SPH sues Yahoo for copyright infringement


yqt

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2004
1,750
0
0
East of Singapore
#2
The printed media is feeling the pinch from the new media so now trying to shut it away
 

kei1309

Senior Member
Apr 12, 2010
7,312
23
0
Earth
www.facebook.com
#3
LOL what pinch? it's true you know.

do you know what Yahoo!'s "writers" and "journalists" do?

copy and paste wholesale from the Straits Times or other print media. this is plagiarism.

if Yahoo! wins, then i'll say Journalism as a professional job has just fallen to become nothing but crap
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#4
actually, this is quite interesting... some people here might remember all those instances where SPH papers had used images (including those of some Clubsnappers) that they did not ask permission for in their news articles, defending this as fair-use as they were covering "current events"... now, they are suing Yahoo for doing something similar... case of something "going around" "coming around"?...
 

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,490
10
38
#5
actually, this is quite interesting... some people here might remember all those instances where SPH papers had used images (including those of some Clubsnappers) that they did not ask permission for in their news articles, defending this as fair-use as they were covering "current events"... now, they are suing Yahoo for doing something similar... case of something "going around" "coming around"?...
Exactly. Over the years you can see threads in Clubsnap where member's pictures had been "*****" by SPH all in the name of journalism. Now they ganna back from new media they start crying foul. Who will sympathize with them?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

If Yahoo wins, I am going to shout Yahoo! and open coke drink and order pizza.
 

lamergod

New Member
Feb 9, 2009
1,511
0
0
33
Fratton Park, Portsmouth
#6
Hahahaha! What ironic thing. Experienced first hand how SPH steals other media personnels hard work and publish it as their own. Karma hits hard. You deserve it SPH.
 

#7
actually, this is quite interesting... some people here might remember all those instances where SPH papers had used images (including those of some Clubsnappers) that they did not ask permission for in their news articles, defending this as fair-use as they were covering "current events"... now, they are suing Yahoo for doing something similar... case of something "going around" "coming around"?...
When SPH uses your photo without permission, acknowledgement and payment it is doing you a big favour.

But when someone uses SPH's materials it's robbery, stealing, plagiarism or rape of journalistic virginity. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#8
When SPH uses your photo without permission, acknowledgement and payment it is doing you a big favour.

But when someone uses SPH's materials it's robbery, stealing, plagiarism or rape of journalistic virginity. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Yahoo also doing SPH a big favour what... Yahoo is a global company, SPH only in Sg... so Yahoo is helping to spread SPH's name overseas :bsmilie:
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#9
actually, this is quite interesting... some people here might remember all those instances where SPH papers had used images (including those of some Clubsnappers) that they did not ask permission for in their news articles, defending this as fair-use as they were covering "current events"... now, they are suing Yahoo for doing something similar... case of something "going around" "coming around"?...
If SPH does win, then it's time for us to SUE them for copyright as well....
 

seezhijie

New Member
Nov 8, 2010
628
0
0
Malaysia
#10
zac08 said:
If SPH does win, then it's time for us to SUE them for copyright as well....
I agree this is a good timing actually. Imagine next day the news compares CS sueing SPH to SPH sueing Yahoo. Whole SG would laugh
 

Dec 11, 2010
948
0
0
#12
Section 111 of the Act provided that SPH will not be liable if they use any video or audio works without permisson, as long it's for the purpose of reporting news or writing a critique. I'm sure they would have covered the use of photographs some where in the Act as well la..

Section 3 of the Act provided that the Act shall bind the Government but nothing in this Act shall render the Government liable to be prosecuted for an offence. I believe that basically means we also LL if the govt so decides to use any photos, video, audio or whatsoever for any purpose that they deem suitable.
 

sfoto100

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2009
2,092
0
36
#13
Prince Photogenic said:
Section 111 of the Act provided that SPH will not be liable if they use any video or audio works without permisson, as long it's for the purpose of reporting news or writing a critique. I'm sure they would have covered the use of photographs some where in the Act as well la..

Section 3 of the Act provided that the Act shall bind the Government but nothing in this Act shall render the Government liable to be prosecuted for an offence. I believe that basically means we also LL if the govt so decides to use any photos, video, audio or whatsoever for any purpose that they deem suitable.
Wow! I really love the law. It is so soooooo fair...
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#14
Section 111 of the Act provided that SPH will not be liable if they use any video or audio works without permisson, as long it's for the purpose of reporting news or writing a critique. I'm sure they would have covered the use of photographs some where in the Act as well la..
and the very same reasoning should also protect Yahoo's use of SPH's articles in their news site: they are covering current affairs on a news site... which is why the case is interesting...
 

Dec 11, 2010
948
0
0
#15
Wow! I really love the law. It is so soooooo fair...
Especially Section 3 right? hahaha

Basically the Act protects:
1. the Government
2. Newspaper publications
3. "Non-profit" educational institutes

For more information, can refer to Copyright Act (Cap 63) on AGC Statutes Online
 

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,490
10
38
#16
I wonder why the law is written in favor of a single company?

Section 111 of the Act provided that SPH will not be liable if they use any video or audio works without permisson, as long it's for the purpose of reporting news or writing a critique. I'm sure they would have covered the use of photographs some where in the Act as well la..

Section 3 of the Act provided that the Act shall bind the Government but nothing in this Act shall render the Government liable to be prosecuted for an offence. I believe that basically means we also LL if the govt so decides to use any photos, video, audio or whatsoever for any purpose that they deem suitable.
 

sfoto100

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2009
2,092
0
36
#18
kineticworks said:
If everything also requires permission, all the news you see in morning papers will not be "fresh" liao.
Well, is the fresh newspaper free for readers n advertiser?
 

Dec 11, 2010
948
0
0
#19
I wonder why the law is written in favor of a single company?[/Q

No idea.. next monday MPS ask your MP lor.. hahaha

But i got a feeling other jurisdictions copyright law is similar.. Though not exactly a single company as well. Educational institute covers all pri, sec schools, jc, ite, poly, nus, ntu and smu?
 

Last edited:
Sep 17, 2008
3,656
0
0
#20
I wonder why the law is written in favor of a single company?[/Q

No idea.. next monday MPS ask your MP lor.. hahaha

But i got a feeling other jurisdictions copyright law is similar.. Though not exactly a single company as well. Educational institute covers all pri, sec schools, jc, ite, poly, nus, ntu and smu?
i'm fine with the education one. its something understandable.
 

Top Bottom