Straits Times breaks Copyright Act (chp 63)
- Thread starter mattlock
- Start date
- Status
CYRN
Senior Member
Sumiko Tan said:
Using the photos is but half of the story.
Those people identifyable in your article might not have intention to be to be associated with your "iwant2bfamous" title. Especially the following paragraph.... :"and every one of this bloggers have this aim: Read me. I want to be famous". This assumution is flawed.
Rather, most Sg bloggers are personal in nature for express themselves in cyberspace and sharing amongst friends and whosoever their target audiences or to have their personal point of view "documented". Your article MIGHT be more applicapable to the latter.
Then again, for the latter, examples such as Citizen journalism would have either gone for or against the main stream publications either to support or defend the cause. These bloggers clearly also do not have "Read me. I want to be famous" intent, they are just being Singaporean wanting to add their 5c worth into current hot topics.
Being a publication of big influence and broad audiences, an apology and/or clarification in the same publication is in order so that the distress to those people identified from the photos in your article can be redressed to the same audience of your publication.
hi guys, it would be great if you could drop a line to the Straits Times to ask them to print the apology
I will be asking for that too, but more voices will be helpful
Just mention the petition on Copyright Infringement for the article on bloggers. it was sent to the below four people
Han Fook Kwang
Editor Office: (65) 6319 5421
Home: (65) 6288 2696
Email: hanfk@sph.com.sg
Felix Soh
Deputy Editor Office: (65) 6319 5313
Hp: (65) 9683 0663
Email: felix@sph.com.sg
Ms Sumiko Tan
Life! & Sunday Life! Editor Office: (65) 6319 5345
Email: stlife@sph.com.sg
Kong Soon Wah
Forum Page Editor Office: (65) 6319 5438
Email: stforum@sph.com.sg
I will be asking for that too, but more voices will be helpful
Just mention the petition on Copyright Infringement for the article on bloggers. it was sent to the below four people
Han Fook Kwang
Editor Office: (65) 6319 5421
Home: (65) 6288 2696
Email: hanfk@sph.com.sg
Felix Soh
Deputy Editor Office: (65) 6319 5313
Hp: (65) 9683 0663
Email: felix@sph.com.sg
Ms Sumiko Tan
Life! & Sunday Life! Editor Office: (65) 6319 5345
Email: stlife@sph.com.sg
Kong Soon Wah
Forum Page Editor Office: (65) 6319 5438
Email: stforum@sph.com.sg
wildstallion
Senior Member
mattlock said:
No problem, have sent them all a mail.
contaxable
New Member
A very interesting thread indeed. I would say several CSers here wrote professionally to deal with the situation regarding infringement of copyrights and intrusion of privacy. Kudos to CS.:thumbsup:
While the printed media barely reached a few hundred thousand audiences, cyber space extends this discussion beyond the diamond borders of Singapore. Well, in a certain light, she sounded sincere on the said mistakes.
Anyway, Mattlock, all the best to your pursuit.
While the printed media barely reached a few hundred thousand audiences, cyber space extends this discussion beyond the diamond borders of Singapore. Well, in a certain light, she sounded sincere on the said mistakes.
Anyway, Mattlock, all the best to your pursuit.
humm... just wondering why people spend tons of money to copyright their stuff if there is such a thing as automatic copyright? There is a specialised group of lawyers dealing with IP and copyright documentation. Pictures uploaded to friendster or any of the free blog may belong to freindster or the blog site automatically. If they allow the pictures to be published, the individual owners of the photos have no case to sue them.:dunno: Just my thought.
So what is the next course of action if ST just ignore. What else can we do?
So what is the next course of action if ST just ignore. What else can we do?
This again reinforces the very REAL need for photographers to always DOWNSIZE and REDUCE resolution/quality of the pictures they post on the web.
Anyway, I don't think privacy issues really apply ...? Blogging is web-publishing. If there was no intention to show a picture publicly, why publish it online?
And even if it is proven there was nothing legally wrong in publishing those photos... doesn't ST expect people to respect the copyrights to the photos shot by ST photographers and published in their newspaper? Why are there not clearer guidelines for their staff as to how ST is to be SEEN as (not just legally compliant but) Walking-the-Talk too?
Even if permission was not required (but I think it is), shouldn't a quick note be sent off to the blogger just to let them know the picture would be used and give the person a chance to state a case for objecting if necessary?
Personelly, I accept the editor's apology as fair... but remain surprised at the writers response (though maybe it was written by SPH lawyers or their Risk Management people, if they have any, really)... it didn't sound very sincere. Is an apology only given because it caused distress?
Is it the right way to treat people who come to you with unhappiness simply by citing that their lawyers said it is OK... no laws were broken.
If we accept that people do make mistakes sometimes...how about a similar apology .... plain and simply because it was an oversight?
