Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

[hongsien]

The case is actually there since that was his photo leeched without due credits, acknowledgement or permission requested.

But I'm not really sure abt privacy laws (hell, do we even have privacy here?!) and copyright laws.

Ultimately, its their words against ours. A corporate giant with powerful legal backing against a small normal citizen. Its not even David vs Goliath sotry. Its like a giant who has his toe against an ant's head where all he has to do is to exert that little squeeze of less than 50g of force and he'll be squashed flat.

ST did credit the webblog, maybe they don't understand the IP rights themselves it seems......the web blog owner only has the right to use the photographs, but they don't own the copyrights of each individual picture.....

I think now it is a question whether displaying the source below the pic at ST was enough to waive the requirement for ST to ask for permision of the individual photographers?

HS

 

[ortega]

Is there another form of media in Singapore other than SPH?? I don't think so:think:
They are all on the same ship..

Even if they make a public apology..and that will be the smallest print they can print..

they are from a different company, SPH is not MediaCorp
anyway it should be juicy news for Today Newspaper

both of them has the same watchdog watching over them

an apology would be a record that it cannot be done and will be useful in future cases

 

[pai]

Even if they make a public apology..and that will be the smallest print they can print..

the apology is always the same size print one lah... and on the same page of the paper every day...

unless it is to say sorry for a BIG BIG mistake :bsmilie:

 

[mattlock]

mattlock, as the subject of the images, I don't really think you have a case against ST. If, for example, you were out at a club and a photog came and took pictures of the place and people and then published the shots - being in a public place, you don't have a say as to what the photog does with the images. On the otherhand, if you are a pro model and images of you were taken off a photographers site, then both the photog and you would have a right to demand compensation from the party that took the images. It is only the copyright holder that may have recourse against ST.

I am the subject together with my friends including the friend who took the photograph (it is a snapshot) and we are not happy that the photo was leeched from my friend's (the photographer) blog without permission

I am aware of privacy laws (the lack of at least) so this is not the issue at hand

 

[Deadpoet]

even in CS, CSer copied, download and share others photos as well:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=212530

That is the dumbest comment I heard.

What you are implying is that, since one CSer copied a photo from the net and posted it on the CS forum without crediting the original photogrpaher, we here onm CS cannot raise teh issue of copyright infrindgement!

What ST did appeared to be a case of laziness and ignorance of the law. Unfortunately, ignorance of thelaw is not a valid defense, and being gthe largest daily in Singapore, not knowing copyright laws is inexcusable.

 

[Kho King]

That is the dumbest comment I heard.

What you are implying is that, since one CSer copied a photo from the net and posted it on the CS forum without crediting the original photogrpaher, we here onm CS cannot raise teh issue of copyright infrindgement!

What ST did appeared to be a case of laziness and ignorance of the law. Unfortunately, ignorance of thelaw is not a valid defense, and being gthe largest daily in Singapore, not knowing copyright laws is inexcusable.

People like you like to imagine...imagine too much or making others in your fancy...

Dont put words into my mouth, I just said that even in CS, CSer copied, download and share others photos as well.

I didn't say you can't discuss the issue here, but apparently, many (including many CSers) are not that aware with IP...and took others IP for granted. I still remember one CSer used my photo in his buy/sell thread...but cropping away my logo...of course, I can't afford to hire a lawyer for that...

Are all photos in CS Gallery all original? What should CS do if found out members from stealing others photos? Perhaps a rule of banning members from the forum if he/she is found guilty...

 

[jsbn]

they are from a different company, SPH is not MediaCorp
anyway it should be juicy news for Today Newspaper

both of them has the same watchdog watching over them

an apology would be a record that it cannot be done and will be useful in future cases

SPH is not Mediacorp.
Mediacorp is not SPH.
Today is published by SPH.

Ultimately, one of the shareholders for SPH AND Mediacorp is Temasek Holdings.
I dun have to spell it all out.
Nothing will probably come out of it as it would be as much as a storm in a teacup, quelled the moment it pops up for them (although it is a big issue to us).

A defeatist attitude probably but sigh.... I'd washed my hands.

 

[Deadpoet]

People like you like to imagine...imagine too much or making others in your fancy...

Dont put words into my mouth, I just said that even in CS, CSer copied, download and share others photos as well.

I didn't say you can't discuss the issue here, but apparently, many (including many CSers) are not that aware with IP...and took others IP for granted. I still remember one CSer used my photo in his buy/sell thread...but cropping away my logo...of course, I can't afford to hire a lawyer for that...

Are all photos in CS Gallery all original? What should CS do if found out members from stealing others photos? Perhaps a rule of banning members from the forum if he/she is found guilty...

That is absolutely beside the point in this thread started by Matlock.

