Jonathan Ang
Senior Member
if it's in the public...it's free-for-all i suppose. LOL. Not too sure :O
To TS: gogo i support you! I shall go sms my lawyer friend about this ask him what he thinks
or he could be reading this thread already..lol
My picture is on newspaper.
- Thread starter greensky1
- Start date
if it's in the public...it's free-for-all i suppose. LOL. Not too sure :O
To TS: gogo i support you! I shall go sms my lawyer friend about this ask him what he thinks
or he could be reading this thread already..lol
guys, please read post 77... as much as we can sympathize with the TS and give moral support, unless the law is changed, don't think anyone can do squat...
and for the benefit of all, here's the link to the particular section of the Copyright Act
if on the other hand they put the image in the photobank for sale, that's an entirely different matter... they can't sell it cause they don't own it...
and for the benefit of all, here's the link to the particular section of the Copyright Act
if on the other hand they put the image in the photobank for sale, that's an entirely different matter... they can't sell it cause they don't own it...
in addition, if you look at this wiki page dealing with the topic of "fair dealing", you can see, perhaps unsurprizingly, that many of the countries that follow Common Law have similar ideas as represented in the Singapore Copyright Act... granted wikipedia may not be the very last word in factual correctness, the page should be quite illuminating...
Fallenphoenix
New Member
It'll be nice for a big cooperation to behave graciously and politely. An notification email or letter informing TS about the publication would be nice.
There's one thing that I do not get it. We have a CS member shooting freelance at Afghanistan a while ago. Based on what happen here, it is perfectly legal to rip it off from CS and publish it in their newspaper. Freelance photographers like the aforementioned CS member paid for their own trip and depends on selling their editorial rights to news agency (there re times that it's cheaper to buy a 200 dollars pic than sending a photographer over or even up to 4 or 5 digit for Afghanistan war shots). I understand that overseas newspaper agencies buy pics fr these photographers and many of these photographers sell these pics at news pic sites (similar to stock, but editorial rights), such as Demotix. My worrying question is - Can ST go to obvious freelance photojournalists' portfolios and news agencies (say even Reuters) and use their pictures,
firstly - free
secondly - use it without asking
thirdly - acknowledgment on publication is sufficient?
If so and applicable to all news agencies, I've no idea what the freelancers are surviving on (I myself is an opportunistic freelancer - that is shooting protest in the city which may turn violent once in a blue moon. eg, the Indian racial protest in Melb). Not to mention what do sites like Demotix live on, as they're more of selling pictures than reporting news.
Although the nature of TS's case is different from the aforementioned high impact news, the scenario and procedure are similar to a certain degree. He saw a scene. He shot it and published it in his selected media. ST saw it and used it without notifying him or remuneration. It seems that ST can do that to a poor war photographer too or any other respectful photojournalists. If so, I'm deeply disappointed that this is the action of a Country that is striving to be First World gracious and civilised society, especially when I have so much admiration for Singapore.
There's one thing that I do not get it. We have a CS member shooting freelance at Afghanistan a while ago. Based on what happen here, it is perfectly legal to rip it off from CS and publish it in their newspaper. Freelance photographers like the aforementioned CS member paid for their own trip and depends on selling their editorial rights to news agency (there re times that it's cheaper to buy a 200 dollars pic than sending a photographer over or even up to 4 or 5 digit for Afghanistan war shots). I understand that overseas newspaper agencies buy pics fr these photographers and many of these photographers sell these pics at news pic sites (similar to stock, but editorial rights), such as Demotix. My worrying question is - Can ST go to obvious freelance photojournalists' portfolios and news agencies (say even Reuters) and use their pictures,
firstly - free
secondly - use it without asking
thirdly - acknowledgment on publication is sufficient?
If so and applicable to all news agencies, I've no idea what the freelancers are surviving on (I myself is an opportunistic freelancer - that is shooting protest in the city which may turn violent once in a blue moon. eg, the Indian racial protest in Melb). Not to mention what do sites like Demotix live on, as they're more of selling pictures than reporting news.
Although the nature of TS's case is different from the aforementioned high impact news, the scenario and procedure are similar to a certain degree. He saw a scene. He shot it and published it in his selected media. ST saw it and used it without notifying him or remuneration. It seems that ST can do that to a poor war photographer too or any other respectful photojournalists. If so, I'm deeply disappointed that this is the action of a Country that is striving to be First World gracious and civilised society, especially when I have so much admiration for Singapore.
Teufelhunden
Member
Newspapers need to subscribe to wire agency archives to use their images. They aren't that foolhardy to rip a photo off a wire agency like Reuters, AFP or AP etc.