Anyway, I don't think privacy issues really apply ...? Blogging is web-publishing. If there was no intention to show a picture publicly, why publish it online?
And even if it is proven there was nothing legally wrong in publishing those photos... doesn't ST expect people to respect the copyrights to the photos shot by ST photographers and published in their newspaper? Why are there not clearer guidelines for their staff as to how ST is to be SEEN as (not just legally compliant but) Walking-the-Talk too?
Even if permission was not required (but I think it is), shouldn't a quick note be sent off to the blogger just to let them know the picture would be used and give the person a chance to state a case for objecting if necessary?
Personelly, I accept the editor's apology as fair... but remain surprised at the writers response (though maybe it was written by SPH lawyers or their Risk Management people, if they have any, really)... it didn't sound very sincere. Is an apology only given because it caused distress?
Is it the right way to treat people who come to you with unhappiness simply by citing that their lawyers said it is OK... no laws were broken.
If we accept that people do make mistakes sometimes...how about a similar apology .... plain and simply because it was an oversight?
lightning said:
hopefully they don't ignore because there's another news organisation that is interested in this story but I would of course hope ST can do the gentlemanly thing and apologise in the newspaper and we can just close this issue and hope it doesn't happen again.
CYRN
Senior Member
Keltzar said:
Yes, Blogging is web publishing but did the Bloggers "publish" their Blogs with statements like "iwant2bfamous".
What is correct is for the publication to clarify to the audience that it's not the intent of those people/faces shown publishing their Blogs so that "iwant2bfamous".
Yes we accept that mistakes do happen. But we also have to demand appropriate acknowledgement of mistakes and/or compansation. If not why got defamation suit flying around fot notable personnels.
V
vince123123
Guest
I would offer an alternative viewpoint - it is usually better to email/write than to call. If the matter escalates further, emails/letters would serve as a good evidence trail, rather than calls which are mostly untraceable.
Imagine if at a subsequent stage, you decide you wish to raise the point that "many photographers/members of the public" have raised issues about their article, and when asked to substantiate, you are then able to source for the emails/letters. For phone calls, it would be difficult to similarly track and trace.
Imagine if at a subsequent stage, you decide you wish to raise the point that "many photographers/members of the public" have raised issues about their article, and when asked to substantiate, you are then able to source for the emails/letters. For phone calls, it would be difficult to similarly track and trace.
mattlock said:
dawgbyte77
New Member
CYRN said:
There was another article in the NEW Paper about china women coming to singapore at the pretense of studying but ended up as mistress. In the same issue was an editorial on how to identify china girls from singporean girls and included are 10 photos of ladies taken from the street which was used as a test if readers can identify correctly. Later one singaporean lady in the photo responded when she found out and was unhappy that aside from being associated in the topic, she also have china girlfriends and the editorial is not only unflattering to be generalized but indirectly associated with mistresses.
Anyway, copyright is one issue but I think it has escalated beyond that. To exaggerate, imagien your photo, next to a photo of a pig, and then the word "pig?" next to that. They technically did not call you a pig but the context is there.
I am sending out an e-mail with a request for an apology according to the criteria listed in Section 16 of the Letter, found at http://www.petitiononline.com/STCopyr/petition.html
Will keep you guys updated on the response
Will keep you guys updated on the response
astroboy
Senior Member
Dear Matlock
I applaud your fine effort in bringing up this issue and for standing up to your principles. However, as someone who has worked in both SPH and Mediacorp, I can safely say that yours would be an exercise in futility. The two companies used to compete against each other for one-upmanship but that has since been put to a stop following a decree issued by a senior politician. The two company has now been merged. With all their legal might, frankly you do not stand a ghost of a chance against them.
However, if you were to bring this issue to the attention of some foreign media, they might champion your cause. At the end of they day, you may get the mighty SPH to issue a small apology in print.
But be prepared to lose your citizenship or PR status (if you are not local). I sincerely hope it would not come to that. But if it does, and you need a safe haven, drop me a note. I know a EU country you can re-locate to in a matter of months.
Good luck and all the best!
I applaud your fine effort in bringing up this issue and for standing up to your principles. However, as someone who has worked in both SPH and Mediacorp, I can safely say that yours would be an exercise in futility. The two companies used to compete against each other for one-upmanship but that has since been put to a stop following a decree issued by a senior politician. The two company has now been merged. With all their legal might, frankly you do not stand a ghost of a chance against them.
However, if you were to bring this issue to the attention of some foreign media, they might champion your cause. At the end of they day, you may get the mighty SPH to issue a small apology in print.
But be prepared to lose your citizenship or PR status (if you are not local). I sincerely hope it would not come to that. But if it does, and you need a safe haven, drop me a note. I know a EU country you can re-locate to in a matter of months.
Good luck and all the best!
V
vince123123
Guest
Isn't he already on his way to NY? 
- Status
Similar threads