We were discussing ST's infrindgement of copyright. Your comments about similar infrindgement on CS implied that since the problem do exist in CS, we may loose the moral foundation to question ST. If that is not what you meant, then please review and rethink how you say things before you post comments.

Copyright, baring an agreement, belongs to the photographer. Period! However, having that right does not means you can do anything with the picture. Back to the topic at hand, if ST did not get permission from the photographers, and the photographers did not sign away the rights to the websites, I feel ST is definatley in some hot water. Whether they can hide behind the protection of journalism, I am not sure, I would guess not.

Trying to bring in the discussion re if all photo in CS gallery is original, once again, you are trying to link the ST case to CS. Wherther CS gallery pictures are all original and what CS Admin should do has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion regarding ST started by Mattlock. What is your agenda, I wonder, to again and again, try to link CS to the ST case?

 

[Wai]

even in CS, CSer copied, download and share others photos as well:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=212530

how about using other pple photo, graphics or artworks as avatar? :think: :think:

<-- that was really myself in the avatar, so I am safe

 

[pai]

SPH is not Mediacorp.
Mediacorp is not SPH.
Today is published by SPH.

actually, Today is published by mediacorp :devil:

 

[mattlock]

Hi guys, please stick to the topic at hand.

They have no comment so far regarding the issue at hand
does anyone want to make a call to make further enquiries?pressurize abit otherwise they'll just pretend I never asked the question

 

[pai]

Hi guys, please stick to the topic at hand.

They have no comment so far regarding the issue at hand
does anyone want to make a call to make further enquiries?pressurize abit otherwise they'll just pretend I never asked the question

what does it mean, no comment? as in you called them up and they said no comment? who did you speak to, an editor, or just the person manning the phone?

 

[+evenstar]

ok I've been trying to call the editor and the writer and the designer but none of them are picking up

I've been told to contact sumiko tan (editor of the Life! section), but she's currently busy
the writer is not in right now

I've been told to write into Forum but I've been advised by my lawyer friend that it would be good to send in a letter from a lawyer just as a reminder for Straits Times that people are aware of what's going on...
I'll try to contact them again in the afternoon

Here are the contact numbers if anyone wants to check and put some pressure.

SPH Main Line: 6319 6319
Writer: Sandra Leong 6319 5018
Editor: Sumiko Tan 6319 5345
Secretary to Editor: Patricia He 63195306
Designer: Sally Lam (contactable through operator)
Email: stlife@sph.com.sg


I think a few good questions are:
Did the writer or designer consult any of the owners of the photographs before they were used?
Have they considered that some of the people may not have authorized the use of photos?
Is "Singapore Blogs" sufficient credit?
Was Friendster informed of the use of photographs taken off their site?

i actually have the private hp number of sandra leong but i don't think it'll be nice to give it out

 

[mattlock]

ok the secretary to the editor of Life! just called to tell me to email the feedback regarding this issue to her which she will pass to the writer, but I think I will be writing a letter so that there is a proper record, with a few signatures at least, regarding this issue, to the Straits Times and see what the reply is there.

Will consult a lawyer for the legal terminology and to go through it
Will post the letter up once it's done and if anyone's interested in signing it can email me then

more updates to come...

 

[ortega]

SPH is not Mediacorp.
Mediacorp is not SPH.
Today is published by SPH.

Ultimately, one of the shareholders for SPH AND Mediacorp is Temasek Holdings.
I dun have to spell it all out.
Nothing will probably come out of it as it would be as much as a storm in a teacup, quelled the moment it pops up for them (although it is a big issue to us).

A defeatist attitude probably but sigh.... I'd washed my hands.

am i wrong? but i think today is published by Mediacorp press

http://www.corporate.mediacorp.sg/press/index.htm

is there something i don't know?

 

[ortega]

how about an online petition

like in the NKF thingy
I am sure that if you get the bloggers involved...

 

[mattlock]

we've been Tomorrowed

 

[ping]

If I do remember correctly, the ST kicked up a fuss a while back when some blogs linked / cited ST articles (while it was still free) in their blog entries. I believe copyright was the main issue of contention then.

Karma dictates that the bloggers whose photos were used without permission are entitled to kick up a nice stink in return for this case. :think:

 

[LazerLordz]

If I do remember correctly, the ST kicked up a fuss a while back when some blogs linked / cited ST articles (while it was still free) in their blog entries. I believe copyright was the main issue of contention then.

Karma dictates that the bloggers whose photos were used without permission are entitled to kick up a nice stink in return for this case. :think:

Citing an article with an expressed acknowledgement and crediting the owner, not to mention providing the original link to that article, is different from this case.

 

[redstone]

People on SGforums still insist I am wrong. Hmm... It's one of the biggest forums around. :think:

Does anyone else have sgforums account?