Who's rights will it be?

[dnaxe]

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

You missed the most important section for this purpose:

Fair dealing in relation to works
35. —(1) Subject to this section, a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, for any purpose other than a purpose referred to in section 36 or 37 shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work.
[52/2004]

(1A) The purposes for which a dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, may constitute a fair dealing under subsection (1) shall include research and study.
[52/2004]

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the matters to which regard shall be had, in determining whether a dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, being a dealing by way of copying the whole or a part of the work or adaptation, constitutes a fair dealing with the work or adaptation for any purpose other than a purpose referred to in section 36 or 37 shall include —

(a) the purpose and character of the dealing, including whether such dealing is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

(b) the nature of the work or adaptation;

(c) the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work or adaptation;

(d) the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the work or adaptation; and

(e) the possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.

 

[Reflection]

there's no contract b/w me and the spa coy. they spa coy called me and we mutually agree the pricing. tt's abt it. When i done w the shots, i print some samples and pass the photos to the spa coy. Upon receiving the photos, the spa coy paid me according to the pricing of what we agree upon on phone conversation.

So can i still put it up on the web? Of cos it's putting the pic up for credibility and to up my portfolio strength. I'm not so sicko minded to use PS to change faces and bodies

For goodness sake, can you fellas stop doing these things over the phone pls. Saves you and everyone else a lot of sorrow. You may have the right intentions for the usage of the images, but i'm afraid not everyone will see it the way you do. If you've every intention to use the images as part of your portfolio, you either include it in your contract or leave the outcome to the whim and fancy of someone else. It's really that simple.

I think the deciding factor here is how you're planning to showcase your work. How about laminating the original print as part of a physical portfolio?

 

[vince123123]

Ah yes, it appears that I have missed it out. I'm not certain however if it would fall under fair dealing - that said, I'll check it up on Monday and follow up with a report.

Thanks for highlighting this.

You missed the most important section for this purpose:

Fair dealing in relation to works
35. —(1) Subject to this section, a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, for any purpose other than a purpose referred to in section 36 or 37 shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work.
[52/2004]

(1A) The purposes for which a dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, may constitute a fair dealing under subsection (1) shall include research and study.
[52/2004]

(2) For the purposes of this Act, the matters to which regard shall be had, in determining whether a dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, being a dealing by way of copying the whole or a part of the work or adaptation, constitutes a fair dealing with the work or adaptation for any purpose other than a purpose referred to in section 36 or 37 shall include —

(a) the purpose and character of the dealing, including whether such dealing is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

(b) the nature of the work or adaptation;

(c) the amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work or adaptation;

(d) the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the work or adaptation; and

(e) the possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.

 

[vince123123]

Whether one is a lawyer or not doesn't make one more or less authoritative nor does it prevent or encourage one to discuss or make a response in regard to legal issues.

The important thing is substantiate and back up your views with authority/sources/facts. If one is expressing an opinion without basis, then state it as such and not as fact e.g. "I think, but am not sure and have no basis for this, that ..." and not "It is..."

I still have no idea what your initial post saying "custom" is supposed to mean.

On this response, vince isn't a lawyer.

 

[dnaxe]

Whether one is a lawyer or not doesn't make one more or less authoritative nor does it prevent or encourage one to discuss or make a response in regard to legal issues.

The important thing is substantiate and back up your views with authority/sources/facts. If one is expressing an opinion without basis, then state it as such and not as fact e.g. "I think, but am not sure and have no basis for this, that ..." and not "It is..."

I still have no idea what your initial post saying "custom" is supposed to mean.

*cough*

Go get a law degree

 

[benjaminteo]

WO WO wo wo... wah suddenly clubsnap becomes lawclub. I can smell that a battle is starting as it gets more interesting. I am a SUPER AMATUER, and I don't think I have much experience to flaunt about here, neither am I TT.Durai's lawyer.

BUT, I am very curious about one thing.

Why don't damienster just contact Mediacorp's people and settle this in the first place, then come and share the result with us ah? Then, happy, everyone no need to fight and can carry on with life?

Sorry, can carry on already. Just curious.

 

[zekai]

yawn, wow.... i use to have in my possesion the SAF act during my service days. So many points of law in there as well.

the only thing that was very clear to me was, different SDO intepret them differently, so quoting so many point of law.... ("zi shang tan bing")

all talk only....

 

[theRBK]

*cough*

Go get a law degree

if everone in business, photography or otherwise, have to get a law degree to talk about the legal issues in their area of business than lawyers "pock tao lor" (go out of business) already right cause don't need lawyers anymore...

 

[dnaxe]

if everone in business, photography or otherwise, have to get a law degree to talk about the legal issues in their area of business than lawyers "pock tao lor" (go out of business) already right cause don't need lawyers anymore...

Not really - people with law degrees still need to qualify and maintain practising certs to actually practice

But yeah - I'm being purposely obtuse *cough*

(note that I have never claimed to be a lawyer or even to be legally trained)

As many have pointed out, the easiest solution is to check with the actual owner, primarily because that can be easily relied upon. Whether or not taking separate action is acceptable is almost purely legal theory though, and the only thing which can be reasonably relied upon, for this, is an actual opinion by a lawyer.

