Oh what a fun thread that for some reason I decided to ignore initially
Actually, looking at the terms, clause [6] is a pretty standard clause found in almost all competition or publication terms. I'm not saying it's good, but I can understand if the publication doesn't want to be held accountable for any trouble they get into because of the content of your image (for instance, you took the image illegally, or used it illegally).
In terms of clause [1], well it's a sad fact that more and more organisations are making cheap grabs at photographers, particularly aspiring ones who don't stop to read the fine print.
As to not expecting the Straits Times to do such a thing... I don't find it all that surprising to be honest. Singapore is a society that places a very low emphasis on artistic integrity, and very high regard for financial gain. My justification being the fact that they have done exactly what they did in this rights grab.
I would be *very* surprised if you get a response from them, Bernard. Bearing in mind ST folks might possibly come across this, I would love to hear a reply to Bernard.
SMC, the Straits Times might be the biggest news organisation in Singapore, but therein lies the problem. They have no competition, aside from TNP, which strangely enough is also owned by SPH. And while I know there are one or two other publications since I left, I also know they are not serious competitors, and are further either struggling or have folded. Not a healthy situation.
