about to head down to Commissioner of Oath on Monday but decided to call them before I head down just to confirm that they will pay me after I show them the required document they requested for. They then tell me 'kindly proceed in acquiring a legal document stating the proof of originality of the files that you have used in the video', and telling me that Commissioner of Oath is not legal when it was them who proposed in the first place.

Legal advices are in progress, and I have to make sure I know what I am getting into before I go ahead. Again, I must emphasize, I really am not unwilling to act. Sigh.

I'm not sure if I should reveal the company's name, in case this may cause me to lessen the chance of claiming more than supposed to if i were to open a case.

You may be talented, but if you suck at doing business, you'll forever be taken for a ride.

Take a stand and fight for what RIGHTFULLY belongs to you.

If you don't set a precedent, then there's every reason for production houses to try their luck again at talented people who don't know what to do when **** hits the fan.

 

[JasonB]

He is like one small boy raped by his nice uncle but he don't dare to tell anyone because he is scare of his nice uncle.

Seriously the more reluctant he is to reveal that company's identity, the more I start to doubt his story, or parts of it. I believed it whole hearted earlier, but this is what happens when it gets too one sided and you only hear from one side. When you are way too weak and boneless, sometimes even bystanders who initiately supported you will start to feel you probably deserved it.

 

[Octarine]

Gents, the tone of the certain recent postings has become somewhat unfriendly. Therefore, a friendly reminder to remain civil. Thank you for your attention.

 

[ellery]

From what you wrote the production house is talking about certain aspects of copyright as practiced in the USA. The library of congress is a depositories for a fee a copy of the work is stored with them - that proves authorship from such and such date. I do think we practice this in Spore. However I have not been following in detail what is current here. So my advice is go to IPOS, bring down print copies of what they want, let IPOS see this and ask for their advice if this is the position in Spore and how to comply. Now this is the part you need to be damm careful about, what kind of rights are you assigning to the production house ? Hint : not in perpetuity,not in all territories, no rights to sell the content or repackage and sell. strictly limited to that film/production. It would be a good time to learn how the sell usage right for film - how many screening, how many showing how long time period. Then have you come to a price ? No point jumping around like a flea only to find , we pay for $200 for all rights to film.

Hi everyone.
I'm in a rather sticky situation and I'd love to seek some help/guidance/opinion.

Snippets of a timelapse video I created was recently used and broadcasted on local television without permission. I confronted the production house and sought compensation. They were agreeable to compensate me but after a few emails exchanged, they demanded a 'scanned copy of original copyright certification by IPOS (Intellectual Property Office of Singapore) registered on or before XX 2015. This is to ensure no other party can claim ownership of this video.'

They also did mention making an appointment with Commissioners for Oaths to make a declaration.

After which, I emailed IPOS and they replied:
"There is no need to file for registration to get copyright protection. An author automatically enjoys copyright protection as soon as he creates and expresses his original work in a tangible form, such as in a recording or writing. Originality simply means that there is a degree of independent effort in the creation of the work.

A copyright work created by a Singapore citizen or resident is protected in many countries overseas by virtue of international agreements. Generally, under these international agreements, the work of a Singapore citizen or resident would be protected in countries that signed the agreements as though the work was made there."

After exchanging few emails, this is the latest reply from the production house:
"Say for example, if you were asked (commissioned) to shoot this footage by another individual or organization (commissioner), then they will own the footage you have shot for them. So, even if you compiled this video and uploaded it on YouTube under your account, you may have used footage which was commissioned by someone else, hence the commissioner will own the rights to that footage.

You have claimed ownership of this video and we repeat that we do not doubt that. All we are asking for is proof that you are the sole owner of the visual content used.

It simply means that you have to produce a copy of declaration stating the facts of ownership and the date of creation, made before a Commissioner of Oaths on or before the XX of June 2015. Or you can also provide us with documentation to prove that your original work has been deposited in a depository.

A retailer has the right to ask a manufacturer for legitimate documentation before proceeding with any business transaction. We are not delaying the agreed payment. We asked you to prove your work is original and belongs 100% to you on 19th June 2015, we are waiting for an appropriate reply.

We are a PTE LTD company which is audited for all our transactions and need proper documentation to justify any expense incurred on our projects."

Here is the question. I didn't make any declaration before the Commissioners for Oaths before, and now the production house is not releasing the compensation because I am not producing any proof that I am the sole owner of the video. Is there anything that I can do about this?