Nothing in this thread qualifies, although if the OP elects to take the risk, that's not necessarily -wrong- either.

 

[Goondoo]

Why bother to go through all these?
Just post it until you receive any legal letter...
Then decide if you have the monies to go through the case EVEN IF you have the rights. The civil suit in Singapore can probably take years... just look at NKF case... and you will definitely need monies to tide you over...
Anyway... they will warn you before they sue you... just take down lo...

 

[vince123123]

I think its quite presumptuous to assume anything - which is why I decline to focus on qualifications and instead focus on the substance of arguments.

Just because one has relevant qualifications doesn't mean that he is always right. Similarly, not having qualifications doesn't mean he is always wrong. Isn't it better to focus on the substances and back up your points with the appropriate references, than to say "I am a lawyer, therefore I'm right!" or "I'm a professional photographer, so therefore I'm right!". That unfortunately, is the flaw in your reasoning.

Even people with qualifications can be wrong, - haven't you heard of lawyers's opinions being mistaken? Haven't you heard of judges' decisions being overturned on appeal? I would admit though that having the relevant qualifications may increase the chances of being right statistically, but at the end of the day, the substance is more important than waving a piece of paper.

That said, it would be presumptous to assume whether a person you don't know personally and met online, has or has not any qualifications - in the same way, a person purporting online to have or not have qualifications should be viewed skeptically as there is no way to prove anything. Again, the focus should be on arguments, and not qualifications.

And on a side note, I fail to see how the issue of practising certificates addresses "theRBK's" point.

*cough*

Go get a law degree

Not really - people with law degrees still need to qualify and maintain practising certs to actually practice

But yeah - I'm being purposely obtuse *cough*

(note that I have never claimed to be a lawyer or even to be legally trained)

As many have pointed out, the easiest solution is to check with the actual owner, primarily because that can be easily relied upon. Whether or not taking separate action is acceptable is almost purely legal theory though, and the only thing which can be reasonably relied upon, for this, is an actual opinion by a lawyer.

Nothing in this thread qualifies, although if the OP elects to take the risk, that's not necessarily -wrong- either.

 

[dnaxe]

I think its quite presumptuous to assume anything - which is why I decline to focus on qualifications and instead focus on the substance of arguments.

I suppose that opinion is reasonable.

Just because one has relevant qualifications doesn't mean that he is always right. Similarly, not having qualifications doesn't mean he is always wrong. Isn't it better to focus on the substances and back up your points with the appropriate references, than to say "I am a lawyer, therefore I'm right!" or "I'm a professional photographer, so therefore I'm right!". That unfortunately, is the flaw in your reasoning.

It's better to be right. Or to admit clearly that you don't know and you're merely stating an opinion.

Even people with qualifications can be wrong, - haven't you heard of lawyers's opinions being mistaken?

Of course, and your point is? Are you saying that people -without- qualifications are more likely to be correct?)

Haven't you heard of judges' decisions being overturned on appeal?

Another sign of ignorance - this has nothing to do with being "right" or "wrong".

I would admit though that having the relevant qualifications may increase the chances of being right statistically, but at the end of the day, the substance is more important than waving a piece of paper.

Haha. Well, then I suggest that you'd better go get that piece of paper to increase your chances, because your "advice" certainly wasn't all that great. (neither were my comments, but hey - everyone can be a critic )

That said, it would be presumptous to assume whether a person you don't know personally and met online, has or has not any qualifications - in the same way, a person purporting online to have or not have qualifications should be viewed skeptically as there is no way to prove anything. Again, the focus should be on arguments, and not qualifications.

You seem to be a little fixated on the point. Esteem issue? Who really cares?

And of course you can prove stuff. But the question is whether it's worth the effort.

And on a side note, I fail to see how the issue of practising certificates addresses "theRBK's" point.

well, talking about something won't imperil lawyers who advise as their job. To really impact them, you need to be able to advise, so assuming that theRBK meant that lawyers would be affected by all these other people with law degrees, I added to our common pool of knowledge the fact that a law degree was necessary but insufficient.

 

[Bleuwhale]

I write to you from over 12 000 miles away and after a LONG absence from this board.

In regard earlier posts, I would forewarn certain individuals NOT to take what they see online as being the authorative law of the / your land.

In the United States of America, Adultry is a criminal offense. This does not mean that such is the case in the Republic of Singapore.

As most internet and posted sources refer to either UK or US laws (primarily American), be cautious on how you apply them to Singapore.

Now, with my attention brought to the interesting and developing brew in conflict of opinion...

I will have "gravest doubts" that fair use or fair dealing" will be something I want to take a risk on.

I had been advised against utilizing certain works on the basis of "fair use" by persons I consider significant in this area [within the Republic of Singapore] .

But thats One year back

 

[dnaxe]

I had been advised against utilizing certain works on the basis of "fair use" by persons I consider significant in this area [within the Republic of Singapore] .

A link would be nice (if any).

