Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

[sehsuan]

Let's see what comes out of this.

 

[ortega]

this is sad :cry:

 

[shinken]

It's ok, ST is still within legal boundary.

Here's section 36 of the copyright-related Act.
Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review
36. 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 criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...ctitle=COPYRIGHT ACT &date=latest&method=part

When I was still in writing business, adaptation of ST reporting for purpose of criticism or review and with sufficient acknowledgement, our company still had to pay ST for copyrights.

 

[sk.images]

I just read the other forum and the one guy who keeps saying that it is OK (by law) for ST to do this, even though he keeps changing his argument as to why they are allowed to do this and then acknowledges that he doesn't really know anything about copyright law.

Firstly, the use of the images, was not for any form of review it was for an editorial. Secondly, images on the interent, even if they are available for viewing by the general public, doesn't NOT represent the public domain. If it were, then you go into an art gallery, taking a photo of a piece of art and start reproducing it and selling the posters. There was a very recent case regarding this principal and the judgement was that, images posted on the interenet cannot be used without authority from the copyright holder (there is a slight exception for acknowledement of the copyright holder, but this is limited)

 

[kklee]

My 2 cents...

Extracted from the the TOS for Blogspot and Friendster.

Blogspot
http://www.blogger.com/terms.g

6a. CONTENT OWNERSHIP Unless stated otherwise for specific services, Member will retain copyright ownership and all related rights for information he or she publishes through Blogger or otherwise enters into Blogger-related services.

7. NO RESALE OF SERVICE You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any portion of the Service, use of the Service, or access to the Service.

Friendster
http://www.friendster.com/info/tos.php?statpos=footer
Rights in Content Posted by You. By publishing, displaying, or uploading (collectively, "Posting") any text, links, photos, video, messages, or other data or information (collectively, "Content") on or to the Website (including on or to your profile), you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Friendster an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute such Content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

 

[jsbn]

Ultimately, with a powerful lawyer, its their word against our words.

Seriously, even if every single mother's son of those people whose photos are splashed on that front page of life, without proper credits were to speak out on this, nothing would come out of it.

 

[sk.images]

Ultimately, with a powerful lawyer, its their word against our words.

Seriously, even if every single mother's son of those people whose photos are splashed on that front page of life, without proper credits were to speak out on this, nothing would come out of it.

It's not the people in the photos that is the problem, it is the photographer that took the photograph and owns the copyright that may have a case.

 

[mattlock]

ok I've been trying to call the editor and the writer and the designer but none of them are picking up

I've been told to contact sumiko tan (editor of the Life! section), but she's currently busy
the writer is not in right now

I've been told to write into Forum but I've been advised by my lawyer friend that it would be good to send in a letter from a lawyer just as a reminder for Straits Times that people are aware of what's going on...
I'll try to contact them again in the afternoon

Here are the contact numbers if anyone wants to check and put some pressure.

SPH Main Line: 6319 6319
Writer: Sandra Leong 6319 5018
Editor: Sumiko Tan 6319 5345
Secretary to Editor: Patricia He 63195306
Designer: Sally Lam (contactable through operator)
Email: stlife@sph.com.sg


I think a few good questions are:
Did the writer or designer consult any of the owners of the photographs before they were used?
Have they considered that some of the people may not have authorized the use of photos?
Is "Singapore Blogs" sufficient credit?
Was Friendster informed of the use of photographs taken off their site?

 

[mattlock]

Ultimately, with a powerful lawyer, its their word against our words.

Seriously, even if every single mother's son of those people whose photos are splashed on that front page of life, without proper credits were to speak out on this, nothing would come out of it.

btw jsbn, my face was splashed on that and I'm not happy, and I am going to make noise about it. I am a photographer and copyrights are a big issue to me, this is not some fly by night operator of a newspaper.

Even if it is within the law I think that such a big organisation has a obligation to be of a high moral standard regarding such issues.

and since we are photographers we should at least raise awareness of such things. I'm not expecting too much out of it but at least I can see what ST's attitude is towards such things and see if to treat this as a lesson on usage of photographs taken from online sources.

btw, if someone took photos off my website and published them without asking me I would be majorly pissed. And even if it's for the sake of "research"

The fact that most of these blogs and friendster profiles have means of communication witht he author (through Comment boxes and private messages) means that there should have been at least some effort taken in the asking for authorization

 

[jsbn]

Understand ur feeling. Especially when I kena-ed it once (esp when it was disfigured and abused by another forumer but she took it off when I threatened immediate legal action if she doesn't remove it within 12hrs).

Against an individual? Perhaps we could still have a case.

