Straits Times breaks Copyright Act
-
Look at the cover of today's Lifestyle page.
Apparently the bloggers had not been told their photos were being published. This breaks the Copyright Act.
How can the English newspaper spreadsheet monopoly paper so balantly break the law?
30 July 2006 Lifestyle
[/b]
http://forum.clubsnap.com/showthread.php?t=212334 -
Copyright Act
and
IPOS
INFRINGEMENT
Infringement occurs when one does something that only the copyright owner has
the exclusive rights to do, without his consent, or when one commercially deals with infringing goods. Examples would be if one photocopies an article without the consent of the copyright owner or if one knowingly sells infringing goods.
It is important to note that one does not need to have reproduced the entire copyright
work before infringement takes place. It is an infringement as long as a substantial amount of the original work, quality-wise, has been copied.
REMEDIES
Remedies are the measures of relief that the Court can grant to a person whose rights are infringed. In civil lawsuits, remedies for copyright owners include injunctions (to stop someone from doing something), damages (whether actual damages, as proved, or statutory damages), and account of profits. Where it is proper to do so, considering the flagrancy of the infringement, the Court may also order additional damages to be paid by the infringing party to the copyright owner.
An award of statutory damages is a remedy that the Court may order against the infringing party without the need for the copyright owner to prove the loss he has suffered as a result of the infringement. This is subject to a per-work ceiling of $10 000 and to an aggregate ceiling of $200,000/- for the particular action. -
CRIMINAL OFFENCE
In Singapore, criminal offences under copyright law include the following:
• making of infringing copies for sale;
• sale of infringing copies;
• possession or import of infringing copies for the purposes of sale or of distribution for the purpose of trade;
• distribution of infringing copies for the purposes of trade.
In any of the instances above, it must be proved that the infringing party knows or
ought reasonably to know that the copies were infringing copies.
Further, it is also a criminal offence if a person wilfully infringes copyright either to a significant extent or for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage.
Criminal Liability for Wilful Infringement
It is also a criminal offence if a person wilfully infringes copyright either for the purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage or to a significant extent.
Commercial advantage means any direct advantage, benefit or financial gain for a business or trade. As to whether the infringement is to a significant extent, this is judged based on the volume, value of infringing copies and whether the infringement has a substantial prejudicial impact on the copyright owner and all other relevant matters.
The penalties for such wilful copyright infringement are:
* 1st offence, a fine not exceeding $20,000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months;
* 2nd or subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding $50,000 and/or imprisonment up to 3 years.
Other acts that have civil and criminal liabilities include:
* circumventing a technological measure (page 10); and
* falsely removing or altering the rights management information electronically attached to a work (page 11). -
Do you have any legal background for Media?
As an official news organization, they are immune to copyright laws up to a certain degree. Local and international press.
I did not read the papers today. So I do not know what is happening.
But the pictures of the bloggers, how copyrighted are there? Is it an official certification?
Besides they are just making news. Not slandering or making untrue comments. -
they cfm ask then post one la
-
This is a re-post from another forum.Originally posted by mhcampboy:Do you have any legal background for Media?
As an official news organization, they are immune to copyright laws up to a certain degree. Local and international press.
I did not read the papers today. So I do not know what is happening.
But the pictures of the bloggers, how copyrighted are there? Is it an official certification?
Besides they are just making news. Not slandering or making untrue comments.
Any photo, piece of writing, product done by you is copyrighted to you.
Anyone who takes the 'thing' in any form without your permission is breaking the Act.
I'm not a lawyer. Maybe someone can clarify. -
sue them lo...
-
Any photo, piece of writing, product done by you is copyrighted to you.
Anyone who reproduces it in any form without your permission is breaking the Act. -
You are right in a certain extent to say works done by me is copyrighted to me. BUT only if I have and went thru the proper documentation.Originally posted by redstone:This is a re-post from another forum.
Any photo, piece of writing, product done by you is copyrighted to you.
Anyone who takes the 'thing' in any form without your permission is breaking the Act.
I'm not a lawyer. Maybe someone can clarify.
Do those pictures has disclaimer or any wordings like :
Copyright 12/03/06 by mhcampboy
If not, then it can't be deemed as copyrighted.
Yes, they can sue the papers if they want to. Copyright law is civil law. You may sue the papers but it won't be charged a crime.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all.
So they may argue that their pictures are copyrighted. But would they go to a legal battle just to proof their point?
-
Bye bye sggirls, byebye!!
-
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html#remedies
AUTOMATIC PROTECTION
In Singapore, an author automatically enjoys copyright protection as soon as he creates and expresses his work in a tangible form. There is no need to file for registration to get copyright protection.
SEEKING PERMISSION FROM COPYRIGHT OWNERS
To do anything that only the copyright owner has the exclusive rights to do (e.g. reproduce the work), his consent is needed. The mere acknowledgement of the source does not mean the copyright owner has given his consent. Sometimes, consent is indicated in the terms of permitted use e.g. “for Private Use Only”. Otherwise, one should seek permission from copyright owners.
To do so, one may either contact the copyright owners directly and negotiate for a licence to use the copyright material; or obtain a licence through a collective society.
A collective society is an organisation that administers the rights of a group of
copyright owners. It can grant consent to use the works of its members under
specific conditions. A list of these collective societies in Singapore may be found on IPOSÂ’ website.[/b] -
Originally posted by redstone:
Yes I know what you are getting too. Like I mention earlier, newspapers or official media group are protected against copyrighted laws to a certain degrees.