 

[zaren]

From what you wrote the production house is talking about certain aspects of copyright as practiced in the USA. The library of congress is a depositories for a fee a copy of the work is stored with them - that proves authorship from such and such date. I do think we practice this in Spore. However I have not been following in detail what is current here. So my advice is go to IPOS, bring down print copies of what they want, let IPOS see this and ask for their advice if this is the position in Spore and how to comply. Now this is the part you need to be damm careful about, what kind of rights are you assigning to the production house ? Hint : not in perpetuity,not in all territories, no rights to sell the content or repackage and sell. strictly limited to that film/production. It would be a good time to learn how the sell usage right for film - how many screening, how many showing how long time period. Then have you come to a price ? No point jumping around like a flea only to find , we pay for $200 for all rights to film.

TS has already checked with IPOS. read post #1.

 

[ellery]

If only it worked that way. It means from past sales and transactions. It means invoices and possible proof of payment received. No one is interested in your costs. No records, no transaction, well you could not prove loss of income due to infringement means you lost nothing. Even citing image/stock pricing guide sites on how much to pay for this or that will strictly not be allowed, the crux is past sales because it then means you can produce work that others will pay you for otherwise who knows if any one will pay you. Lawyers - go see the wrong Johnny and it as good as talking to us here. Try that Samuel ??? that used by the dallas buyer club movie owners to chase down downloaders.

There is our act now a pale mirror to the US statutory damages the maximum claimable per infringement is S$10,000 but do not hope to much decided case seems to point out that our judges are not very sympathetic and tend to not go any where near the maximum amount. The US position on this is US100,000 per infringement. So you go figure how important our system here values copyright.

"I have contacted a lawyer and was advised not to sue as I cannot quantify the loss/damage done as I am a freelancer. To the production house, the way to prove the video was created and owned by me is to make a declaration before the Commissioner of Oaths. They also didn't obtain a license before broadcasting it, so I shall see what the Commissioner of Oaths advice regarding this if we were to go down."

Of course you can quantify the loss/damages, even as a freelancer. A freelancer means you do paid assignments as and when requested by your client. In this case, if the production house had come to you in the first place to commission you to make the video, how much would you have charged them? If the production house had come to you and asked for your permission to air your video on national TV, how much would you have charged them? That will quantify the loss/damage suffered by you in this instance that they used your work without permission, thereby depriving you of your rightful earnings, even as a freelancer.

Still not sure how to quantify the amount of damages to be claimed? How about starting with the number of hours you required to make the video, including planning, writing, hiring actors, filming, and post-production etc. Add in the cost of hiring a lawyer to issue a letter of demand to the production house etc. I'm not sure which lawyer you are talking to, but you may wish to seek a second opinion to be sure of your legal rights and remedies.

It costs roughly $140 to issue a lawyer's letter of demand to the production house. You will have to decide if it is worthwhile for you to do it. A sworn statement before the Commissioner of Oaths unfortunately does not carry much weight in resolving such disputes. Why? every one swears in court to tell the truth, but the court does not make a judgement based purely on sworn statements (affidavits), because both sides will obviously swear to tell the truth. How do you know who is lying is who is not? Good solid evidence, on the contrary, is much more persuasive in deciding the issue.

 

[ellery]

Zaren if TS has been as economical with the fact with IPOS as he has been here - he will not get much info. Any way remember how a sworn oath/declaration was okay then not okay. So it looks they want him to dance, first author dance, then 100% ownership dance; but all this dancing for what amount ? But its typical of the people with this kind of problems here alway want info never want to tell too much about whats going on. One way street mentality.

 

[pikapig]

Aiya this happen in my company before...its all de bullshit about proper documentation so that they can pay you...wat audit etc is also bullshit.

Invoice is a proper documentation, the video is a goods, they published it, so the goods has been received..

If they engage someone to film the video, do they ask the person to produce wat IPOS? no right..then why shld u provide them?

 

[mardellion]

Alright, the production house is Spectraa Production. They used it for an Indian drama titled Neeya, episode 38. It's available in toggle the last I checked (last week).

I have decided to pursue this case further since Mediacorp is not rendering much of an assistance this whole week. I demanded them to demand the money from Spectraa.

After asking and poking around this week (with help of some friends), I will be talking to some lawyers next week. If I am not wrong, I should first send a lawyer's letter to them, right?

JasonB: You can doubt me, I understand where you are coming from since all you have been hearing is me being the victim, and I don't have to prove to you. I am conscious-free with this thread and everything said here by me is honour-based on your end. I just hope you can understand where I am coming from with my postings.

Episode 38 of Neeya: http://video.toggle.sg/en/series/neeya/ep38/334648

 

[sjackal]

Poor boy. Ok, remember to gather all evidence, screen shots, and also make a screen video of what can be played on the site, especially show the web address, details, and how it joints from the drama from the start of your stolen clip to the end and joined by to the drama.

 

[zaren]

hmm.....the few seconds of time lapse at the 5 minute mark?

 

[sjackal]

Few seconds also considered infringement, just like steal 10cents and steal 10 million both are still theft. At least they never overlay floating snowflakes and bubbles over your video.