Who's rights will it be?

[dnaxe]

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

True - doesn't hurt to ask, and your comment on how I should respect legal privilege is worthless.

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.

Thanks. Now we can be clear that the advice you are referring to was rendered on an area which is actually relevant - but unfortunately without the knowledge as to what particular laws applied to the advice you received, your comment is still quite worthless.

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.

Conceding? Hardly. Your time might be better compensated in acquiring reading comprehension. I have never said that it was safe.

 

[singscott]

*cough*

Go get a law degree

Hahaha yes that will help here

 

[singscott]

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.

These are my last words here. I did enough to share my knowledge and experince on the matter. Where you only share doubt and offer nothing in return. All of the things you wrote have not shown any points that we can or can not use our commission work for our self promotion, but only just repeating what I say about not accidently giving other usage right or any other ownship right. I am a practicing professional photographer that happen have friends whom happen to some top pbotographers here and some friends whom are lawyers that happen to agree to what I say. Do you think we do not know the basic law in our trade. Clearly you do not know or else I would need to write this. Oh knowing you, you will want the chapter and which law it is. Like I say spend some $$ or get a lawyer friend or better still stay in your well.

 

[Bleuwhale]

These are my last words here. I did enough to share my knowledge and experince on the matter. Where you only share doubt and offer nothing in return. All of the things you wrote have not shown any points that we can or can not use our commission work for our self promotion, but only just repeating what I say about not accidently giving other usage right or any other ownship right. I am a practicing professional photographer that happen have friends whom happen to some top pbotographers here and some friends whom are lawyers that happen to agree to what I say. Do you think we do not know the basic law in our trade. Clearly you do not know or else I would need to write this. Oh knowing you, you will want the chapter and which law it is. Like I say spend some $$ or get a lawyer friend or better still stay in your well.

I find it exceptionally interesting that you are questioning Vince's right to verfiy as to what, which or whereabouts your authorities are located.

We come to this forum, each wanting to know more, learn more. And per the Socratic method, what better way then to ask and question? And certainly to fault a pure intent of understanding the basis upon which you derive your conclusions and to be attacked in the process does not speak well at all.

I recognize your faculities in phototaking and will certainly be most glad if what you presently hold of IP laws is indeed the truth. Yet however, when what might otherwise be "more real, more true" be presented before yourself, you brush it off as being of nothing than mere doubt and Vince's inability of offering nothing in return.

I ask you- in what way, in which posts, in which comment or law, has Vince provided a wrong statement? In regard your comment that you are farmilar with the legal rules regulating your trade, I have to mention that I know many doctors and lawyers who know "nuts" about areas beyond their faculities, basic as it might be.

It does not matter if you know lawyers. I know President Bush and hes so darmm wrong on Iraq.

Before attacking the integrity or knowledge of a learnered friend, you might wish to know that some wells are bigger than you think.

 

[dnaxe]

I ask you- in what way, in which posts, in which comment or law, has Vince provided a wrong statement? In regard your comment that you are farmilar with the legal rules regulating your trade, I have to mention that I know many doctors and lawyers who know "nuts" about areas beyond their faculities, basic as it might be.

Vince failed to include the most important provision in relation to fair use in Singapore's current copyright regime in his analysis.

(Please note that I'm not saying that singscott is -correct-. I don't know.)

 

[ellery]

Vince failed to include the most important provision in relation to fair use in Singapore's current copyright regime in his analysis.

(Please note that I'm not saying that singscott is -correct-. I don't know.)

Why don't you spell out what you think fair usage means here. Personally I feel it is a very thin ground to depend on this since I think there are some conditions to be meet with before one can cite fair usage if one wants to support the use in portfolio without a contract clause to support such use. If you are commercial entity it puts you out of the main areas of fair use. This is the wonderful thing about law - its all theoratical until it goes to court and decisions are mad and case law or precdents are created.
Note most of the more sought after photographers should already have this their contracts. Not that they are going to tell other people especially other photogs who do their business better so other photographers may think that these guys are relying on their realtionship with the client to use for portfolio without any thing in writing or that there is a unwritten right.

