Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)
- Thread starter mattlock
- Start date
- Status
wildstallion
Senior Member
Good luck with this, hope you succeed, would love to see a Singapore newspaper apologise and also for everyone to be educated on this at the same time, I fully support you!
here is the draft. Please put forward your comments for consideration, so that we can have a stronger case.
We've had to balance the legal terminology with trying to make it as concise as possible.
Hopefully it's not too confusing? If any part is too confusing please point it out, thanks.
------------------
Dear Sirs
UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1. We, the undersigned, refer to the article published by The Straits Times on 30th July 2006, under the Lifestyle section on page L1, in which twenty-four (24) photographs (hereafter collectively referred to as “the Photographs”
were reproduced in the form of a montage as the cover for the article titled “iwant2befamous.com” (“the Article”.
Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
2. It has come to our attention that at least one, if not all of the Photographs, had been obtained from blogs and Friendster.com without the consent of the copyright owners.
3. Section 31 of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), states that:-
“copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.”
4. Copyright ownership of each Photograph vests in the photographer. The Straits Times has infringed the photographers’ copyright, by the publication of the Article.
5. As the leading newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times sets an example for other publications in Singapore to follow. It has a social responsibility to uphold high journalism standards of ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
6. In view of [point 5.], sufficient effort should be made in obtaining consent for usage of the Photographs when the copyright owners were easily contactable through their blogs and Friendster profiles, and sufficient acknowledgement should be given to the copyright owners.
7. Even if the defence of fair dealing is raised, pursuant to section.36 and section 37 of the Copyright Act, a requirement for the defence of fair dealing to operate is that of sufficient acknowledgement.
8. Acknowledging “Singapore blogs” and “Friendster” is insufficient as the copyright of each Photograph vests with the respective photographer.
Privacy
9. The use of twenty-four (24) Photographs for a montage is clearly an aesthetic decision, as opposed to adding any real weight or argument to the Article. Thus we feel that this is unnecessary and excessive
The fact that no attempt was made to inform the bloggers and/or Friendster users of the reproduction of the Photographs in view of [point 6.] make those who were responsible for the montage or authorised the montage truly morally culpable.
10. The lack of privacy laws in Singapore gives the bloggers and Friendster users, whom had their Photographs reproduced without consent and splashed across the front page of Sunday’s paper, no comfort.
11. Notwithstanding the lack of privacy laws, as the leading newspaper in Singapore, the Straits Times ought to set a laudable standard for other publications in Singapore to follow.
It should take on a social responsibility of upholding high journalism ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
Ethically, the issue of privacy of the individuals featured on the cover page must be considered in view of [point 9.].
Defamation
12. The Photographs may be harmless snapshots when viewed individually. However, when juxtaposed with the title “iwant2bfamous.com", the Photographs immediately take on an unfavourable undertone.
13. Additionally, the Article goes on to insinuate and allude to negative and unhealthy characteristics, such as-"Read me. I want to be famous”, “narcissistic", "me-me-me","Isn't there something unhealthy about how people are so eager to share with the world every wart in their lives?" amongst other patronising and damaging phrases.
The words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in their natural and ordinary meaning.
14. When viewed in the context of the Article, the Photographs potentially reflect on the Subjects’ reputation therein, so as to lower the Subjects in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
Objectivity and Credibility
15. The Straits Times has consistently cast blogs in a negative light, and has made various thinly veiled attacks on blogs over the past year. This does not reflect well on the objectivity and credibility demanded from a well- respected newspaper. We would like to suggest that The Straits Times be more objective in its approach towards the topic of blogs and bloggers in the future.
What is desired
16. In light of the foregoing, we would like to request that the Straits Times:-
16.1 issue an apology on 12th August 2006, in the Forum section on Page 2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of a [dimensions x dimensions]; or
16.2 issue an apology on 12th August on the back page of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of [dimensions x dimensions]; or
16.3 issue an apology on 19th August 2006, in the Forum section on Page 2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of a [dimensions x dimensions];or
16.4 issue an apology on 19th August 2006, in the Forum section on Page 2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of a [dimensions x dimensions].
