I think what the newspaper did is absolutely despicable and shallow, but the photographer is merely hired by whosthere and funnycars, the photographs are essentially sold to the two websites, and it is up to them what they want to do with it(Im assuming that the photographer posted the pictures on the forum according to whosthere and funnycars wishes). I have no idea how the photos got from whosthere and funnycars to hard metal zone, but it seems that the pictures were fairly open to public. If anyone should be responsible it should be whosthere and funnycars
Local newspaper uses pictures without permission
- Thread starter Youhong
- Start date
- Status
mediacorp is not owned by sph, neither sph is not owned by mediacorp..........
both are 2 separate companies owned by the government.
get the facts right.
i was from the media for 15 years.....
partly right partly wrong. SPH is a public listed company. It is not per say government owned. however the NPPa (newspaper and printing presses act) has certain parts that keep it in check. mediacorp however is state-owned. weird thing is, SPH does own a 40 percent stake in mediacorp press (today paper).
just to clarify.
to all those people in this thread,
kind of curious, do you guys download MP3? Do you guys use pirated software? Do you guys watched pirated DVDs?
I am not sure about you guys, but since I have lived in singapore all my life, I think 90% of singaporeans do.....
kind of curious, do you guys download MP3? Do you guys use pirated software? Do you guys watched pirated DVDs?
I am not sure about you guys, but since I have lived in singapore all my life, I think 90% of singaporeans do.....
double standards?
example, photographers are very sensitive when photographs are being used without permission but think nothing of copying MP3, etc.
not just photographers lah, I feel a musician will be sensitive about downloading MP3, but will think nothing of using a downloaded web picture.
Personally, I feel it is pointless trying to enforce one's own copyright when one does not respect others. Until we as a society treats copyright infringement as a crime, we are just not going to get anywhere... I mean seriously, how many of us feel that downloading and copying MP3 are a crime and will not do it?
You're coming from a moralistic point of view. A noble one, if I may add. However this is a business issue. If assuming that you're caught by the copyright owners for downloading music and using illegally, then you have to be prepared to face the consequences; whether or not you happen to be a photographer who's trying to enforce your copyrights at the same time.
This is, however, a business issue. A business perspective is needed to resolve the situation. Each business entity has to protect its rights so as to ensure it's survival and existence. And TS is seeking to do so. If the entire photography community locally can be held at ransom by some intangible wrongs they'd committed as individuals and not part of the business, then any other enterprise from other industries can just stroll past and rip the photography community off as and when they like. Examples of double-standards brought up are all from the biz standpoint. As an organization, the press has to pay for the usage of photographs, and can be illustrated by them paying (and crediting) foreign sources. It's because foreign sources have gotten themselves together and make sure their rights are enforced. This has to be done locally as well, and this thread serves at least the purpose of raising the awareness of the issue.
Even if, local photographers are using copyrighted music for their websites (and thus infringing music copyrights) - all that means is, this particular photographer must be prepared to face legal actions when it comes down to it. Not point to the record label and say "hey, you didn't pay for your photo copyrights too". That's not gonna happen. Likewise, if the record label is served a legal letter for infringing photo copyrights, it's not gonna say "hey, you also downloaded music illegally what" In businesses, both of them have to pay for doing what's wrong, simple as that. And neither of them should feel 'guilty' for pursuing a right because they've done a wrong.
And it's not a matter of right and wrong. It's business.
How the people who've commented this issue is downloading mp3s in the quiet of the night, or jaywalking when there're no TPs around should be discussed separately, because the basis of comparison no longer exists with the digression.
This is, afterall, Photobiz forum, not a moral judgment forum.
agreed. I am not saying the newspaper is right or anything and I do support the TS in getting back his rights. I just hope more people will treat copyright infringement more seriously, not just only when it affects one own self's interest.
I am just a bit amused by the difference in attitude over photo infringement and lets say the recent odex issue. I am sure the two cases are different in many aspects but frankly, how many of us actually understand the legal ramifications of the two incidents and yet the attitudes towards both cases are radically different.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303766&highlight=odex
I am just a bit amused by the difference in attitude over photo infringement and lets say the recent odex issue. I am sure the two cases are different in many aspects but frankly, how many of us actually understand the legal ramifications of the two incidents and yet the attitudes towards both cases are radically different.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303766&highlight=odex
Yo Shinken, wat Pisduck says is true. Moral issues aside, it is double standard. U tok abt business matters, same goes to to pirated songs tat u download. U are depriving the actual owner his business.
Pisduck .. u are assuming that every singaporeans at least uses pirated software, songs in that sense. Well the TS might just b one of those who does not. So guess he might have his pt.
Then again, i'v tok to a pro photographer on such issue before. Abt some agency using his photos without permission. Surprinsingly he said let it be. He cant be bothered to go after them. E reason being it's too complicated to prove tat it's urs, unless u'r super famous tat u can show tat e pictures is ur style of shooting. 2ndly even if u manage to sue e agency/newspaper in tis case, u will leave a bad taste to e agency. In e end, u may get something fm the current foto, But ur future business can be considered as non existent esp at tis agency. Sg is such a small market for words not to go ard.
Best solution, ask them nicely to at least remove e pictures. If they choose not to, u can proceed with legal proceedings n stuff but dont expect to get much lohh.
Pisduck .. u are assuming that every singaporeans at least uses pirated software, songs in that sense. Well the TS might just b one of those who does not. So guess he might have his pt.
