No Payment by Pierce Teo Production

[singscott]

You brought up a valid point here. This is like if you are using pirated windows, microsoft can come after you and you can't argue that you have paid for it

Well sadly to say that the copyright laws in singapore is the same as the rest of world for the music industries, software and motion pictures. BUT it does not apply to photography under OUR copyright laws :sticktong Dun ask me why it is just the way it is!!!!!!!

 

[vince123123]

Are you saying that Singapore laws do not respect the copyright of photographers?

It all boil down did the freelancer have written down in contact or in his quote the copyright usage to the main photographer or the end client.

If yes he can claim copyright to the end client when the main photographer did not pay him.

But if he did not and the end client can prove they paid for the images. Then it is a issue only with the freelancers and the main photographer under singapore law for "Job for hire"
As there no contact between the end client and the freelancer, the only binding contact here is only with the freelancer and the main photographer. But again the freelancer could be lucky that the end client take as an issue with the main photographer, as what other countries company would do because they respect the copyrights of the photographer require under their law.

 

[vince123123]

There is a public policy reason why an exception was created for paintings and photographs you know....

Well sadly to say that the copyright laws in singapore is the same as the rest of world for the music industries, software and motion pictures. BUT it does not apply to photography under OUR copyright laws :sticktong Dun ask me why it is just the way it is!!!!!!!

 

[yqt]

It all boil down did the freelancer have written down in contact or in his quote the copyright usage to the main photographer or the end client.

If yes he can claim copyright to the end client when the main photographer did not pay him.

But if he did not and the end client can prove they paid for the images. Then it is a issue only with the freelancers and the main photographer under singapore law for "Job for hire"
As there no contact between the end client and the freelancer, the only binding contact here is only with the freelancer and the main photographer. But again the freelancer could be lucky that the end client take as an issue with the main photographer, as what other countries company would do because they respect the copyrights of the photographer require under their law.

Agreed with you posting above. That's why when the freelancer contacted the end client, he did not state, at that point, that they have infringed his copyrights. What he did is to inform the end client that the images they are using is taken by him and till that moment, he have not release any copyrights to anyone else yet. This being the case, he have put the end client on notice that the images they are using may have copyright usage infringement issues. And since they are the one using it, they may be pulled into this should this become a legal issue. In others words, the end client have been informed and should they chose to disregard this information, they do so at their own risk.

Another point to note here, copyrights may and will be transfered to a client base on the sales agreement/quotation/invoice. But till full payment is made, the sale is not considered complete ( payment being part of a sale ) and as such, unless other wise stated, the transfer of copyrights is also not complete as the transfer of copyrights, is part of the sale.

In simple term, if you have not paid for it, you don't own it, unless otherwise stated.

 

[Wibblo]

Agreed with you posting above. That's why when the freelancer contacted the end client, he did not state, at that point, that they have infringed his copyrights. What he did is to inform the end client that the images they are using is taken by him and till that moment, he have not release any copyrights to anyone else yet. This being the case, he have put the end client on notice that the images they are using may have copyright usage infringement issues. And since they are the one using it, they may be pulled into this should this become a legal issue. In others words, the end client have been informed and should they chose to disregard this information, they do so at their own risk.

Another point to note here, copyrights may and will be transfered to a client base on the sales agreement/quotation/invoice. But till full payment is made, the sale is not considered complete ( payment being part of a sale ) and as such, unless other wise stated, the transfer of copyrights is also not complete as the transfer of copyrights, is part of the sale.

In simple term, if you have not paid for it, you don't own it, unless otherwise stated.

Called a copyright lawyer friend in one of the Big Four firms...wat YQT said is applicable

 

[yqt]

Called a copyright lawyer friend in one of the Big Four firms...wat YQT said is applicable

Thanks.

BTW, some CSers have ask me this, so, ..... the "Freelancer" mentioned is a good friend, not myself :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

I have been wondering one of the issues myself, whether copyright passes in the absence of payment. There can be two ways to interpret:

1. Copyright passes to the commissioner by operation of law, whether or not payment is made. The lack of payment is a contractual matter which is outside the scope of passing of copyright. Hence the creditor chases the debtor for payment.

2. Copyright does not pass until payment is made.

The key issue in my opinion is whether there is valuable consideration sufficient to allow the copyright to be passed. As long as the contract provides for consideration, it may not matter that the payment (ie consideration) is actually made or not.

Of course, we can also look at it in another way, where we can say that if the commissioner failed to pay up, it is a fundamental breach of contract (note that fundamental breach is not the same as normal breach) and treats the contract to be at an end (there are two ways to deal with fundamental breach), then maybe we can also say that since the contract is ended - copyright does not pass. But ending a contract may not be the same as saying the contract is void?

Seems rather complex If I can ask, would you be willing to share the identity of the copyright lawyer you asked (by pm will do - and you can ask him/her for permission first) - I would love to discuss this issue with him separately on a pure academic basis. If this person is in fact known to me, it may even make things easier to find out

Of course, we all know that the moral position is, no money, no goods. But in this case, I'm wondering if it is as simple as that.

