Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

[furrycake]

it really depends on the context of copyright that ST has violated. unless the bloggers have something that they dont mean to share with the public, but obviously those are public blogs. in this case, ST has but supported the real intentions of bloggers - what else, the topic of that article already spelt it. i think the article did no real physical harm to those being published , be it the contents within the blogs, or the pics. mayb some of the bloggers there find it a wee bit uneasy that their blogs are now highlighted nationwide. could be a good or bad thing, i dont know.

but by the end of the day, unless all the bloggers decide to sue against ST, there's really nothing we can do. 'cept it makes me more conscious on what we post on our blogs in future dont you think

i think more publicity has been created for ST instead, which is their real intention? even IF they do lose in the event of any lawsuit, the amount of money that we spent reading the news are more than enough to cover their costs. just my 2 cents worth of opinion. well.. i guess at the end of the day, we could only complain and demand apology from ST :what:

 

[hongsien]

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...

Better ask for copyright permission from your lawyer before publishing the letter on Clubsnap! Just kidding......

 

[mattlock]

I just got the email from the writer, and I am reproducing it below

------------------

Hi Mr Quek,

Thanks for your call.

I checked. The pictures were taken from a selection of Singapore blogs and social networking sites. They were meant to depict how so many Singaporeans have got on to the blogging trend. My editors felt it would be interesting to trawl through the Internet in search of happy faces to illustrate the story. A few of my colleagues did this, so I'm not really sure how we came across your blog or site.

In addition, our lawyers had advised us that as there are no privacy laws in Singapore, the use of blog pictures does not infringe a person's privacy.

Nevertheless, if this has caused you any distress or inconvenience, I sincerely apologise.


Regards,

Sandra Leong
Journalist
Straits Times Life! & LifeStyle
Singapore Press Holdings
1000 Toa Payoh North
News Centre
E-mail: sandral@sph.com.sg

 

[redstone]

No privacy laws...????

 

[hongsien]

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...

Should sent the letter by registered mail, and send the email (with scans of the letter), to make sure they can't deny receiving your letters....just in case they don't want to entertain you.

HS

 

[hazekang]

In addition, our lawyers had advised us that as there are no privacy laws in Singapore, the use of blog pictures does not infringe a person's privacy.

Hooray to no privacy laws

 

[hongsien]

I just got the email from the writer, and I am reproducing it below

------------------

Hi Mr Quek,

Thanks for your call.

I checked. The pictures were taken from a selection of Singapore blogs and social networking sites. They were meant to depict how so many Singaporeans have got on to the blogging trend. My editors felt it would be interesting to trawl through the Internet in search of happy faces to illustrate the story. A few of my colleagues did this, so I'm not really sure how we came across your blog or site.

In addition, our lawyers had advised us that as there are no privacy laws in Singapore, the use of blog pictures does not infringe a person's privacy.

Nevertheless, if this has caused you any distress or inconvenience, I sincerely apologise.


Regards,

Sandra Leong
Journalist
Straits Times Life! & LifeStyle
Singapore Press Holdings
1000 Toa Payoh North
News Centre
E-mail: sandral@sph.com.sg

You never mentioned about the copyrights on the pictures????

HS

 

[+evenstar]

pirated CDs, here we come!!! lelong lelong $10each!

 

[mattlock]

I just spoke to my lawyer friend and she will be drafting a letter to be sent to Straits Times, with reference to copyrights and journalistic standards (moral rather than legal issues)

I will post it up on a petition site and I hope that anyone who feels that Straits Times has not lived up to the standards fitting of a leading print media outlet will sign this petition.
I will then send the hard copy petition by registered mail to the editor and the Forum, and also email the petition to the editor and the Forum.

Also, if anyone else knows anyone featured in that montage of pictures, please get in touch with them and it would be great if you could help me get in touch with them too. I have already found another person who was featured in that montage.

I am not looking to go for some sort of legal recourse but I feel that we should raise our voice when we feel that things are not done properly, at least to serve as a notice to Straits Times that they should be more careful about such things.

Will post up the link to the petition hopefully by tomorrow evening.

 

[mattlock]

You never mentioned about the copyrights on the pictures????

HS

I asked whether any authorization was requested before using the photos
That was the response. Frankly I am quite appalled by the attitude...

 

[grimicer]

I just got the email from the writer, and I am reproducing it below

------------------

Hi Mr Quek,

Thanks for your call.

I checked. The pictures were taken from a selection of Singapore blogs and social networking sites. They were meant to depict how so many Singaporeans have got on to the blogging trend. My editors felt it would be interesting to trawl through the Internet in search of happy faces to illustrate the story. A few of my colleagues did this, so I'm not really sure how we came across your blog or site.

In addition, our lawyers had advised us that as there are no privacy laws in Singapore, the use of blog pictures does not infringe a person's privacy.

Nevertheless, if this has caused you any distress or inconvenience, I sincerely apologise.


Regards,

Sandra Leong
Journalist
Straits Times Life! & LifeStyle
Singapore Press Holdings
1000 Toa Payoh North
News Centre
E-mail: sandral@sph.com.sg

this is interesting to know !
perhaps they think that since your blog is already public in nature, it doesn't hurt you any further to use it ?

it would have been courteous to inform the bloggers beforehand.

 

[hongsien]

According to this site, there are no specific rights on privacy in the Singapore Constitution:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-83777#_ftn1

There are two things I think in your case:

1. Privacy (gone case probably, legally speaking, but morally speaking you can mention this)

2. Copyright of the pictures.......still have chance I think......

HS

 

[mattlock]

yup, no protection under privacy, this is all about copyright laws and ethics of a leading news outlet.

 

[Parka]

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

There is no privacy law in Singapore, if I remember correctly.

And because the photos are placed on public domain, privacy law, if there is, will not apply.

 

[clarinet]

There is no privacy law in Singapore, if I remember correctly.

And because the photos are placed on public domain, privacy law, if there is, will not apply.

What about copyright? I believe the photographer still own the copyright, unless the photo is taken by the company staffs, eg their photographers.

And so now if I do street shot, I need not get a model release document*edited* (letter of indemity-old version) before I relase the photo for competetion as long as the photo is taken in singapore.. Since there is not privacy law in singapore

 

[Parka]

What about copyright? I believe the photographer still own the copyright, unless the photo is taken by the company staffs, eg their photographers.

And so now if I do street shot, I need not get a letter of indemity before I relase the photo for competetion as long as the photo is taken in singapore.. Since there is not privacy law in singapore

I'm not sure if I interpret your question correctly.
Do you need to get a letter of indemity to submit a photo taken from the streets?

 

[clarinet]

I'm not sure if I interpret your question correctly.
Do you need to get a letter of indemity to submit a photo taken from the streets?

Sorry maybe the wrong use of word.. Should state as model release form(somthing like that). From my understanding, some photo competition host in US, such document is required as long as the subject can be clearly indentify as they have privacy laws over there

 

[hazmee]

No privacy law?? Pfft... once they took my photo, put it on the news, never credit some more even when I mentioned it clearly to them... very uniquely singapore.

 

[Parka]

yup, no protection under privacy, this is all about copyright laws and ethics of a leading news outlet.

If you want to fight, you have to go the copyright way. And I must say that you will get nothing in return.

The principle of the law is to protect. Do you have something to be protected? What is it? What's the cost if you lose that something?

You must have answers to those questions.

Maybe they will apologize, but they will still do it in the future. Why? Because the public are forgetful people.

 

[Clown]

mattlock, if the blogs the pictures were leeched from had disclaimers or terms and conditions attached, it would certainly enforce your case.