Against a corporate muscle with powerful lawyers? I'm not trying to pour cold water neither am I shrinking on photographer's copyrights (since I'm a photographer myself and getting my photos leeched without credits OR copyright payment is really crap), but really I had given up where morals, standards, etc are concerned with that... that.... *ahem*

I even had the experience of my words being quoted straight out of context leading to misunderstanding, from another forum. Since that, I had not really bothered with the papers, preferring to depending on my own sources for news.

But all the best and good luck in your action against them.

 

[sk.images]

mattlock, as the subject of the images, I don't really think you have a case against ST. If, for example, you were out at a club and a photog came and took pictures of the place and people and then published the shots - being in a public place, you don't have a say as to what the photog does with the images. On the otherhand, if you are a pro model and images of you were taken off a photographers site, then both the photog and you would have a right to demand compensation from the party that took the images. It is only the copyright holder that may have recourse against ST.

 

[hongsien]

Mattlock: Have you checked with the blog site owner if the ST has asked them for permission? I am not sure if asking permission is needed before publishing in a newspaper though.....and similar cases in other countries have to real meaning here, as only the Singapore situation is relevant if you are going for a case.....

HS

 

[jsbn]

The case is actually there since that was his photo leeched without due credits, acknowledgement or permission requested.

But I'm not really sure abt privacy laws (hell, do we even have privacy here?!) and copyright laws.

Ultimately, its their words against ours. A corporate giant with powerful legal backing against a small normal citizen. Its not even David vs Goliath sotry. Its like a giant who has his toe against an ant's head where all he has to do is to exert that little squeeze of less than 50g of force and he'll be squashed flat.

 

[oeyvind]

Go contact Friendster, and tell them, since ST clearly violates Frienster's T&C (http://www.friendster.com/info/tos.php)

Non Commercial Use by Friendster.
The Service and the Website are for the personal use of individual Members only and may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors without our express written consent in each case. Organizations, companies, and/or businesses may not become Members and should not use the Service or the Website for any purpose. You may not copy, transfer, or use any names, photos, links, text, data, or other content belonging to or posted by Friendster or other Members for the purpose of selling, engaging in, marketing, or promoting any other product or service. Illegal and/or unauthorized uses of the Website, including collecting usernames, e-mail addresses, or other personally identifiable information of Members by electronic or other means for the purpose of sending unsolicited e-mail, unauthorized framing of or linking to the Website, or any other use not expressly permitted in this Agreement will be investigated, and appropriate legal action will be taken, including without limitation, civil, criminal, and injunctive redress. In addition to the above restrictions, you may not authorize, enable or otherwise grant to any other person, organization, company, or business access to your Friendster profile or other content uploaded on the Website for the purpose of extracting such information or other content.

Proprietary Rights in Content.
Rights in Content Posted by Friendster or Other Members. We own and retain all proprietary rights in the Website and the Service. The Website contains certain copyrighted material, including links and compilations of individual data, trademarks, and other proprietary information of Friendster, our Members, and our licensors. Except for any information which is In the public domain, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any such proprietary materials or information without our express written consent in each case.
Rights in Content Posted by You. By publishing, displaying, or uploading (collectively, "Posting") any text, links, photos, video, messages, or other data or information (collectively, "Content") on or to the Website (including on or to your profile), you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Friendster an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute such Content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

 

[blazer_workz]

is this consider as use for commercial purpose??? since we have to pay for the papers, unless it is distributed as free copies like "Today"???

 

[goering]

Its like a giant who has his toe against an ant's head where all he has to do is to exert that little squeeze of less than 50g of force and he'll be squashed flat.

That may well be true .. but if this linen gets "washed in public", even if there is no case against them, their reputation will be dented

 

[ortega]

SPH should have at least asked for permission from the blogger
if the images was nottaken by the blogger him/herself
then the copyright of the image does not belong to the blogger
hence permission should have been seeked, just in case of any misunderstandings

it was downright disrespectful of SPH/the writer/the editor/the designer to just use the images without asking first.

How would sph/writer/editor/designer like it if i just lifted stuff off their site for editorial stuff.
I would think that i would be expecting a lawyers letter.

i think that we should stand up against this and make our voices heard.
as photographers copyright means everything to us.

heck even designers and writers should be equally concerned.

 

[ortega]

shall i send a link to mediacorp?

 

[blazer_workz]

shall i send a link to mediacorp?

Is there another form of media in Singapore other than SPH?? I don't think so:think:
They are all on the same ship..

Even if they make a public apology..and that will be the smallest print they can print..

 

[Kho King]

even in CS, CSer copied, download and share others photos as well:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=212530