What is my rights?

[wrkshy]

I was approached by URA for the use of my pictures some time ago. It may have been for the same presentation. Apparently they came across the photos in my Flickr photo stream.

To the TS, it is best that you clarify directly with URA on where they obtained the photo. You will need to prove that the photo is yours, so make sure you have your original on hand to show them. And as pointed out by previous posters, to ensure that you didn't enter it in one of their previous competitions.

If the image was really taken without your permission, I believe you have the right to request URA to withdraw it immediately.

If you need the name of the URA staff to liaise with, let me know via PM. I think I may still have the email address and number. If not, I can help you check.

 

[hongsien]

clause #14 states:

14.​

By entering this competition, each participant accepts and agrees that URA shall be granted, without the need for payment of fees or royalties, a non-exclusive and perpetual right and licence to use, reproduce, modify and prepare derivative works of all shortlisted / exhibited photographs submitted as entries by the participant for whatever purpose as may be deemed fit by URA without making any reference to or acknowledgement of the participant or this competition. For the avoidance of doubt, such right and license granted to URA shall include the right to publish, display, reproduce or otherwise publicise or communicate all shortlisted / exhibited photographs submitted as entries for any exhibition or publication (irrespective of whether or not URA shall profit from such exhibition or publication).



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

assuming you sent it in for that particular competiotion.....

 

[wrkshy]

Just to add, if you need legal advice, you might like to approach Samuel Seow Law Corporation. One of their specialisations is dealing with intellectual property issues for artists and photographers. They recently gave a free public talk during the Month of Photography on the subject.

http://www.sslawcorp.com/

I posted a summary of the talk on my blog. Feel free to take a look. It also has links to information by Singapore's Intellectual Property Office and the Professional Photographers Association.

 

[ortega]

basically as "photographers" "cameramen"

we must do something about this infringement of intellectual property,
it is getting out of hand

we should refrain from joining photography contests with this type of T&C
especially with crappy prizes

 

[hongsien]

Many of these 'competitions' iare just a cheap way of getting a picture for a low price (some prices may even be 'donated' by companies)......instead of getting a quote from a professional photographer which may run in the thousands of dollars.


Another is that they now have so many images to choose from and from different photographers (different styles).....

All those talks on intellectual property and improving the Arts in Singapore......some people just don't get it.

HS

 

[ortega]

I suggest

we read the T&C carefully and highlight the questionable ones
and promote the good ones

if everyone does their part
the whole industry will benifit

 

[koolcat]

These are not competitions. These are ways for "companies" to get photos for a cheap price for their financial use. It is just disgusting the method they used "first for not acknowledging the work of the photographer, second for not paying the price for a work of art". One way is just not to join these competitions.

 

[JRT]

simply put .. if you took the photo and you werent under contract then you own the complete copyright to the photo and if you havent authorised anyone to re-produce etc that photo then the other party are up for civil stat damanges as they are violating you copyright. Given its being used in a commersial context i would say you have a good right to go to a laywer and have a letter of demand sent to them, informing them of the breach.

HOWEVER this being singapore and URA being a stat board .. well you will have to check that the government doesnt have to honour copyright .

PS: its doesnt matter what the SUBJECT of the photo is, only the AUTHOR (ie YOU).

I was curious about the question if the Singapore government needs to honor the copyright law and guess what I have found. The government is obliged to follow the law (DUH) but you cannot sue to the government for copyright infringement. :bigeyes: How's that for cover backside!

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...e=COPYRIGHT ACT &date=latest&method=part&sl=1

Application to Government
3. Subject to Part X, this Act shall bind the Government but nothing in this Act shall render the Government liable to be prosecuted for an offence.

Bottom line: No court case, No Damages, No point.

 

[vince123123]

Read carefully, it only says that the the Government cannot be prosecuted for an offence, ie a criminal act. It does not cover civil claims.

 

[viewwing]

first thing is to prove that the picture is urs... thats the problem with intellectual property... if you have the original with all the EXIF. You may have a case.

and its not worth suing... best way to solve this since they have already used it is to contact them, request for removal, or they could either pay u or something...

good luck bro...

 

[blzhang]

one has a right to seek royalty for the publishing of the photos from the government. An government agency is just subject to the law as any individual or corporate entity

 

[JRT]

Read carefully, it only says that the the Government cannot be prosecuted for an offence, ie a criminal act. It does not cover civil claims.

