Straits Times breaks Copyright Act

FireIce SG

by posting a screenshot and broadcasting to all here, u just made it worse rite?

Parka SG

As long as it's the truth or fact, nothing else matters.

Laughing

redstone SG

I give up. Let other decide. Mr. Green

Parka SG

Anyway, I studied a bit on copyright protection years ago.

I seemed to remember a clause saying that is the work copied, in this case the photos, is for reviews, it's still legal.

FireIce SG

on another note...
something tt happened in sgforums before..........

if u dun say "hey! thats me! why u post my pic?!?!", nobody knows is u rite?

Parka SG

Yup. I remembered correctly.

It's ok, ST is still within legal boundary.

Here's section 36 of the copyright-related Act.
Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review
36. A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made.

mhcampboy SG

Originally posted by Parka:
Yup. I remembered correctly.

It's ok, ST is still within legal boundary.

Here's section 36 of the copyright-related Act.
Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review
36. A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is [b]for the purpose of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made.[/b]

That is correct. Finally someone agreeable with me. Laughing

mhcampboy SG

To threadstarter, pray ST do not come upon this thread. Wait they will use it against you for slandering them.

You got it from another forum?? WORST!! Spreading rumours and negative information about ST from one forum to another. Laughing

Parka SG

Or worse, buy a one page apology from them!

LazerLordz SG

Whatever the case, I do not believe the Press should have a free pass to publish pictures without prior authorisation.

Using that Act as a form of defence, which is very much open-ended, is not the way to go.If you bother to write an article, better go and get your sources' permission. This is not about photography in a public place, but rather about republication of media already granted ad nauseum copyright under Singapore law.

Furthermore, that section of the Copyright Act says that "sufficient acknowledgement" is required. Meaning, a simple caption or a disclaimer for review usage should have been published.

I have first-hand knowledge of certain happenings in the past with relation to unauthorised usage of images, but I will not reveal it publicly. Just to highlight that in every organisation, there are bad apples, and it is the organisation's responsibility to weed them out.

If they even want to condone such behaviour, then it really says a lot about their supposed "world-class" standards doesn't it?
Rolling Eyes

vito_corleone SG

technically the people featured in the photos never copyrighted them so shlts times has not broken any copyright law Laughing

LazerLordz SG

You don't have to apply for a copyright. The Act grants a automatic copyright on any creative act once created.

mhcampboy SG

If i am not wrong, ST did credit the bloggers website. I think... Mr. Green

LazerLordz SG

Websites are hosted by Blogger, LiveJournal, Xanga etc... Copyright belongs to the photographer, and be it a snapshot or a series of editorial portraiture, it has to be respected, especially if it leads to republication.

ST should be thankful that class-action suits are not common here. It's time they started to smell the damned roses.

If they have individual credits and a note stating that the rights belong expressively to the owner of that blog and the photographer of the picture, then I have nothing to say.

vito_corleone SG

O'RLY Shocked Shocked Laughing if i came up with the word shizzlefarkfacedc0cksucker, there you go. you guys cant use this word without my permission or u gotta pay me

mhcampboy SG

I do not believe ST breached anything. By copyrighted laws, they have bypass it.

Under fair use/dealings Act. The pictures are on public domains and ST is making a critic/review out of them. Which is acceptable under fair use/dealings act.

ST is a century old organization. They have extensive legal reviews with them.

Those bloggers may make noise and request a civil suit. But in any case, it is not a criminal act done by ST. The police cannot do anything even.

I repeat again, under fair use/dealings act, ST did not make any breach.

LazerLordz SG

It is fair use, IF you have sufficient acknowledgement.

With regards as to what domain and what terms of use those pictures are under, that will be an Agreement between the User, i.e the blogger and the weblog host.

Everytime an article or a review is made, acknowledgements are made.As I've said, if ST has acknowledged every single photograph/photographer and blogger for their sites' usage, then that's fine.

Did they? Can anyone clarify because I don't have that particular issue of the ST.

It is not criminal, but there might be grounds for a civil suit. Never believe that an organisation is immune to anything, because it's employees may make mistakes. However, let's leave that to the lawyers shall we? Wink

As a media creator, I have vested interest in the outcome of this case, therefore I veer on the side of being anal-retentive with regards to this case.

mhcampboy SG

No need to worry yourself in this case.

Acknowledgement is required. True. But who are the bloggers that ST need acknowledgement for?

Are the bloggers gonna suffer a financial lost due to ST publication of the pictures?

ST knows , the bloggers will not suffer any lost. Therefore no acknowlegment is needed prior to the publication.

Rule of the thumb of the act, permission is needed if the materials ST took from the blogs is in very high amount. Say for example 30 percent of the blog entries or data.

No permission is required if ST only uses a small amount of material in this case, a picture or two of the bloggers.

LazerLordz SG

The problem here is now the photographer of one of the picture is unhappy that it was used without prior approval.

mhcampboy SG

Laughing

Sure tell him to file a civil suit.

How much would he expect? $2? Mr. Green

Anyway, yeah if ST has any compassion at all, the least they should bring down the pictures and make a public apology. But from a century old paper with a certain civil servant as it directors?? hehehe

« Previous Page Next Page »