Called a copyright lawyer friend in one of the Big Four firms...wat YQT said is applicable

 

[Wibblo]

let me check with him..as he is Partner...better ask for permission first....courtesy

but he did sms me before...copyright belongs to the person who takes the photo...payments are just purchase of rights to use those photos....

 

[vince123123]

Hmm, the second sentence is very dangerous, because it implies that your contact is telling you that Copyright belongs to a photographer even in the case of commissioned works, and payment merely means a license is granted to use. This is in fact, not what Section 30 says. Of course, it is possible that you misheard/misread him as the subtle differences is not obvious to a lay person.

 

[Clues]

I think not only you may get lawyer's letter from Mr Teo .... but probably you may get lawyer's letters for damages from many of the members here who unknowingly clicked on your thread and saw those ugly, monkey-lookalike images :dunno:.
You may also be receiving my lawyer's letter demanding that you pay back my lunch which i vomited when I clicked on your posted images of your model just now .....

Bhahahahahaha :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[CreaXion]

Hmm, the second sentence is very dangerous, because it implies that your contact is telling you that Copyright belongs to a photographer even in the case of commissioned works, and payment merely means a license is granted to use. This is in fact, not what Section 30 says. Of course, it is possible that you misheard/misread him as the subtle differences is not obvious to a lay person.

According to what I understand from a copyright talk, the person being commissioned does not own the copyright and hence they do not have the right to post or sell as the copyrights belong to the commissioner (hope that I understand the terms correctly). Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[mattlock]

Hmm, the second sentence is very dangerous, because it implies that your contact is telling you that Copyright belongs to a photographer even in the case of commissioned works, and payment merely means a license is granted to use. This is in fact, not what Section 30 says. Of course, it is possible that you misheard/misread him as the subtle differences is not obvious to a lay person.

actually because of this strange clause in the Copyright Act I make it a point to state that my company commissions a photographer to execute the job when the contract with a client is signed, meaning that my company owns my copyrights

easiest and least painful way to deal with this issue. Really I think the Copyright Act needs a look at.

 

[jayliberator]

guys, all this talk about copyright is confusing me

 

[vince123123]

That was exactly what I was trying to say.

According to what I understand from a copyright talk, the person being commissioned does not own the copyright and hence they do not have the right to post or sell as the copyrights belong to the commissioner (hope that I understand the terms correctly). Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[vince123123]

Nothing wrong with that, but do note that such things are usually substance over form. Ie if you say "I commission you" but in fact the transaction was not as such, saying "I commission you" in a contract doesn't help.

That said, I do believe in your case, you should be using "I commission you" in your contract, as well as the transaction actually being a commissioned work. So its really double protection

actually because of this strange clause in the Copyright Act I make it a point to state that my company commissions a photographer to execute the job when the contract with a client is signed, meaning that my company owns my copyrights

easiest and least painful way to deal with this issue. Really I think the Copyright Act needs a look at.

 

[jayliberator]

you do reallise that I have no contract right??

 

[CreaXion]

you do reallise that I have no contract right??

If I am correct, since there is no contract, the copyright belongs to the photographer. If payment is made to the photographer, the copyright still belongs to the photographer. The company only has the rights to use or sell depending on the verbal agreement which may or may not be valid when there is a case. Inherently, the copyright still belongs to the photographer and since u hold the raw files, u have a case.

Vince, can I confirm that this is rt.

 

[old-newbird]

do you realize that whatever camera I use is not an issue? I shouldnt have even talk about the camera damn it. think about it, even if I use a handheld digicam, the photos are still submited in the end of the day. and Pierce still owes me money.

i think its more on ur attitude bro...
can sense ur grouchy man..
firstly i think cheese is trying to say tt it does not matter wad mistake u made...mistake is a mistake...not any mistake but a mistake which cannot be made... dont forget... with out the
camera... u got no pics... if u made such a blunder in court... u might not be in favour... u know that right?

 

[CreaXion]

i think its more on ur attitude bro...
can sense ur grouchy man..
firstly i think cheese is trying to say tt it does not matter wad mistake u made...mistake is a mistake...not any mistake but a mistake which cannot be made... dont forget... with out the
camera... u got no pics... if u made such a blunder in court... u might not be in favour... u know that right?

Gd pt. Contradictions and inconsistencies does not help. So be clear.

 

[old-newbird]

Gd pt. Contradictions and inconsistencies does not help. So be clear.

I sat on the fence and typed that man...
bro jay dont let anger get the better of u ... once u let tt happen... even if u 99% win... just bcoz of the blunder... u might end up PAYING not getting PAID.. honestly i somewhat agree on wad cheese say... but not the insensitive part with the smilies la... coz if they(other party) wants to extract anything... thn with a letter from their lawers or high court they can extract from CS legally... and if CS got backup... thn u might be in trouble. if the what u typed (that has been deleted) is still in backup or something... and tt is where the part paying and paid might kick in bro
its a war out there..becareful...

good luck in ur legal settlements and all the best!