Any Good Budding Photographers Around?

[ZeusS]

Ok Vince,

You maybe right, but don't you that it's kind'a biased under the Entitlement section where it excepts the photgraphers? And once again under the Ownership Rights section. Well I didn't know that we, photographers are under the exceptions list.

But I guess coming to the end of the day, it's still how you draw up the agreement with the client before the deal is cut. Eh, It was good (and bad) to find out what the IPO here is doing... Think we need more say in this, cuz that is quite the opposite of what's happening with the rest of the world... sad...

 

[AJ23]

Ok Vince,

You maybe right, but don't you that it's kind'a biased under the Entitlement section where it excepts the photgraphers? And once again under the Ownership Rights section. Well I didn't know that we, photographers are under the exceptions list.

But I guess coming to the end of the day, it's still how you draw up the agreement with the client before the deal is cut. Eh, It was good (and bad) to find out what the IPO here is doing... Think we need more say in this, cuz that is quite the opposite of what's happening with the rest of the world... sad...

We're here in Singapore, mate!

 

[blurblock]

Someone looking for photographer ended up as a law forum? Any tea break?

 

[ST1100]

Wah, that means i need permission to use my own pictures...?!? Better start shredding my portfolio before i get sued.

 

[vince123123]

Unfortunately you'd have to ask the lawmakers why its like that, I can only tell you the current position Thats why I asked you to check your sources to see if they are from other jurisdictions before concluding the position. Most of the stuff you read on the web about ownership and all may not be applicable to Singapore. Especially that whole model release thing which people here have a fatally wrong opinion on.

Cheers.

Ok Vince,

You maybe right, but don't you that it's kind'a biased under the Entitlement section where it excepts the photgraphers? And once again under the Ownership Rights section. Well I didn't know that we, photographers are under the exceptions list.

But I guess coming to the end of the day, it's still how you draw up the agreement with the client before the deal is cut. Eh, It was good (and bad) to find out what the IPO here is doing... Think we need more say in this, cuz that is quite the opposite of what's happening with the rest of the world... sad...

 

[Meower]

Wow, didn't know my simple thread requesting for someone to help me do a photo shoot will elicit such a flurry of arguments on copyright laws and such. From what I gathered, the employer of the photographer owns the right, not the photographer. Just by using common sense, if the person is paying someone to do a job for him, obviously he owns the right to the work! For a newpaper firm, you can't expect each reporter to own the right of his/her writing!

Oh and please, anyone who is willing to step forward to help, please contact me! Not planning to make anything demanding, feel free to take this opportunity to experiment with your new found techniques or gain more experience!

 

[ZeusS]

Wow, didn't know my simple thread requesting for someone to help me do a photo shoot will elicit such a flurry of arguments on copyright laws and such. From what I gathered, the employer of the photographer owns the right, not the photographer. Just by using common sense, if the person is paying someone to do a job for him, obviously he owns the right to the work! For a newpaper firm, you can't expect each reporter to own the right of his/her writing!

No, it's not "just common sense" it only happens here in Singapore. There's also the difference between in-house and out-source copyright laws, but then again, it seems that it doesn't apply here again... sad...

Btw, you still ahve not tell us what sort or work are you looking for.

 

[blurblock]

Wow, didn't know my simple thread requesting for someone to help me do a photo shoot will elicit such a flurry of arguments on copyright laws and such. From what I gathered, the employer of the photographer owns the right, not the photographer. Just by using common sense, if the person is paying someone to do a job for him, obviously he owns the right to the work! For a newpaper firm, you can't expect each reporter to own the right of his/her writing!

Oh and please, anyone who is willing to step forward to help, please contact me! Not planning to make anything demanding, feel free to take this opportunity to experiment with your new found techniques or gain more experience!

Not that I know of, as far as I know if a web designer do a webpage for a company, the web designer still owns the copyright to the webpage, not the company, unless the company explictly say they want the right and the designer agrees to it.

However, if the web designer is an employee of the company, all the rights of his creation belongs to the company as he is an employee. If he is freelance, sorry, the rights belong to him.

In this case of photographer, it's the same. If the photographer is hired as a freelance, he is not the employee of the company thus the copyright of the photo still belongs to him not the company unless it is stated in the contract where the photographer agrees to. If the photographer is an employee of the company, that would be a different case. The copyright belong to the company if the photographer is an employee of the company, as the employee of the company is taking the photo on behalf of his/her company.

Similarly, if a student did a project, the copyright of the project belongs to the student and not the school. If the project is done by the teacher or lecturer, the copyright belong to the school as the teacher or lecturer is an employee of the school or authority (in this case MOE).

My copyright law is a bit rusty, but this is how I interprete it.

 

[Prismatic]

No, it's not "just common sense" it only happens here in Singapore. There's also the difference between in-house and out-source copyright laws, but then again, it seems that it doesn't apply here again... sad...

Btw, you still have not tell us what sort or work are you looking for.

Not exactly true, the same basis are applied in many countries and even in the US. Many copyrights lawsuits are only successful in the case when the artist or creator of the creative work has been misinformed about the nature of use and value by the commissioner of the work.

 

[ZeusS]

Not that I know of, as far as I know if a web designer do a webpage for a company, the web designer still owns the copyright to the webpage, not the company, unless the company explictly say they want the right and the designer agrees to it.

However, if the web designer is an employee of the company, all the rights of his creation belongs to the company as he is an employee. If he is freelance, sorry, the rights belong to him.

In this case of photographer, it's the same. If the photographer is hired as a freelance, he is not the employee of the company thus the copyright of the photo still belongs to him not the company unless it is stated in the contract where the photographer agrees to. If the photographer is an employee of the company, that would be a different case. The copyright belong to the company if the photographer is an employee of the company, as the employee of the company is taking the photo on behalf of his/her company.