17. We hope that the Straits Times will maintain high standards of journalism and that this sort of lapse is not repeated in the future.
Yours faithfully,
the undersigned
We've had to balance the legal terminology with trying to make it as concise as possible.
Hopefully it's not too confusing? If any part is too confusing please point it out, thanks.
------------------
Dear Sirs
UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1. We, the undersigned, refer to the article published by The Straits Times on 30th July 2006, under the Lifestyle section on page L1, in which twenty-four (24) photographs (hereafter collectively referred to as “the Photographs”
were reproduced in the form of a montage as the cover for the article titled “iwant2befamous.com” (“the Article”.Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
2. It has come to our attention that at least one, if not all of the Photographs, had been obtained from blogs and Friendster.com without the consent of the copyright owners.
3. Section 31 of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), states that:-
“copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.”
4. Copyright ownership of each Photograph vests in the photographer. The Straits Times has infringed the photographers’ copyright, by the publication of the Article.
5. As the leading newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times sets an example for other publications in Singapore to follow. It has a social responsibility to uphold high journalism standards of ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
6. In view of [point 5.], sufficient effort should be made in obtaining consent for usage of the Photographs when the copyright owners were easily contactable through their blogs and Friendster profiles, and sufficient acknowledgement should be given to the copyright owners.
7. Even if the defence of fair dealing is raised, pursuant to section.36 and section 37 of the Copyright Act, a requirement for the defence of fair dealing to operate is that of sufficient acknowledgement.
8. Acknowledging “Singapore blogs” and “Friendster” is insufficient as the copyright of each Photograph vests with the respective photographer.
Privacy
9. The use of twenty-four (24) Photographs for a montage is clearly an aesthetic decision, as opposed to adding any real weight or argument to the Article. Thus we feel that this is unnecessary and excessive
The fact that no attempt was made to inform the bloggers and/or Friendster users of the reproduction of the Photographs in view of [point 6.] make those who were responsible for the montage or authorised the montage truly morally culpable.
10. The lack of privacy laws in Singapore gives the bloggers and Friendster users, whom had their Photographs reproduced without consent and splashed across the front page of Sunday’s paper, no comfort.
11. Notwithstanding the lack of privacy laws, as the leading newspaper in Singapore, the Straits Times ought to set a laudable standard for other publications in Singapore to follow.
It should take on a social responsibility of upholding high journalism ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
Ethically, the issue of privacy of the individuals featured on the cover page must be considered in view of [point 9.].
Defamation
12. The Photographs may be harmless snapshots when viewed individually. However, when juxtaposed with the title “iwant2bfamous.com", the Photographs immediately take on an unfavourable undertone.
13. Additionally, the Article goes on to insinuate and allude to negative and unhealthy characteristics, such as-"Read me. I want to be famous”, “narcissistic", "me-me-me","Isn't there something unhealthy about how people are so eager to share with the world every wart in their lives?" amongst other patronising and damaging phrases.
The words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in their natural and ordinary meaning.
14. When viewed in the context of the Article, the Photographs potentially reflect on the Subjects’ reputation therein, so as to lower the Subjects in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
Objectivity and Credibility
15. The Straits Times has consistently cast blogs in a negative light, and has made various thinly veiled attacks on blogs over the past year. This does not reflect well on the objectivity and credibility demanded from a well- respected newspaper. We would like to suggest that The Straits Times be more objective in its approach towards the topic of blogs and bloggers in the future.
What is desired
16. In light of the foregoing, we would like to request that the Straits Times:-
16.1 issue an apology on 12th August 2006, in the Forum section on Page 2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of a [dimensions x dimensions]; or
16.2 issue an apology on 12th August on the back page of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of [dimensions x dimensions]; or
16.3 issue an apology on 19th August 2006, in the Forum section on Page 2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of a [dimensions x dimensions];or
16.4 issue an apology on 19th August 2006, in the Forum section on Page 2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in the form of a [dimensions x dimensions].