Hi Vince123123,

Thanks for correcting me on this. I have misread this section.

However, I was trying to figure out what section 3 is in there for.
If you have noticed, all offences are made in reference to a person.
Since the government is not a person, it cannot be guilty of an offence.
Section 3 is redundant until I saw section 201B. :think:

BTW, I do believe that the government must obey the laws of the land and be responsible for her mistakes. However, I was trying to see if there are any "sections of convenience" for the government and the closest I can find is section 198, whatever "service for government" is defined as. :dunno:

 

[randytay]

The whole mess I see is this:

It got out of hand because most photographers (or wannabes photog) do not ensure that their rights are respected (e.g. insisting on a model release) and as such, set a precedence that "it is ok that I just make copies of the work you gave me in the CD so I could use them for..."

NO! Stop all this things now. DO NOT be desperate for a shoot just because someone offers to give you credit, in other words, know your worth and know how much your time and talent cost. If every photographer, professional or enthusiast, follows this simple practice, then it is easier to enforce such copyright or intellectual property issues and not wait for things to happen and then try to solve them.

IMHO, the PSS should set up facilities to help such practice and not just involve in photography skills, techniques and, *ahem* politics, but also be a watch dog against copyright infringement FOR their members and offer assistance to those who needs them.

Then the issue of competition: read all the fine prints before you submit. Do you want to take a shot to win a prize but lose the opportunity to perhaps make residual income on an image that you took the time to create? Thats why I never do competition, I only press the shutter for someone when they pay me. However, that said, most competition only reserves the right to reproduce, display, etc etc ONLY for the sake to either promote photography in general and not use the image for commercial endeavors. Just so you know.

 

[vince123123]

I'm having difficulty comprehending how a model release is relevant in the present topic of a Govt Agency using photos without permission, or how even having one ensures that the photographers rights are respected.

 

[vince123123]

Hi JRT, it is my pleasure to assist - thanks for also taking it constructively!

Section 3 is probably just there to act as an express immunity to the Govt or its servants from being prosecuted for acts or omissions made in relation to the Act. Section 201A also entrenches that immunity. I'm not sure how Section 201B relates to this discussion because it relates to offences committed by parterships and corporations - but I think you probably intended to refer to Section 201A right?

You are probably justified in your view that the Govt should not be immunised for her mistakes, but unfortunately its a double standard here. When I deal with government agencies in my daily course, it is all too often where civilians and companies are penalised for their mistakes, but when it is the Govt agency's turn to make the mistake, they just sweep it under and away and not even so much as an apology. For example, when we respond late to official queries, we get hit with late fees. When the Govt takes 2-3 years to respond, nothing happens.

Section 198 is mainly intended to give the Govt a blanket license to use copyrighted works without committing an infringement. Now that you brought it up and to our attention, I think that Section 198(1) may be possibly relied on as a defence by URA (if it qualifies as being part of the Govt) in infringing the rights of the thread starter here. However, I also note that Section 198(4) requires that the Govt inform the rights holder "as soon as possible" - which appears to may have been omitted.

Hi Vince123123,

Thanks for correcting me on this. I have misread this section.

However, I was trying to figure out what section 3 is in there for.
If you have noticed, all offences are made in reference to a person.
Since the government is not a person, it cannot be guilty of an offence.
Section 3 is redundant until I saw section 201B. :think:

BTW, I do believe that the government must obey the laws of the land and be responsible for her mistakes. However, I was trying to see if there are any "sections of convenience" for the government and the closest I can find is section 198, whatever "service for government" is defined as. :dunno:

 

[Andy Ang]

The whole mess I see is this:

It got out of hand because most photographers (or wannabes photog) do not ensure that their rights are respected (e.g. insisting on a model release) and as such, set a precedence that "it is ok that I just make copies of the work you gave me in the CD so I could use them for..."

NO! Stop all this things now. DO NOT be desperate for a shoot just because someone offers to give you credit, in other words, know your worth and know how much your time and talent cost. If every photographer, professional or enthusiast, follows this simple practice, then it is easier to enforce such copyright or intellectual property issues and not wait for things to happen and then try to solve them.