 

[Bleuwhale]

A link would be nice (if any).

Haha.

It was a phone conversation.

And assuming that it had been an electronic correspondance, I'm certain you'd respect Legal Privilege

O.. but to clarify things, I had made the enquiry on behalf of the author / creator / entity that originated, composed or developed the works, rather than a third party not affliated with those works.

Of course, I was annoyed with what I heard, considering that it is-was my client's work but in no way would I prejudice his/her interests just because I do not agree with what I'm made to know.

Hope you smart photographers will make your own necessary deductions

It would be wise for me to disclaim any knowledge or awareness of its implications, the recently updated IP laws that Singapore has adopted.

 

[dnaxe]

Haha.

It was a phone conversation.

And assuming that it had been an electronic correspondance, I'm certain you'd respect Legal Privilege

O.. but to clarify things, I had made the enquiry on behalf of the author / creator / entity that originated, composed or developed the works, rather than a third party not affliated with those works.

Of course, I was annoyed with what I heard, considering that it is-was my client's work but in no way would I prejudice his/her interests just because I do not agree with what I'm made to know.
Hope you smart photographers will make your own necessary deductions

If you were the beneficiary of that privilege, you can choose to waive it (or not).

If you made the inquiry from that perspective, OBVIOUSLY the answer is that fair use cannot be relied upon.

Apart from whether it's actually useful, making a copy is already an infringement which discloses a claim. Whether fair use applies is secondary to that, and only happens as a defence to such claim.

And again, the answer was almost certainly not couched such that it was completely certain. The law in this area (in Singapore) isn't actually developed enough to be relied upon, and to be honest, even if there was a clear precedent, judicial interpretations change over time.

(Of course, the above is merely my personal opinion, I stand to be corrected, and it should not be relied upon in any way. )

 

[dnaxe]

O.. but to clarify things, I had made the enquiry on behalf of the author / creator / entity that originated, composed or developed the works, rather than a third party not affliated with those works.

Of course, I was annoyed with what I heard, considering that it is-was my client's work but in no way would I prejudice his/her interests just because I do not agree with what I'm made to know.

I realise that I'm not clear about what you mean.

To make it clear, lets use the following:

Party A commissioned the photographer, Party B, to take the photographs.

Was your "client" Party B, who wanted to use those photographs he took in a way not envisioned (or prohibited) by the contract, or Party A?

It would be wise for me to disclaim any knowledge or awareness of its implications, the recently updated IP laws that Singapore has adopted.

If, by this, you mean that the advice you received predates the amendments to the copyright pursuant to the US-Singapore FTA, then your advice has been superceded and you would probably want to seek new advice on the matter from the appropriate person.

The new amendments were quite far ranging, and the singapore position is now more similar to the US than the UK, including, specifically, that new section 35 I quoted above.

(again, personal opinion, don't rely upon it.)

 

[Bleuwhale]

If you were the beneficiary of that privilege, you can choose to waive it (or not).

If you made the inquiry from that perspective, OBVIOUSLY the answer is that fair use cannot be relied upon.

)

I would be hard pressed to think of an entity that will waive away its rights in an instance like this.

From the start of the postings, the concern obviously relates to the question of whether an author has a right to his works when such had been contracted.

If my "inquiry from this perspective" does not give the most OBVIOUS and DIRECT relation-association with the posted concern, I do not know what else would.

But I appreciate you conceding the OBVIOUS answer which some of us have been attempting to put across.

By simple virture that my time is not compensated in furthering this topic, I'd just say to any artist - if need be, hire a lawyer to advice you on this. And if he or she is wrong, hire another lawyer to sue him for it.

 

[Bleuwhale]

I realise that I'm not clear about what you mean.

To make it clear, lets use the following:

Party A commissioned the photographer, Party B, to take the photographs.

Was your "client" Party B, who wanted to use those photographs he took in a way not envisioned (or prohibited) by the contract, or Party A?



If, by this, you mean that the advice you received predates the amendments to the copyright pursuant to the US-Singapore FTA, then your advice has been superceded and you would probably want to seek new advice on the matter from the appropriate person.

The new amendments were quite far ranging, and the singapore position is now more similar to the US than the UK, including, specifically, that new section 35 I quoted above.

(again, personal opinion, don't rely upon it.)

I regret that I will not be engagging in an intellectual debate.

For the purposes of this debate, it seems that some of us are out to win in our convictions or stance.

I regret having neither the time nor interest in the above.

Essentially, as any prudent man would do or advice, seek proper, paid legal advice. And if that screws up, u know you might be pretty well covered.

 

[dnaxe]

I regret that I will not be engagging in an intellectual debate.

For the purposes of this debate, it seems that some of us are out to win in our convictions or stance.

I regret having neither the time nor interest in the above.

Essentially, as any prudent man would do or advice, seek proper, paid legal advice. And if that screws up, u know you might be pretty well covered.

Your participation is neither required nor necessary, save that what you stated was unclear.

I agree fully with the sentiment: " Essentially, as any prudent man would do or advice, seek proper, paid legal advice. And if that screws up, u know you might be pretty well covered."