17. We hope that the Straits Times will maintain high standards of journalism and that this sort of lapse is not repeated in the future.
Yours faithfully,
the undersigned
dawgbyte77
New Member
Point 5 & 9 kind of repeated. If this is intentional, it would be better to rephrase using a thesaurus. ... I know I'm not really helping a lot but just a personal opinion on the impact of the letter.
"Proprietary Rights in Content.
- Rights in Content Posted by Friendster or Other Members. We own and retain all proprietary rights in the Website and the Service. The Website contains certain copyrighted material, including links and compilations of individual data, trademarks, and other proprietary information of Friendster, our Members, and our licensors. Except for any information which is In the public domain, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any such proprietary materials or information without our express written consent in each case.
- Rights in Content Posted by You. By publishing, displaying, or uploading (collectively, "Posting") any text, links, photos, video, messages, or other data or information (collectively, "Content") on or to the Website (including on or to your profile), you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Friendster an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute such Content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
***Mattlock: Have you already checked with Friendster if ST had actually asked for permission prior to the publication in ST? If they had, and Freindster did allow it, then your case is much weaker against ST, instead you have to complain to Friendster.....
My law english not so good: ".......such Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.", does this mean that Friendster can license their contents out to others?.........
HS
My law english not so good: ".......such Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.", does this mean that Friendster can license their contents out to others?.........
HS
hongsien said:
hrm yes Friendster policies are quite unfair...I think this is a good reminder for us to read through Terms and Conditions in places we upload pictures in the future.
From my conversation with some people in SPH it seems that Friendster was not informed. I will be keeping the point there anyway.
Regarding point 5 and 9, I will have to keep it there to be clear, even though it's abit lengthy...
I made some measurements and figured that 12cm x 18cm is sufficient, not too small and not overwhelmingly and unreasonably big.
Made some changes to the demands also, should be just page L2 or the back page of the Lifestyle section.
We are sending a letter in to The Straits Times which has been crafted in part by a lawyer., expressing our displeasure at the infringement of the Copyright Act
We would like to request the signing of this letter if you feel that this infringement of the Copyright Act reflects poorly on The Straits Times, the leading newspaper in Singapore.
Here is the link to the petition below
http://www.petitiononline.com/STCopyr/petition.html
The offending image can be found at
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7156/clipboard01hf9.jpg
We would like to request that you spread this link around for people to read and sign, and hopefully we can made our voices heard to The Straits Times as a group of people.
We would appreciate it if you give as much information about yourself so as to verify each signature on the letter.
Ultimately, our intention is not to gain any financial benefits from this letter. The response (or even the lack of response) we obtain from The Straits Times in relation to this letter will give us insight into their attitude towards their standards of journalism and ethics.
As a symbolic gesture, each signature on this letter will add more strength to it.
We would like to request the signing of this letter if you feel that this infringement of the Copyright Act reflects poorly on The Straits Times, the leading newspaper in Singapore.
Here is the link to the petition below
http://www.petitiononline.com/STCopyr/petition.html
The offending image can be found at
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7156/clipboard01hf9.jpg
We would like to request that you spread this link around for people to read and sign, and hopefully we can made our voices heard to The Straits Times as a group of people.
We would appreciate it if you give as much information about yourself so as to verify each signature on the letter.
Ultimately, our intention is not to gain any financial benefits from this letter. The response (or even the lack of response) we obtain from The Straits Times in relation to this letter will give us insight into their attitude towards their standards of journalism and ethics.
As a symbolic gesture, each signature on this letter will add more strength to it.
To: The Straits Times
SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS LIMITED
News Centre, 1000 Toa Payoh North
Singapore 318994
Attn: The Straits Times Editor, Deputy Editor, Life! Editor, and Forum Editor
Dear Sirs/Madams
UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1. We, the undersigned, refer to the article published by The Straits Times on 30th July 2006, under the Lifestyle section on page L1, in which twenty-four (24) photographs (hereafter collectively referred to as �the Photographs� were reproduced in the form of a montage as the cover for the article titled �iwant2befamous.com� (�the Article�.
INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
2. It has come to our attention that at least one, if not all of the Photographs, had been obtained from blogs and Friendster.com without the consent of the copyright owners.
3. Section 31 of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), states that:-
�copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.�
4. Copyright ownership of each Photograph vests in the photographer. The Straits Times has infringed the photographers� copyright, by the publication of the Article.
5. As the leading newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times sets an example for other publications in Singapore to follow. It has a social responsibility to uphold high journalism standards of ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
6. In view of [point 5.], sufficient effort should be made in obtaining consent for usage of the Photographs when the copyright owners were easily contactable through their blogs and Friendster profiles, and sufficient acknowledgement should be given to the copyright owners.
7. Even if the defence of fair dealing is raised, pursuant to section.36 and section 37 of the Copyright Act, a requirement for the defence of fair dealing to operate is that of sufficient acknowledgement.
8. Acknowledging �Singapore blogs� and �Friendster� is insufficient as the copyright of each Photograph vests with the respective photographer.
PRIVACY
9. The use of twenty-four (24) Photographs for a montage is clearly an aesthetic decision, as opposed to adding any real weight or argument to the Article. Thus we feel that this is unnecessary and excessive
The fact that no attempt was made to inform the bloggers and Friendster users of the reproduction of the Photographs, in view of [point 6.], make those who were responsible for the montage or authorised the montage truly morally culpable.
10. The lack of privacy laws in Singapore gives the bloggers and Friendster users no comfort, as their Photographs were splashed across the front page of Sunday�s paper without their consent.
11. Notwithstanding the lack of privacy laws, as the leading newspaper in Singapore, the Straits Times ought to set a laudable standard for other publications in Singapore to follow.
Ethically, the issue of privacy of the individuals featured on the cover page must be considered in view of [point 9.].
DEFAMATION
12. The Photographs may be harmless snapshots when viewed individually. However, when juxtaposed with the title �iwant2bfamous.com", the Photographs immediately take on an unfavourable undertone.
13. Additionally, the Article goes on to insinuate and allude to negative and unhealthy characteristics, such as-"Read me. I want to be famous�, �narcissistic", "me-me-me","Isn't there something unhealthy about how people are so eager to share with the world every wart in their lives?" amongst other patronising and damaging phrases.
The words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in their natural and ordinary meaning.
14. When viewed in the context of the Article, the Photographs potentially reflect on the Subjects� reputation therein, so as to lower the Subjects in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
OBJECTIVITY AND CREDIBILITY
15. The Straits Times has consistently cast blogs in a negative light, and has made various thinly veiled attacks on blogs over the past year. This does not reflect well on the objectivity and credibility demanded from a well-respected newspaper. We would like to suggest that The Straits Times be more objective in its approach towards the topic of blogs and bloggers in the future.
WHAT IS DESIRED
16. In light of the foregoing, we would like to request that the Straits Times:-
16.1. issue an apology in the Forum section any day before 19th August 2006 in a column of 9cm x 15cm minimum;
and
16.2. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on Page L2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum; or
16.3. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on the Back Page of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum;
17. We hope that the Straits Times will maintain high standards of journalism and that this sort of lapse is not repeated in the future.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS LIMITED
News Centre, 1000 Toa Payoh North
Singapore 318994
Attn: The Straits Times Editor, Deputy Editor, Life! Editor, and Forum Editor
Dear Sirs/Madams
UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1. We, the undersigned, refer to the article published by The Straits Times on 30th July 2006, under the Lifestyle section on page L1, in which twenty-four (24) photographs (hereafter collectively referred to as �the Photographs�
were reproduced in the form of a montage as the cover for the article titled �iwant2befamous.com� (�the Article�.INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
2. It has come to our attention that at least one, if not all of the Photographs, had been obtained from blogs and Friendster.com without the consent of the copyright owners.
