Me again? Apparently I must have crossed your path before, but then again, I usually ask people who make claims without justification to substantiate their claims. You may be right, however, you have to show you are right with authoritative sources, and not just bare assertions. If you can show your sources, then I will admit I am wrong.
There is nothing to spoonfeed here, just back up your claims. I can easily assert that Singscott is a liar and cheat or corrupt or rapist without substantiating my claims - I trust you see the point.
Until then, I will draw your attention to Section 30(5):
(5) Subject to subsection (4), where —
(a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and
(b) the work is made in pursuance of the agreement,
the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, except that if the work is required for any particular purpose, that purpose shall be communicated to that other person and that other person shall be entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that particular purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.
Next, I draw you to exclusive acts provided by copyright under Section 26:
26. —(1) For the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, copyright, in relation to a work, is the exclusive right —
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do all or any of the following acts:
(i) to reproduce the work in a material form;
(ii) to publish the work if the work is unpublished;
(iii) to perform the work in public;
(iv) to broadcast the work;
(v) to include the work in a cable programme;
(vi) to make an adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a work that is an adaptation of the first-mentioned work, any of the acts specified in relation to the first-mentioned work in sub-paragraphs (i) to (vi);
(b) in the case of an artistic work, to do all or any of the following acts:
(i) to reproduce the work in a material form;
(ii) to publish the work in Singapore or any country in relation to which this Act applies, if the work is unpublished;
(iii) to include the work in a television broadcast;
(iv) to include the work in a cable programme; andNote that exclusive means the one and no other - unless a license is granted.
Next, we turn to defences of infringement, or acts which won't infringe copyright for artistic works; under Sections 35-40 - I only reproduce the headings as the text is quite long:
Section 36 - Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review
Section 37 - Fair dealing for purpose of reporting current events
Section 38 - Reproduction for purposes of judicial proceedings or professional advice
Section 39 - Back-up copy of computer program, etc.
Section 40 - Inclusion of works in collections for use by educational institutions
Section 40A - Accessories to imported articles
There is no way that I can prove a negative, ie that there is NO laws reserving rights to showcase your talent or self promote. The ONLY reservation against Section 30(5) is in the underlined portions above and the usual defences for infringement.
Since you claim to know mediacorp people or lawyers, then please ask them to quote their sources of law. If you have really spoken to lawyers, they will be tell you the source of law, and I can guarantee they wont tell you what you are telling me, that is "I know I am right, and you are wrong".
Once again, insisting that you are right doesn't help. You say you are right, I say I am right, in the end, there is no answer. Back up your words. Passing information blindly without knowing sources isn't the way to go. And taking an aggresssive/confrontational stance doesn't help either.
You again? Are you a professional photographer how come you do not know the law of the trade. If you expect me to spoon feed you again. With respect pay some money and talk to a lawyer learn the law of the trade for your own sake or join PPAS. For your sake I repeat, because we are the orginal author or create of the orginal photography work even it is a commission job you have the rights to showcase your talent or use it for your self promotion. But not to release it's right of usage to another parties or any other purpose other then self promotion. You want to know my source let me tell you. From professional photographers whom have doing jobs using media corp artists me included to friends who happen to be lawyers. I am just passing on informations I know. Proof to me you know the stuff. Give us some information, not casing doubt and ask me to proof my points that I have share and say it for the good the communities here.
. But if you say ok then all sh*t is on to you. Using the pic for your portfolio is not one such case. Also what is logic to you really buffer me