My picture is on newspaper.

[night86mare]

I will let the matter rest ba since they apology to me today.

can you share what they said?

i think at the very least they should inform, even if they are allowed under the law to use your image. it is only polite, right?

 

[eesiang]

I will let the matter rest ba since they apology to me today.

Good to hear that they actually admitted they are at fault. But i think TS you need to step up more. It shouldn't be this way, punching someone in the face later just say sorry and that's it?

 

[HyosHi]

By letting the matter rest with an apology you're setting a precedence here, which is a bad thing. Imo you should have pursued a monetary reimbursement for your work which has been published.

 

[theRBK]

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.

just curious, was this government-linked company using your image to report current events?...

 

[theRBK]

Most, if not all, mainstream newspapers in Singapore are owned by SPH, which in turn owns Mediacorp.

since when is Mediacorp owned by SPH?... it's owned by Temasek...

 

[theRBK]

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.

if you had read post 123, you would realize that quite a number of "First World" countries share the same Common Law basis on which Singapore's Copyright Act follows from, and in particular the section on fair dealing... these "First World" countries include (with reference to the Wiki page), but are not necessarily limited to, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA (fair use rather than fair dealing here, but more or less similar ideas represented), and the UK...

 

[Teufelhunden]

what clauses does the wire agencies have that stops them from ripping them off?
this would be the way to stop them

You'll have to ask the legal departments of the wire agencies. I doubt we know the full extent of the legal regime governing usage of wire photos by clients and unauthorised users. It could be as simple as enforcement of copyright ownership, after all, metadata (or the lack of) could easily prove ownership, no?

 

[Fallenphoenix]

if you had read post 123, you would realize that quite a number of "First World" countries share the same Common Law basis on which Singapore's Copyright Act follows from, and in particular the section on fair dealing... these "First World" countries include (with reference to the Wiki page), but are not necessarily limited to, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA (fair use rather than fair dealing here, but more or less similar ideas represented), and the UK...

Hence, I'm disappointed that the practice in Singapore seems to be different fr that of overseas.

 

[theRBK]

if you had read post 123, you would realize that quite a number of "First World" countries share the same Common Law basis on which Singapore's Copyright Act follows from, and in particular the section on fair dealing... these "First World" countries include (with reference to the Wiki page), but are not necessarily limited to, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA (fair use rather than fair dealing here, but more or less similar ideas represented), and the UK...

Hence, I'm disappointed that the practice in Singapore seems to be different fr that of overseas.

er, I think there's a breakdown in comprehension somewhere... I was stating that Singapore's Copyright Act is based on the common foundation of Common Law, same as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, and the UK, and all these countries have the same fair dealing (or in the USA, fair use) clause, meaning that it is not copyright infringement for a news agency to use an image that they do not own the copyright to for the purpose of covering current affairs in any of those above mentioned countries... i.e. Singapore's law in this regard is the same as it is in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, and the UK...

 

[cabbySHE]

I'm sure as for the case of Paul ( thread#131 ), it will definitely be the last job that this company using his service. As it is a case of history repeating itself, surely the staff incharge of this contract will get a severe warning / lecture for committing such a midtake which thereby causing the company to paid out $12k for a off court settlement.

It should be like this...in the TOP man's office...

" Okay, we'll pay this buggar off and ask him to shut his mouth ! "

whereas Greensky only get a verbal.. " sorry ".

Reason ?

Paul has got a watertight contract agreement with terms and conditions of usage all listed.
And signed and approved by both parties ( I supposed ).

 

[Fallenphoenix]

You'll have to ask the legal departments of the wire agencies. I doubt we know the full extent of the legal regime governing usage of wire photos by clients and unauthorised users. It could be as simple as enforcement of copyright ownership, after all, metadata (or the lack of) could easily prove ownership, no?

er, I think there's a breakdown in comprehension somewhere... I was stating that Singapore's Copyright Act is based on the common foundation of Common Law, same as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, and the UK, and all these countries have the same fair dealing (or in the USA, fair use) clause, meaning that it is not copyright infringement for a news agency to use an image that they do not own the copyright to for the purpose of covering current affairs in any of those above mentioned countries... i.e. Singapore's law in this regard is the same as it is in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, and the UK...

My bad... I am unable to comprehend on why other news agencies bother to acquire editorial rights over the picture, like using pictures fr wire agencies, when they can use it for free based on the stated clause in fair dealing. It does seems that copyright regulations no longer apply on pics covering current affairs when used to illustrate news. =/

It'll be great if someone can clarify this issue, as this information is probably very useful to the rest of the community.

 

[theRBK]

I'm sure as for the case of Paul ( thread#131 ), it will definitely be the last job that this company using his service. As it is a case of history repeating itself, surely the staff incharge of this contract will get a severe warning / lecture for committing such a midtake which thereby causing the company to paid out $12k for a off court settlement.

It should be like this...in the TOP man's office...

