Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)

[Jemapela]

At least 2 other CS members have already said it, and I will add backup to their words.

There is NO privacy law or privacy Act in Singapore.

In other words, there is NO set of laws dealing specifically with personal privacy and intrusion/protection of personal privacy.

Australia has a Privacy Act, and I'm sure the US and UK too.

In Singapore, any action that violates privacy is dealt with by other laws, if I'm correct (and I'm not a legal advisor), under the Penal Code, quite possibly under harrassment.

 

[ullyss]

Your situation looks bleak with the local media really controlled by just one dominant company.
There is nothing much you can do about it.

Best suggestion is to report this to overseas publication, such as the friendly neighbour, the New straits times who are quite vocal about the local paper, or western media outlet such as AP. Only then would the local publications here get the message.

Try to reach out to as many overseas publication and media about it and get to communicate with the local publication thru them.

 

[mattlock]

Can I reiterate that we are aware of the lack of privacy laws in Singapore.

The issue of privacy is a question of ethics.
The issue of copyrights however is a legal issue.

and please, we are providing feedback. There's no need to pour cold water over this since we're not asking for much.
It is much better to make the effort to say something and let it be known to them rather than to sit back and say "it's no use it's no use."

 

[vince123123]

Yea, which was why I suggested that you shift the focus to that of ethics, instead of even talking about privacy in the first place. The decision ultimately is yours to make

Cheers!

 

[centuryegg]

Actually since there is no privacy law, hence ST didnt do anything wrong. If talk about ethics, well ST has apologised in letter and writing. Not public but I am sure they have records and it has been vetted by legal department.

Do be careful how you approach this issue, not pouring cold water on all involved but from what I see, the photos are not money shots but part of friendster and blogs, and a big fuss is kicked up. Do watch your step and not get yourself sued for defamation. Just be cautious.

 

[clicknick]

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.

Mattlock,
All the best for the petition, hope you can acheive your aim.

BTW, just to be safe, is taking a picture of a straits times publication and posting it in imageshack against copyright laws?:think:

 

[AReality]

BTW, just to be safe, is taking a picture of a straits times publication and posting it in imageshack against copyright laws?:think:

Not if u ask someone to hold it.

.

 

[mattlock]

Actually since there is no privacy law, hence ST didnt do anything wrong. If talk about ethics, well ST has apologised in letter and writing. Not public but I am sure they have records and it has been vetted by legal department.

Do be careful how you approach this issue, not pouring cold water on all involved but from what I see, the photos are not money shots but part of friendster and blogs, and a big fuss is kicked up. Do watch your step and not get yourself sued for defamation. Just be cautious.

2 words:
Copyright Law

 

[hongsien]

So...........have you finally sent it to ST?

HS

 

[mattlock]

monday. getting a few more signatures first.

 

[Sumiko Tan]

I note the contents and sentiments of the undersigned and would like to take
this opportunity to clarify the matter.

The LifeStyle story was on the proliferation of personal blogs, and the use
of the photographs as a montage on the cover was my attempt to present the topic
in a visually attractive manner. There was no intent to present the subjects in
an unfavourable light.

I accept that I should have obtained permission to use the photographs. I apologise
for this lapse.

Sumiko Tan
Editor, LifeStyle

 

[glennyong]

nevertheless, the public have to be made known and informed that theres a law that protects your privacy and works.

and when privacy and copyrights are concerned, there shouldnt be any compromise and everyone should have their rights respected.

i do not intend to be mean, but i believe this is not the first time this has happened.

 

[vince123123]

I am wondering, is it appropriate for an apology/clarification to be published here under a newly registered nick? Or should it be placed in the same media the original article was published in.

 

[ortega]

yes the general public should be educated about copyright issues
and so an apology should be in the same media as the original article.

I would think that the media owner would insist on the same.

 

[wildstallion]

I am wondering, is it appropriate for an apology/clarification to be published here under a newly registered nick? Or should it be placed in the same media the original article was published in.

I was wondering this too. I think the apology should be placed where it was asked to be placed, also I believe the general public need to be made aware of this issue

 

[biggmalique]

that was a fast clarification.
a quickie.

 

[jopel]

I note the contents and sentiments of the undersigned and would like to take
this opportunity to clarify the matter.

The LifeStyle story was on the proliferation of personal blogs, and the use
of the photographs as a montage on the cover was my attempt to present the topic
in a visually attractive manner. There was no intent to present the subjects in
an unfavourable light.

I accept that I should have obtained permission to use the photographs. I apologise
for this lapse.

Sumiko Tan
Editor, LifeStyle

Hi Sumiko,

Nice of you to drop by CS.

Cheers.

 

[mattlock]

Sumiko, thanks for replying but I think that as the article was published in the newspaper which has a widespread reach, for the sake of the public record the apology should be published in your LifeStyle section too.

 

[jOhO]

wah sumiko bothered to register here to type this?

better verify it's her, and anyway as jing said, it's prob not sufficient, but at least (if she really is sumiko) we know she's aware of this.

btw sumiko : i still remember your prawn peeling (by women for men) article! ahahha... was a topic for discussion for my friends and i for a while. :bsmilie:

 

[mattlock]

yup they are aware of it I just called Straits Times.