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html#remedies
[b]SEEKING PERMISSION FROM COPYRIGHT OWNERS
To do anything that only the copyright owner has the exclusive rights to do (e.g. reproduce the work), his consent is needed. The mere acknowledgement of the source does not mean the copyright owner has given his consent. Sometimes, consent is indicated in the terms of permitted use e.g. “for Private Use Only”. Otherwise, one should seek permission from copyright owners.
To do so, one may either contact the copyright owners directly and negotiate for a licence to use the copyright material; or obtain a licence through a collective society.
A collective society is an organisation that administers the rights of a group of
copyright owners. It can grant consent to use the works of its members under
specific conditions. A list of these collective societies in Singapore may be found on IPOSÂ’ website.[/b][/b]
If you want to use this blog pictures as an example, our papers or the entire international papers would be ongoing a legal battle now. -
Originally posted by redstone:
I will also quote from the website you shown us.
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html#remedies
[b]AUTOMATIC PROTECTION
In Singapore, an author automatically enjoys copyright protection as soon as he creates and expresses his work in a tangible form. There is no need to file for registration to get copyright protection.
SEEKING PERMISSION FROM COPYRIGHT OWNERS
To do anything that only the copyright owner has the exclusive rights to do (e.g. reproduce the work), his consent is needed. The mere acknowledgement of the source does not mean the copyright owner has given his consent. Sometimes, consent is indicated in the terms of permitted use e.g. “for Private Use Only”. Otherwise, one should seek permission from copyright owners.
To do so, one may either contact the copyright owners directly and negotiate for a licence to use the copyright material; or obtain a licence through a collective society.
A collective society is an organisation that administers the rights of a group of
copyright owners. It can grant consent to use the works of its members under
specific conditions. A list of these collective societies in Singapore may be found on IPOSÂ’ website.[/b][/b]
OWNERSHIP
Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:
Special situations for certain professions:
Journalist or writer: In the course of employment as a journalist or writer for a newspaper, magazine or periodical OR under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright for the purpose of publication or reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical.
Does that explains everything? -
I think that means the journalists' work(s) are copyrighted to their respective newspapers. If they are under contract or apprenticeship.Originally posted by mhcampboy:I will also quote from the website you shown us.
OWNERSHIP
Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:
Special situations for certain professions:
Journalist or writer: In the course of employment as a journalist or writer for a newspaper, magazine or periodical OR under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright for the purpose of publication or reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical.
Does that explains everything? -
Yes. Also what the site didnt mention is the legal immunity papers have regarding copyright.Originally posted by redstone:I think that means the journalists' works (s) are copyrighted to their respective newspapers. If they are under contract or apprenticeship.
Copyright is a broad subject to approach.
Now, few things I tell you what copyrights do NOT protect.
Ideas, FACTS, Titles, Names etc etc...
See it in a smaller point of view. Blogs are web logs or diary created by people for everyone to see. Generally, the blog which they insert into it, the details, pictures etc etc are all facts. As in true.
So by deeming that blogs are real info, gone is the liability of which the ST breach the Act. -
It's not regarding the blogs. But rather of the photos...
-
Dude, the photo is part of the blog. Unless they got the photo from a different site?Originally posted by redstone:It's not regarding the blogs. But rather of the photos...
Now, also you must understand, even though these pictures are copyrighted, there are leeways in which the pictures can be used.
Small amount of material with credits about the blog. In this case, its about 1 or 2 pictures being taken per blog maybe.
Study, criticism, reporting of current event. In this case, the widespread phenomena of blogging.
Should not deprive copyright holder of financial gain. If it did, the bloggers may sue a civil law against it.
And a few others as well... -
can you refer me to the source where you got information on the leeways you mentioned?Originally posted by mhcampboy:Dude, the photo is part of the blog. Unless they got the photo from a different site?
Now, also you must understand, even though these pictures are copyrighted, there are leeways in which the pictures can be used.
Small amount of material with credits about the blog. In this case, its about 1 or 2 pictures being taken per blog maybe.
Study, criticism, reporting of current event. In this case, the widespread phenomena of blogging.
Should not deprive copyright holder of financial gain. If it did, the bloggers may sue a civil law against it.
And a few others as well...
Also, I don't think that there needs to be deprivation of financial gain for the flouting of the Copyright Act to be treated as a civil case? Although the extent of deprivation of financial gain will probably determine the extent of the financial punishment meted out -
Wow... new person.Originally posted by mattlock:can you refer me to the source where you got information on the leeways you mentioned?
Also, I don't think that there needs to be deprivation of financial gain for the flouting of the Copyright Act to be treated as a civil case? Although the extent of deprivation of financial gain will probably determine the extent of the financial punishment meted out
Anyway, the source is from my legal teacher when i took my mass com course abt few years ago...
I know little about copyright issues... whatever info i just gave.. is abt it...
of course, you may ask a legal expert opinion on it...
-
Ok. I checked my old notes.
Copyright do NOT protect :
Works in the public domain.
Freeware (not shareware, but really, expressly, available free of restrictions-ware -- this may be protected by law, but the author has chosen to make it available without any restrictions)
Facts
Ideas, processes, methods, and systems described in copyrighted works
etc etc which does not apply to the problem above.
From this, any suit against the papers can be thrown out of court already.
The blogs are in public domains. And they have agreed when they signed up that the blog will be viewed by the general public.
Source from this info? This is not a source. Its a LAW. -
by posting a screenshot and broadcasting to all here, u just made it worse rite?
-
Originally posted by FireIce:by posting a screenshot and broadcasting to all here, u just made it worse rite?
As long as it's the truth or fact, nothing else matters.
-
I give up. Let other decide.
-
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. -
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?