Then again, i'v tok to a pro photographer on such issue before. Abt some agency using his photos without permission. Surprinsingly he said let it be. He cant be bothered to go after them. E reason being it's too complicated to prove tat it's urs, unless u'r super famous tat u can show tat e pictures is ur style of shooting. 2ndly even if u manage to sue e agency/newspaper in tis case, u will leave a bad taste to e agency. In e end, u may get something fm the current foto, But ur future business can be considered as non existent esp at tis agency. Sg is such a small market for words not to go ard.
Best solution, ask them nicely to at least remove e pictures. If they choose not to, u can proceed with legal proceedings n stuff but dont expect to get much lohh.
you're not comparing apples to apples.
the Odex issue blew up partly because the person trying to enforce copyrights was not the copyright owner.
I think you are making a broad assumption when you assume that most people download mp3s illegally or use pirated software.
AdyH,
it is not difficult to prove that you are the owner of a photo.
the RAW file of a photo contains alot of information pertaining to the specific piece of equipment used
There is nothing wrong in enforcing one's rights,especially when it becomes a constantly reccuring event
Since we're digressing, just to add, Odex lost the appeal against Pacnet. Court has ruled that Odex have no claims over the alleged copyright infringements. It was reported that those who paid the $5k demanded by Odex are considering joint legal action against Odex.
No. No. No. I'm Singaporean.
However, I do wish I could buy legal MP3s from Amazon, otherwise I'll have to wait for the CDs to be shipped.
1. Please do not be too presumptuous here. Your statement, suggest that the TS as well as the photographers here do not respect other copyright.
2. Stick to the discussion topic, do not attempt to flame bait. :nono:
As mentioned in my previous posting, the objective is to let fellow photographers be aware of the
1) unethical and despicable acts of a local media.
a) Much have been discussed and debated on the copyright issue. However, only someone who really practice the law can give us the correct answer. I suggest that we shouldn't post too much personal opinions which may be misleading to other forumers. Whether or not there really is a case, it will take quite some time to find out.
b) It is clear that the journalist wasn't present at the event itself. The report in her article were purely her own deduction based on the pictures she saw. In another words, she made up her own story - which the event organiser called to request her to correct her article. (with regards to this, what do forumers think?)
c) The journalist already know about the photographer's unhappiness of another forum using his pictures, yet she chose to use and even written it in her own article - ironic.
2) poor management and attempts to resolve the issue
a) Low responds to emails and multiple reminders have to be sent
b) The journalist did not come face to face to give any explaination to the photographer.
For the purpose of supporting the above point 1c, the following is the part of the original article (the last 2 paragraphs).
Do note that the incident occurrence I've provided in this thread was written in a third party manner and names were changed to protect the other victims of this incident.
Source: Ke Xinying, Shin Min Daily News, 31 Jan 2008
Do note that the incident occurrence I've provided in this thread was written in a third party manner and names were changed to protect the other victims of this incident.
Source: Ke Xinying, Shin Min Daily News, 31 Jan 2008
Actually the paragraph that you highlighted is the strongest point in their favour. Since the article now has raised the issue of the debate over the photographer's images and commented on certain unhappiness and controversy. There is a need for images to illustrate the part of the story and thus lends itself to defence under the "fair dealing" clause.
If the article had not included this part and was solely reporting on the actual event and proceedings, then perhaps you would have a much stronger case.
As before, this is my interpretation of the situation. You may want to approach your academic law tutors for advice, if not a practicing lawyer.
If the article had not included this part and was solely reporting on the actual event and proceedings, then perhaps you would have a much stronger case.
As before, this is my interpretation of the situation. You may want to approach your academic law tutors for advice, if not a practicing lawyer.
The need for images does not form a reasonable excuse to use the works of others without permission. It is the fault of the newspaper not to have sent a person down to cover the event and anything more is just a lame attempt at finding excuses under "fair dealings".
Fair dealing and usage covers publications of images taken in public by the press and it protects them to a certain extent with regards to any complaints by the people in those particular images. The press do not have carte blanche to take images from elsewhere and use them without expressed approval from the copyright owner. Needless to say, ignorance of ownership is no proper argument as well.
However, there is this debate over the relative benefit of going to war over an image and losing future business. This is where the lack of saints come to light, and where people do cave in for the sake of "future business". Distasteful, yes. But it's still business reality here.
I think we are shooting over the bow in this case.
Actually, the point is that the paragraph transforms the article into a partial commentary of the photog's pictures.
As such it is no longer restricted to merely event coverage, but involves a commentary of the images taken which would seemingly satisfy the "fair dealing" clause as listed in the statutes.
To question the validity of the clause and fairness of this clause in the law would be an entirely different matter. In this case, i'm just referring to how the clause can possibly be applied.
Allow me to add in more facts and details.
- Total number of pictures used = 7+1 (2 on front cover and 5 on page 4, 1 is the official event poster copyrighted to the event organiser)
- Total number of paragraphs in the article = 9 (7 of which were the journalist's own wrongful deduction of the event, while the last 2 para mentioned and shown in the previous post)
- Total number of pictures used = 7+1 (2 on front cover and 5 on page 4, 1 is the official event poster copyrighted to the event organiser)
- Total number of paragraphs in the article = 9 (7 of which were the journalist's own wrongful deduction of the event, while the last 2 para mentioned and shown in the previous post)
Actually, my personal opinion is that the fair dealing clauses allows for usage of intellecual properties without the need for permission. If it is required to ask for pemission before you can use the property, then a negotiation of copyrights is already taking place. In this case, the fair dealing clause is redundant. The only explicit requirement in the clause seems to be that the source must be acknowledged.
I'm afraid that you are confusing totally separate issues in this statement.
Shooting images in public has got nothing to do with fair dealing nor copyright.
Anyone in public is generally fair game for photography unless you flout certain laws in attempting(i.e tresspass?) to get the image or that the image contains objectionable content.
- Status
