Straits Times breaks Copyright Act
-
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. -
Originally posted by Parka:
That is correct. Finally someone agreeable with me.
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]
-
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. -
Originally posted by mhcampboy: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. Or worse, buy a one page apology from them! -
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?
-
technically the people featured in the photos never copyrighted them so shlts times has not broken any copyright law
-
You don't have to apply for a copyright. The Act grants a automatic copyright on any creative act once created.Originally posted by vito_corleone:technically the people featured in the photos never copyrighted them so shlts times has not broken any copyright law -
If i am not wrong, ST did credit the bloggers website. I think...Originally posted by LazerLordz: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. 
-
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.Originally posted by mhcampboy:If i am not wrong, ST did credit the bloggers website. I think...
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. -
O'RLYOriginally posted by LazerLordz:You don't have to apply for a copyright. The Act grants a automatic copyright on any creative act once created.
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 -
I do not believe ST breached anything. By copyrighted laws, they have bypass it.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Website is hosted by Blogger. 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.
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. -
It is fair use, IF you have sufficient acknowledgement.Originally posted by mhcampboy: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.
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?
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. -
No need to worry yourself in this case.Originally posted by LazerLordz:It is fair use, IF you have sufficient acknowledgement.
It is not criminal, but there are grounds for a civil suit. Never believe that an organisation is immune to anything, because it's employees may make mistakes.
As a media creator, I have vested interest in this case, therefore I veer on the side of being anal-retentive with regards to 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. -
The problem here is now the photographer of one of the picture is unhappy that it was used without prior approval.Originally posted by mhcampboy: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. -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:The problem here is now the photographer of one of the picture is unhappy that it was used without prior approval.
Sure tell him to file a civil suit.
How much would he expect? $2?
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 -
I want to raise a few points.Originally posted by mhcampboy:
Sure tell him to file a civil suit.
How much would he expect? $2?
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
Firstly, this isn't about money. This is about ethics. Journalists have certain responsibilities to adhere to a high standard of ethics, this is not a tabloid, this is The Straits Times.
You can do things legally but unethically. People can tell when you're being unethical. look at the NKF case (not saying that this is on the same scale), where what they did was mostly within legal boundaries, but still absolutely unethical.
Secondly, if you are going to say that this or that is the LAW I suggest you consult a lawyer if you are going to make statements that you deem are facts. such as this one:
"ST knows , the bloggers will not suffer any lost. Therefore no acknowlegment is needed prior to the publication. "
"If i am not wrong, ST did credit the bloggers website. I think... "
These are absolutely false statements. These kinds of statements confuse people. If you are unsure, verify your facts first and perhaps phrase it more as a question?
With relation to Fair Dealing, I am researching that right now to see how much leeway they have using that. I still do not feel that it is ethical even if they get away with it using that clause.
Acknowledgement was made to "Singapore blogs" and "Friendster"
But the ownership of copyrights belong to the photographers.
And finally, according to my lawyer friend, having those photos placed there and having the big headline "iwant2bfamous.com" with a byline "Read me, I want to be famous" can be considered defamatory if no such things were said by the owners of the copyrights of the photos. -
I am not making anyone confuse nor anyone is confuse around here. You are just making yourself confuse.Originally posted by mattlock:I want to raise a few points.
Firstly, this isn't about money. This is about ethics. Journalists have certain responsibilities to adhere to a high standard of ethics, this is not a tabloid, this is The Straits Times.
You can do things legally but unethically. People can tell when you're being unethical. look at the NKF case (not saying that this is on the same scale), where what they did was mostly within legal boundaries, but still absolutely unethical.
Secondly, if you are going to say that this or that is the LAW I suggest you consult a lawyer if you are going to make statements that you deem are facts. such as this one:
"ST knows , the bloggers will not suffer any lost. Therefore no acknowlegment is needed prior to the publication. "
"If i am not wrong, ST did credit the bloggers website. I think... "
These are absolutely false statements. These kinds of statements confuse people. If you are unsure, verify your facts first and perhaps phrase it more as a question?
With relation to Fair Dealing, I am researching that right now to see how much leeway they have using that. I still do not feel that it is ethical even if they get away with it using that clause.
Acknowledgement was made to "Singapore blogs" and "Friendster"
But the ownership of copyrights belong to the photographers.
And finally, according to my lawyer friend, having those photos placed there and having the big headline "iwant2bfamous.com" with a byline "Read me, I want to be famous" can be considered defamatory if no such things were said by the owners of the copyrights of the photos.
Geesh this is not Harvard Law School where everything I say must be perfect or correct. It is just a forum. Whatever I want to say is my own views or knowledge.
No pun intended for any confusion. For me, it is just harmless thing of what ST did and I view it very lightly.
If those bloggers want to attract more attention to their blogs, then by means go ahead.
Isnt that what bloggers wanted initially when blogs are making a statement in our daily lifes few years back? To be known and looking for attention?
ST is just reliving the scenario of the past.
Sure I may not know much about the legality of it. But the basics of copyright law is simply just in the case. Its ok.
Ethically yes, maybe it is wrong. But hey, it is a media form. Thank God this is Singapore. Look at USA or the European countries. Much more worst than us. -
Oh yar.. by the way, I am sure your lawyer friend knows that ST has an army of legal team in their organization to advise and mentor the journalists and writers of the rights they acquire.
-
Camp, this wouldn't have gotten away with in USA or Europe. They have much more stringent laws dealing with personal privacy and limitations on fair comment based on private individuals.
Bloggers are not granted the same public "influence" as celebrities or public figures.
Mattlock, the argument that the photographers own the copyright is fundamentally sound but if there is no class action across the board, then all it will amount to, is a symbolic flash in the pan too. -
Summarize it:
1. copyright is automatically granted to the owners of the photos
2. however, media can use such material for reporting news without infringing on copyright.
Similarly, for the purpose of news-reporting, there's no such thing as intrusion of privacy. (that is why u see tv news always take street shots of people) -
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, and also at the negative light in which bloggers have been consistently cast by The Straits Times.
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. -
They don't need to do that. Simply because it is copyrighted the moment the photo is taken by the person. WHETHER he stated it or not.Originally posted by mhcampboy: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.
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? -
Haha...think I know who that is.Originally posted by FireIce: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?
Wonders where she is now....or who she is now....? -
u all debate so much, nv thought of that maybe ST got ask the bloggers for permission?
-
my friends and I were in one of the photos, taken by my friend. the photo was leeched without authorisation. Otherwise I wouldn't even have taken all this effortOriginally posted by skyfoo:u all debate so much, nv thought of that maybe ST got ask the bloggers for permission?
change in the URL to the offending image, that link is dead.
now it's http://www.venacava.org/st1.jpg
Do show your support regarding this issue and
sign the letter,
[/url]