 

[dnaxe]

Why don't you spell out what you think fair usage means here. Personally I feel it is a very thin ground to depend on this since I think there are some conditions to be meet with before one can cite fair usage if one wants to support the use in portfolio without a contract clause to support such use.

I agree with what you said - there are conditions to be met (see the text of section 35) and it's still risky.

If you are commercial entity it puts you out of the main areas of fair use.

I think self-promotion as a photographer is not an automatic disqualification (Again, read section 35).

This is the wonderful thing about law - its all theoratical until it goes to court and decisions are mad and case law or precdents are created.
Note most of the more sought after photographers should already have this their contracts.

The best answer is to have the right as part of contract, of course.

 

[Buckteeth LCL]

There is a difference between a lawyer who has actually fought a copyright lawsuit and won it, versus another lawyer which has no experience in any copyright lawsuits.

Well, all the points mentioned are well said. For my money, I will stick around with the one that has won the case. Well that's just me.

Dont be too harsh on each other and dont let stubborness contribute to more confusion for the threadstarter. It better not to use the pictures if there are prior contract between the Spa and Mediacorp. Experienced such clauses before so it better to check before you do anything. Unless you can negotiate directly with mediacorp, there is no way to remove those clauses and add in your fair use clauses. This is from experience. However, if you know the people in Mediacorp, a lot of things can be discussed

 

[dnaxe]

There is a difference between a lawyer who has actually fought a copyright lawsuit and won it, versus another lawyer which has no experience in any copyright lawsuits.

Well, all the points mentioned are well said. For my money, I will stick around with the one that has won the case. Well that's just me.

I think it's hard to find anyone who would pick the lawyer who lost in a specifically similar case. *cough*

Dont be too harsh on each other and dont let stubborness contribute to more confusion for the threadstarter.

good point. OP: I'm not suggesting that you should use the photograph. Apologies if you ever thought that, but it should have been clear from my posts that the proposition I stand for is simply that there is no "correct" answer, only a "conservative" one, and that answer is not necessarily correct.

It better not to use the pictures if there are prior contract between the Spa and Mediacorp.

Better not to - yes. Best not to do anything, because legally it is fairly rare to find yourself in a situation where you MUST do something. This is being conservative, and is not necessarily the "correct" answer.

 

[anka]

back to the poster's first post. having shot for mediacorp myself and also having sued a hand full of clients.. yes you can put it in your web as portfolio. as the copyrights still belong to you.. as long as you have not signed anything to handover the rights.

next time, when you invoice, include T&C stating that CR belongs to you..

my T&C is drafted by my lawyer who specialise in copyright/patent/trademarks. here's what my lawyer added in so that clients WILL pay me on time.

"If full payment of any sum due to the Photographer shall not be made on or before the expiry of Thirty (30) days from the date due, any rights to the Photographs shall automatically and wholly revert to the Photographer. Accordingly, all and any use by the Client of any of the Photographs in any manner shall constitute an infringement of the rights of the Photographer, for which the Photographer shall be entitled to take all and any necessary legal action at its sole and entire discretion, including the commencement of civil or criminal legal action. The Photographer shall also be entitled to take out injunctions against the Client’s further use of any of the Photographs. "



as for the copyrights section in my T&C. here's a section of it

"All rights in all Photographs taken by the Photographer and his assistants vests in the Photographer, although the Client shall be granted a licence to use and reproduce the Photographs for the usage(s) as stated for the term as stated in the Booking Form only.

All licenses and reproduction rights granted under this Agreement are conditioned on both receipt of payment in full by the Photographer of the Creative Fee and the Expenses; and use of proper copyright notices and credit by the Client. Unless otherwise stipulated on the Booking Form, the usual duration of the licence granted in accordance with is One (1) year from invoice date. All rights not expressly licensed to the Client shall remain the exclusive property of the Photographer."


paiseh. my T&C is about 3 pages. so cut here cut there.

 

[zoossh]

Dont be too harsh on each other

a generally good principle to follow, both in real life and in the forum.... although i may fall into the majority of the forumers whose participation is neither required nor necessary in this issue.

rights is an interesting issue for most of the photographers here, and i believe most of us are not well informed with regards to that. i hope to see the progression of a more amiable discussion.