IMHO, the PSS should set up facilities to help such practice and not just involve in photography skills, techniques and, *ahem* politics, but also be a watch dog against copyright infringement FOR their members and offer assistance to those who needs them.

Then the issue of competition: read all the fine prints before you submit. Do you want to take a shot to win a prize but lose the opportunity to perhaps make residual income on an image that you took the time to create? Thats why I never do competition, I only press the shutter for someone when they pay me. However, that said, most competition only reserves the right to reproduce, display, etc etc ONLY for the sake to either promote photography in general and not use the image for commercial endeavors. Just so you know.

PSS??? It is just another Society that has turned so commercialized. I think ClubSNAP is such a much more better "society" loor. PSS just only held the rights to represent SG in organising International Salons.

 

[bowwow]

just to share, i recently had an experience which left a very sour after-taste in my mouth.

i had agreed to shoot for a self-funding organization for free(some may not agree to this) as i saw something bigger in their cause and knew that they needed all the help that they needed. it was also agreed that the pictures that i take are only for non-commercial use and that the copyright is retained by me.

recently, members of this organization started a commercial entity relating, in a very loosely defined way, to the original organization. my photos were used without seeking prior permission and on top of that copyright watermarks were cropped off. i only found out about it when someone decided to show-off the website.

when i confronted the relevant parties to explain to them their actions they got all defensive and tried to put words in my mouth. a lot of assumptions were made and things taken for granted. end of it all, i was made to look like the bad guy.

it's really disappointing for me as it was for something that i believed in initially and had grown to be passionate about. that sadly is the state of affairs here i feel.

 

[GavinTing]

just to share, i recently had an experience which left a very sour after-taste in my mouth.

i had agreed to shoot for a self-funding organization for free(some may not agree to this) as i saw something bigger in their cause and knew that they needed all the help that they needed. it was also agreed that the pictures that i take are only for non-commercial use and that the copyright is retained by me.

recently, members of this organization started a commercial entity relating, in a very loosely defined way, to the original organization. my photos were used without seeking prior permission and on top of that copyright watermarks were cropped off. i only found out about it when someone decided to show-off the website.

when i confronted the relevant parties to explain to them their actions they got all defensive and tried to put words in my mouth. a lot of assumptions were made and things taken for granted. end of it all, i was made to look like the bad guy.

it's really disappointing for me as it was for something that i believed in initially and had grown to be passionate about. that sadly is the state of affairs here i feel.

Did you get a black and white to say that the copyright was 100% yours? Sometimes we have to just be abit more thick skin and file charges, don't worry about looking bad.

 

[bowwow]

Did you get a black and white to say that the copyright was 100% yours? Sometimes we have to just be abit more thick skin and file charges, don't worry about looking bad.

at that point in time when i agreed i did not as it was never expected to go commercial. it was done in good faith and based on a gentleman's agreement. it seems a lot was kept from me and i now question myself as to why i was accepted into the "group" so readily.

yes, it was an oversight on my part. fortunately, the pictures have been pulled from the site.

 

[JRT]

Hi JRT, it is my pleasure to assist - thanks for also taking it constructively!

Discussion and feedback is always good and I did read it wrongly. :sweat:

Section 3 is probably just there to act as an express immunity to the Govt or its servants from being prosecuted for acts or omissions made in relation to the Act. Section 201A also entrenches that immunity. I'm not sure how Section 201B relates to this discussion because it relates to offences committed by parterships and corporations - but I think you probably intended to refer to Section 201A right?

Section 201B is relevant because the government is a corporation (not in the business corporation sense) I read Section 201A as saying you can't sue the government if they infringe your right when performing any duties of legislation. For commercial use such as the TS's case, I think it a stretch to related it to any act or regulation.

Section 198 is mainly intended to give the Govt a blanket license to use copyrighted works without committing an infringement. Now that you brought it up and to our attention, I think that Section 198(1) may be possibly relied on as a defence by URA (if it qualifies as being part of the Govt) in infringing the rights of the thread starter here. However, I also note that Section 198(4) requires that the Govt inform the rights holder "as soon as possible" - which appears to may have been omitted.

Yes. However, they also quantified the statement with "from time to time reasonably requires". Sounds likes an uphill battle if one wishes to take the government on for copyright infringement.