Similarly, if a student did a project, the copyright of the project belongs to the student and not the school. If the project is done by the teacher or lecturer, the copyright belong to the school as the teacher or lecturer is an employee of the school or authority (in this case MOE).

My copyright law is a bit rusty, but this is how I interprete it.

YES! That's is why I am under the impression that that the photographers comply to the same set of law as the rest of the people, but the stuff on the IPOS website says otherwise. And like I mentioned earlier, being a working photographer for a press agency (such as Reuters or AP) means that the agency has right. It's because you part of the organisation. But if you are the boss (freelance or your own co.), of course the rights should go to you.

As with the web design anaogy, blurblock is spot on. With a student project in a uni or school, students has rights, but you'll still have to credit the uni to notify people that it's a uni project. Did all these copyrights stuff during my uni as part of my multimedia degree course. Maybe law here is different again, have to check on that.

 

[blurblock]

We're here in Singapore, mate!

I think that section refers to a person's image belongs to the person. Thus explict approval has to be sought for use of the person's image. For product's image wise, it's another matter.

As you take a picture of a person, the person held the copyright to his/her own images and you being the photographer holds the copyright of the artistic composure of the photograph taken, thus the copyright of the photograph belongs to the photographer not the person. That's why photographer of a studio can keep the negative of a wedding photograph. He / She holds the copyright to the negative of the wedding photograph. As long as he/she did not use it entice monetary returns, the person in the photograph may not sue him. The photographer can even destory the negative if the wedding couple insist of taking the negative, the negative belongs to the photographer, not the person in the photograph.

However, if the photograher wants to use this wedding photograph to, say, display on his wall, then he has to ask explict approval from the person in the photograph, as it is the copyright for the image of the person in the photograph.

Similarly, if the photographer takes the photographer for a product, say "ABC" and the orginal contract states that the photograph of this product will be used in say a newspaper advertisement. However, later in the years he wanted to use this photograph to join in a product competition, before he send the photograph to the product competition, he will have to ask the permission of the photographer too, as the final copyright of the picture belongs to the photographer.

My 2cts, I am not a solicitor, but this is my understanding.

 

[vince123123]

wah so many posts, and so many varying opinions. in any event, i will be out of town till next week, hehe go ahead and post. will demystify all these when i get back in the meantime, go ahead and post! just bear in mind the legal position in Singapore as opposed to what you read elsewhere.

Cheers!

 

[blurblock]

Got a reply from IPOS (Standard disclaimer of not legal advises ... bla bla bla applies) ...... More or less what I had mentioned .....

--------- Part of their reply ----------

Please note that section 30 of the Copyright Act of Singapore provides that
the owner of the copyright is :
a) the creator of the work;
b) the employer, if the work was created in the course of employment unless
there is an agreement to the contrary;
c) the person who commissions a non-portrait photograph, portrait,
engraving or print for valuable consideration (which has been paid) unless
there is an agreement to the contrary.
d) the person depicted in the portrait for commissioned portrait
photographs. The photographer can only use the commissioned portrait
photograph within the terms of the agreement between him and the person in
the portrait. In the absence of an agreement, he cannot use the photograph
without prior permission of the person in the portrait; or
e) some other party, if the original owner has transferred his or her
rights.


-------- Part of their reply --------------

Almost everything I had mentioned ..... I should be a bloody shark then an IT personnel ........

 

[ST1100]

OT:

Can someone clarify this: all the model shoots here in CS, where nobody mentions copyright - do the photographers own the copyrights, esp for those where the photog pays to shoot? Does the photog need explicit permission from the organisers/models for commercial use?

Conversely, do the organisers/models need permission from the photogs for commercial/portfolio use?

TIA.

 

[blurblock]

OT:

Can someone clarify this: all the model shoots here in CS, where nobody mentions copyright - do the photographers own the copyrights, esp for those where the photog pays to shoot? Does the photog need explicit permission from the organisers/models for commercial use?

Conversely, do the organisers/models need permission from the photogs for commercial/portfolio use?

TIA.

If it is a freelance Model, chances are you will need to get his/her permission for use other then for the originally intended reason (in this case, for your portfolio). If the model is hired from a Model Agency, chances are you will need to get the agency's permission as well.

The Photographer own the copyright for the picture. When they pay to shoot, it is for their portfolio. By accepting the money from the photographer, the model and/or his/her representing agency has given his/her permission for enchancing the portfolio of the photographer. However, if you want to use this picture, say for entering a contest, then you will need to get permission from the model or his/her agency.

my 2 cts .... me no lawyer .... me no responsible if me interpret it wrongly ;P....

 

[Meower]

So many opposing views and information here! Hmmm...Still looking for someone to come up and offer their services. Just a simple photoshoot and video taking of me. I'm a part time magician btw. The site will be partly to promote my shows and partly for personal use.

Enough of the copyright discussion here please!! Maybe I should start another thread for that!

 

[ST1100]

Sorry about the OT.

i believe i PM'd you but there was no reply.

 

[togu]

OK guys, Meower is still looking for his photographer, let's get back to topic, and help out meower instead.

Any further OTs will be purged without any prior notice.



Moderator
Marketplace

 

[blurblock]

So many opposing views and information here! Hmmm...Still looking for someone to come up and offer their services. Just a simple photoshoot and video taking of me. I'm a part time magician btw. The site will be partly to promote my shows and partly for personal use.

Enough of the copyright discussion here please!! Maybe I should start another thread for that!

Ok, you should have at least tell where is your performance and when . Since this is a favour, I guess it should fit our schedule mah .