" Okay, we'll pay this buggar off and ask him to shut his mouth ! "

whereas Greensky only get a verbal.. " sorry ".

Reason ?

Paul has got a watertight contract agreement with terms and conditions of usage all listed.
And signed and approved by both parties ( I supposed ).

from what Paul has stated in post 131, that case seems to be a simple breach of contract over usage rights... has to do with the client using the image beyond the agreed rights licensed to them by the copyright holder, and these rights may be in terms of duration of usage, media it would be used in, geographical coverage of use, size of reproduction, 3rd party usage, etc... if the infringement is clear cut, this should be an open-and-shut case, and by going through litigation, the other party (Paul's client) just wasted everyone's time and gave a bunch of lawyers some money while wasting their own money...

the agreement to keep mum on the details is probably to prevent that organisation from looking stupid in the public eye for not knowing to pay up immediately when the breach was made known and wasting money starting a no-hope litigation... the breach in agreement at most was a case of ignorance or oversight which might be understandable and easily resolved through negotiation, whereas the move to litigate shows stupidity and/or possible bloodymindedness with a possible hint of a bully's mentality...

for the TS, the most that can be said is that it's a breach of courtesy, for not informing the TS that the image will be used before it is used...

 

[ortega]

You'll have to ask the legal departments of the wire agencies. I doubt we know the full extent of the legal regime governing usage of wire photos by clients and unauthorised users. It could be as simple as enforcement of copyright ownership, after all, metadata (or the lack of) could easily prove ownership, no?

my guess is the $$$ stated there if they would like to use the image

so maybe it should be done the same way

Post images with a note below stating
who owns the image copyright and how to contact
also if interested to use the image for whatever reason/media please contact for pricing.
or US$1500 if used without permission. By using the image without permission you agree to pay the copyright owner US$1500.

sounds like a plan?

 

[Xiao_shin]

I sympathize with your plight. I wouldn't know what to do if I am in your shoes.

Hope you found a way to resolve this.

 

[Teufelhunden]

my guess is the $$$ stated there if they would like to use the image

so maybe it should be done the same way

Post images with a note below stating
who owns the image copyright and how to contact
also if interested to use the image for whatever reason/media please contact for pricing.
or US$1500 if used without permission. By using the image without permission you agree to pay the copyright owner US$1500.

sounds like a plan?

That sounds possible. Even a name will do to serve as notice of ownership, I believe? For us hobbyists, I mean.

 

[Teufelhunden]

My bad... I am unable to comprehend on why other news agencies bother to acquire editorial rights over the picture, like using pictures fr wire agencies, when they can use it for free based on the stated clause in fair dealing. It does seems that copyright regulations no longer apply on pics covering current affairs when used to illustrate news. =/

It'll be great if someone can clarify this issue, as this information is probably very useful to the rest of the community.

Fair dealing clause, does its protection extend outside our borders? Because if a newspaper were to cite that, but its circulated in another country that doesn't have this clause, it might create problems as the copyright owner of the photo can claim unauthorised reproduction in those states..

 

[Fallenphoenix]

Fair dealing clause, does its protection extend outside our borders? Because if a newspaper were to cite that, but its circulated in another country that doesn't have this clause, it might create problems as the copyright owner of the photo can claim unauthorised reproduction in those states..

That makes some sense to me...

 

[Fallenphoenix]

my guess is the $$$ stated there if they would like to use the image

so maybe it should be done the same way

Post images with a note below stating
who owns the image copyright and how to contact
also if interested to use the image for whatever reason/media please contact for pricing.
or US$1500 if used without permission. By using the image without permission you agree to pay the copyright owner US$1500.

sounds like a plan?

U reckon that will work if we embed that into our metadata?

 

[jgjonathangoh]

copied from Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, this part is under exceptions to copyright infringement
"In other cases, fair dealings for the purposes of criticism, review or reporting current events would not constitute copyright infringement. In the case of criticism or review and the reporting of current events in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is required."

Makes it seems a closed case if the newspaper wanna use your photo to report events.

Really need a lawyer to advise us on such matter. Arent there any lawyer photographers in CS???

In deviantart.com, there is such a clause in their copyright licenses if contributor chooses that option.
"The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees may not use the work for commercial purposes — unless they get the licensor's permission."
dont even know if such a clause can cover the above exemptions..

 

[Fallenphoenix]

copied from Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, this part is under exceptions to copyright infringement
"In other cases, fair dealings for the purposes of criticism, review or reporting current events would not constitute copyright infringement. In the case of criticism or review and the reporting of current events in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is required."

Makes it seems a closed case if the newspaper wanna use your photo to report events.

Really need a lawyer to advise us on such matter. Arent there any lawyer photographers in CS???

In deviantart.com, there is such a clause in their copyright licenses if contributor chooses that option.
"The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In return, licensees may not use the work for commercial purposes — unless they get the licensor's permission."
dont even know if such a clause can cover the above exemptions..

"sufficient acknowledgment of the work" --> Does it covers acknowledgment fee? Just a futile guess