Freelancers can string for news agencies, and depending on the contract involved, some do sell their images to more than one agency. But those images sold also come with usage rights and restrictions too, as these are basic fundamentals.
TS , check here for IP infringements
Fallenphoenix
New Member
That was what I understand. Sadly, it appears that SOP no longer applies for ST when it comes to individuals, which now seems like a man robbing a kid's candy analogy.
Teufelhunden
Member
It is the industry practice. Perhaps there is a lapse in oversight at the moment. It has to be addressed.
Fallenphoenix
New Member
I agree. I really hope so that it was an oversight. I hope that the management in Lianhe Wan Bao understands that they are still a representative of ST and their actions are deemed as that of the cooperation. I believe the people in working on the articles are at least degree holders and should at least carry themselves appropriately.
Looking at the level of "news writing" in Lianhe Wan Bao, you really think they are respectable people who carry themselves appropriately? More like tabloids.
PaulRussell
New Member
I sued a large government-linked company last year and won. They had used a picture that I had taken for a specific campaign and then used it beyond the usage rights I had given them in the deal.
They engaged Rajah and Tann lawyers in response to my lawyers. After six months back and forth I got $12K without it going to court.
Part of the deal is that I'm not allowed to say who the losers are.
Having been through a lot of this, I believe that the OP has a case because permission for usage was not given. He needs to engage a good lawyer. I can't recommend the lawyer I used because they were pretty useless, and I had to give them the winning strategy and readings of international law to win the case. But there must be one or two out there.
They engaged Rajah and Tann lawyers in response to my lawyers. After six months back and forth I got $12K without it going to court.
Part of the deal is that I'm not allowed to say who the losers are.
Having been through a lot of this, I believe that the OP has a case because permission for usage was not given. He needs to engage a good lawyer. I can't recommend the lawyer I used because they were pretty useless, and I had to give them the winning strategy and readings of international law to win the case. But there must be one or two out there.
Hi Paul,
the case scenario of yours is exactly the same as this Seetoh Makansutra guy who won a $30K over a telco tassle. The quoted situation is exactly the same.
Whereas, TS situation doesn't have such a strong stand point to bring the case to court settlement. There wasn't any deal to start with.
It is purely a case by case basis.
Even if he should persue it through, I doubt he will get $12k as a settlement, pls take a look again at his picture.
the case scenario of yours is exactly the same as this Seetoh Makansutra guy who won a $30K over a telco tassle. The quoted situation is exactly the same.
Whereas, TS situation doesn't have such a strong stand point to bring the case to court settlement. There wasn't any deal to start with.
It is purely a case by case basis.
Even if he should persue it through, I doubt he will get $12k as a settlement, pls take a look again at his picture.
PaulRussell
New Member
yeah, I agree he wouldn't get 12K.
But the issue is that they used copyright material without his permission. A good lawyer would be able to squeeze a few dollars out of them for that. Right now the government is heavily leaning towards copyright protection, and to have the nation's leading press company breaking it is very bad press. That's the angle I'd go for.
But the issue is that they used copyright material without his permission. A good lawyer would be able to squeeze a few dollars out of them for that. Right now the government is heavily leaning towards copyright protection, and to have the nation's leading press company breaking it is very bad press. That's the angle I'd go for.
astroboy
Senior Member
Most, if not all, mainstream newspapers in Singapore are owned by SPH, which in turn owns Mediacorp. The chairman of SPH is usually someone seconded by ***, folks like SR Nathan, Lee Kim San and currently Dr Tony Tan, former dy PM.
SPH employs a panel of legal firms including Drew & Napier, whose directors includes Indranee Rajah, an MP for Tg Pagar and a *** "affiliate". SPH also engaged Harry Elias & Partners - not sure if they are still do.
Good luck to TS.
PS: Wow, didn't know that the name for the ruling party is taboo.
SPH employs a panel of legal firms including Drew & Napier, whose directors includes Indranee Rajah, an MP for Tg Pagar and a *** "affiliate". SPH also engaged Harry Elias & Partners - not sure if they are still do.
Good luck to TS.
PS: Wow, didn't know that the name for the ruling party is taboo.
Last edited:
Fallenphoenix
New Member
Tabloids or not, they re still a bunch of professionals writing to cater a sector of the market and do not have the warrant to work around stated SOP, especially when they are a bunch of graduates working in a huge organisation that publish national paper and other papers within SPH have to obey their own SOP. Unlike other countries, some Tabloids are independent publishing companies which may not care about their reputations. It all boils down on whether SPH care about its reputation and relationships to its readers and community.
Thankfully, TS is satisfied with the settlement.
Similar threads