3. Section 31 of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), states that:-
�copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.�
4. Copyright ownership of each Photograph vests in the photographer. The Straits Times has infringed the photographers� copyright, by the publication of the Article.
5. As the leading newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times sets an example for other publications in Singapore to follow. It has a social responsibility to uphold high journalism standards of ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
6. In view of [point 5.], sufficient effort should be made in obtaining consent for usage of the Photographs when the copyright owners were easily contactable through their blogs and Friendster profiles, and sufficient acknowledgement should be given to the copyright owners.
7. Even if the defence of fair dealing is raised, pursuant to section.36 and section 37 of the Copyright Act, a requirement for the defence of fair dealing to operate is that of sufficient acknowledgement.
8. Acknowledging �Singapore blogs� and �Friendster� is insufficient as the copyright of each Photograph vests with the respective photographer.
PRIVACY
9. The use of twenty-four (24) Photographs for a montage is clearly an aesthetic decision, as opposed to adding any real weight or argument to the Article. Thus we feel that this is unnecessary and excessive
The fact that no attempt was made to inform the bloggers and Friendster users of the reproduction of the Photographs, in view of [point 6.], make those who were responsible for the montage or authorised the montage truly morally culpable.
10. The lack of privacy laws in Singapore gives the bloggers and Friendster users no comfort, as their Photographs were splashed across the front page of Sunday�s paper without their consent.
11. Notwithstanding the lack of privacy laws, as the leading newspaper in Singapore, the Straits Times ought to set a laudable standard for other publications in Singapore to follow.
Ethically, the issue of privacy of the individuals featured on the cover page must be considered in view of [point 9.].
DEFAMATION
12. The Photographs may be harmless snapshots when viewed individually. However, when juxtaposed with the title �iwant2bfamous.com", the Photographs immediately take on an unfavourable undertone.
13. Additionally, the Article goes on to insinuate and allude to negative and unhealthy characteristics, such as-"Read me. I want to be famous�, �narcissistic", "me-me-me","Isn't there something unhealthy about how people are so eager to share with the world every wart in their lives?" amongst other patronising and damaging phrases.
The words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in their natural and ordinary meaning.
14. When viewed in the context of the Article, the Photographs potentially reflect on the Subjects� reputation therein, so as to lower the Subjects in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
OBJECTIVITY AND CREDIBILITY
15. The Straits Times has consistently cast blogs in a negative light, and has made various thinly veiled attacks on blogs over the past year. This does not reflect well on the objectivity and credibility demanded from a well-respected newspaper. We would like to suggest that The Straits Times be more objective in its approach towards the topic of blogs and bloggers in the future.
WHAT IS DESIRED
16. In light of the foregoing, we would like to request that the Straits Times:-
16.1. issue an apology in the Forum section any day before 19th August 2006 in a column of 9cm x 15cm minimum;
and
16.2. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on Page L2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum; or
16.3. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on the Back Page of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum;
17. We hope that the Straits Times will maintain high standards of journalism and that this sort of lapse is not repeated in the future.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
V
vince123123
Guest
Why suggest the ST apology to be on the forum page??? Your letter does not seem to be drafted a manner for publication on that page, or is it?
V
vince123123
Guest
Oh and by the way, before you send out that letter, it would be a good idea to check with that lawyer who you are consulting, on the issue of "groundless threats" (in relation to copyright), just to cover your "ass" on this 
.
My own personal opinion is also that the section on "Privacy" can be presented in a better way - right now its like you're saying "yes there are no privacy laws, but we still want you to respect privacy anyway". If you want to focus on "morally right", "ethical standards of journalism" (which was what I thought your focus on), then you don't need to talk about privacy at all, the laws, or the lack thereof.
Good luck.
.My own personal opinion is also that the section on "Privacy" can be presented in a better way - right now its like you're saying "yes there are no privacy laws, but we still want you to respect privacy anyway". If you want to focus on "morally right", "ethical standards of journalism" (which was what I thought your focus on), then you don't need to talk about privacy at all, the laws, or the lack thereof.
Good luck.
- Status
Similar threads
