true..Gone case lah.... you gave the performer liao. Move on...
This kind of thing makes me mad.
if that is true... i pity SPH for hiring a bunch of incompetent idiots.
PS... my apologies for not being able to advise you as this is not something i am familiar with.. however, i'm sorry for you.
who said sph has incompetent ppl?:think: thats an unfair statement. sph has a few very talented photographers infact. just google, u will realise how wrong u are. i know at least 1 very famous one.
hmm...yes for sure there are good photographers in SPH...but i think what virtualme78 is talking about are the journalists (who use other people's photographs) and the editors (who allow them to). No one is complaining about incompetent photographers in SPH.
finally, someone has dug this up...Copyright Act (Cap. 63)
Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news
111. A fair dealing with an audio-visual item shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio-visual item included in the item if
(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the first-mentioned audio- visual item is made; or
(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of broadcasting or a cable programme service, by any other means of communication to the public, or in a cinematograph film.
How about Reuters, AFP etc? They sell pics (worldwide) for the purpose of news, are you saying the (local) law says that local newspapers can use their images for free?????finally, someone has dug this up...
this topic has been covered many times previously...
This could still be challenged, what constitute sufficient acknowledgment? if I am the original maker.. I can say I was not sufficiently acknowledged, no $$ means no acknowledgment. But who the heck wants to waste effort and time over a single photo? that is the main issue... couldn't there be a watchdog org to protect the small time studio/photographer?Copyright Act (Cap. 63)
Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news
111. A fair dealing with an audio-visual item shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio-visual item included in the item if
(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgment of the first-mentioned audio- visual item is made; or
(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of broadcasting or a cable programme service, by any other means of communication to the public, or in a cinematograph film.
what they sell are not just the images but also access, network, and support...How about Reuters, AFP etc? They sell pics (worldwide) for the purpose of news, are you saying the (local) law says that local newspapers can use their images for free?????
No they don't as far as I know, the (have to) pay Reuters, AFP etc, handsome money for their images........
HS
what they sell are not just the images but also access, network, and support...
news coverage is about timeliness... if one can only get hi res images by scanning the images off their competitors' publications, then they loose out on timeliness, not so much an issue on the web as images don't have to be very hi res and they can just copy from web images, but an issue for print publications or those who have both print and web publications (that is if they care about image quality)...
they also provide access to a wide network of photographers' images to choose from in centralized marketplaces...
and some of those companies also provide editorial support for the images, in both image and writing...
they are service providers and not just merchants of images... and if one uses their images without paying them, they might not be able to prevent it's use due to fair dealing, but they can choose not to work with anyone anymore...
and what is their basis to sign such contracts?... access, network, and support, as was mentioned in my previous post... lets face it, no logically managed company will willingly pay money unless they really need to, as proven by all these "free" images harvested by the media companies from websites... and these fair dealing laws are not restricted to Singapore but are also present in some form or other amongst Common Law jurisdictions, which include quite a number of countries with influential media companies, like the US and the UK...Clients of wire agencies, who are mainly major print news publications are bound by a contract. I doubt they will take the legal risk of using wire images without paying or from a previously published source and using fair dealing as a defense clause.