Displeasure against Infringement of Copyrights of Photographs by Straits Times on 30th July 2006
Sign Now
SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS LIMITED
News Centre, 1000 Toa Payoh North
Singapore 318994
Attn: The Straits Times Editor, Deputy Editor, Life! Editor, and Forum Editor
Dear Sirs/Madams
UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1. We, the undersigned, refer to the article published by The Straits Times on 30th July 2006, under the Lifestyle section on page L1, in which twenty-four (24) photographs (hereafter collectively referred to as the Photographs) were reproduced in the form of a montage as the cover for the article titled iwant2befamous.com (the Article).
INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
2. It has come to our attention that at least one, if not all of the Photographs, had been obtained from blogs and Friendster.com without the consent of the copyright owners.
3. Section 31 of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), states that:-
copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.
4. Copyright ownership of each Photograph vests in the photographer. The Straits Times has infringed the photographers copyright, by the publication of the Article.
5. As the leading newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times sets an example for other publications in Singapore to follow. It has a social responsibility to uphold high journalism standards of ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
6. In view of [point 5.], sufficient effort should be made in obtaining consent for usage of the Photographs when the copyright owners were easily contactable through their blogs and Friendster profiles, and sufficient acknowledgement should be given to the copyright owners.
7. Even if the defence of fair dealing is raised, pursuant to section.36 and section 37 of the Copyright Act, a requirement for the defence of fair dealing to operate is that of sufficient acknowledgement.
8. Acknowledging Singapore blogs and Friendster is insufficient as the copyright of each Photograph vests with the respective photographer.
PRIVACY
9. The use of twenty-four (24) Photographs for a montage is clearly an aesthetic decision, as opposed to adding any real weight or argument to the Article. Thus we feel that this is unnecessary and excessive
The fact that no attempt was made to inform the bloggers and Friendster users of the reproduction of the Photographs, in view of [point 6.], make those who were responsible for the montage or authorised the montage truly morally culpable.
10. The lack of privacy laws in Singapore gives the bloggers and Friendster users no comfort, as their Photographs were splashed across the front page of Sundays paper without their consent.
11. Notwithstanding the lack of privacy laws, as the leading newspaper in Singapore, the Straits Times ought to set a laudable standard for other publications in Singapore to follow.
Ethically, the issue of privacy of the individuals featured on the cover page must be considered in view of [point 9.].
DEFAMATION
12. The Photographs may be harmless snapshots when viewed individually. However, when juxtaposed with the title iwant2bfamous.com", the Photographs immediately take on an unfavourable undertone.
13. Additionally, the Article goes on to insinuate and allude to negative and unhealthy characteristics, such as-"Read me. I want to be famous, narcissistic", "me-me-me","Isn't there something unhealthy about how people are so eager to share with the world every wart in their lives?" amongst other patronising and damaging phrases.
The words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in their natural and ordinary meaning.
14. When viewed in the context of the Article, the Photographs potentially reflect on the Subjects reputation therein, so as to lower the Subjects in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
OBJECTIVITY AND CREDIBILITY
15. The Straits Times has consistently cast blogs in a negative light, and has made various thinly veiled attacks on blogs over the past year. This does not reflect well on the objectivity and credibility demanded from a well-respected newspaper. We would like to suggest that The Straits Times be more objective in its approach towards the topic of blogs and bloggers in the future.
WHAT IS DESIRED
16. In light of the foregoing, we would like to request that the Straits Times:-
16.1. issue an apology in the Forum section any day before 19th August 2006 in a column of 9cm x 15cm minimum;
and
16.2. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on Page L2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum; or
16.3. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on the Back Page of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum;
17. We hope that the Straits Times will maintain high standards of journalism and that this sort of lapse is not repeated in the future.
News Centre, 1000 Toa Payoh North
Singapore 318994
Attn: The Straits Times Editor, Deputy Editor, Life! Editor, and Forum Editor
Dear Sirs/Madams
UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS
1. We, the undersigned, refer to the article published by The Straits Times on 30th July 2006, under the Lifestyle section on page L1, in which twenty-four (24) photographs (hereafter collectively referred to as the Photographs) were reproduced in the form of a montage as the cover for the article titled iwant2befamous.com (the Article).
INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
2. It has come to our attention that at least one, if not all of the Photographs, had been obtained from blogs and Friendster.com without the consent of the copyright owners.
3. Section 31 of the Copyright Act (Cap 63), states that:-
copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Singapore, or authorises the doing in Singapore of, any act comprised in the copyright.
4. Copyright ownership of each Photograph vests in the photographer. The Straits Times has infringed the photographers copyright, by the publication of the Article.
5. As the leading newspaper in Singapore, The Straits Times sets an example for other publications in Singapore to follow. It has a social responsibility to uphold high journalism standards of ethics that go beyond the legal framework.
6. In view of [point 5.], sufficient effort should be made in obtaining consent for usage of the Photographs when the copyright owners were easily contactable through their blogs and Friendster profiles, and sufficient acknowledgement should be given to the copyright owners.
7. Even if the defence of fair dealing is raised, pursuant to section.36 and section 37 of the Copyright Act, a requirement for the defence of fair dealing to operate is that of sufficient acknowledgement.
8. Acknowledging Singapore blogs and Friendster is insufficient as the copyright of each Photograph vests with the respective photographer.
PRIVACY
9. The use of twenty-four (24) Photographs for a montage is clearly an aesthetic decision, as opposed to adding any real weight or argument to the Article. Thus we feel that this is unnecessary and excessive
The fact that no attempt was made to inform the bloggers and Friendster users of the reproduction of the Photographs, in view of [point 6.], make those who were responsible for the montage or authorised the montage truly morally culpable.
10. The lack of privacy laws in Singapore gives the bloggers and Friendster users no comfort, as their Photographs were splashed across the front page of Sundays paper without their consent.
11. Notwithstanding the lack of privacy laws, as the leading newspaper in Singapore, the Straits Times ought to set a laudable standard for other publications in Singapore to follow.
Ethically, the issue of privacy of the individuals featured on the cover page must be considered in view of [point 9.].
DEFAMATION
12. The Photographs may be harmless snapshots when viewed individually. However, when juxtaposed with the title iwant2bfamous.com", the Photographs immediately take on an unfavourable undertone.
13. Additionally, the Article goes on to insinuate and allude to negative and unhealthy characteristics, such as-"Read me. I want to be famous, narcissistic", "me-me-me","Isn't there something unhealthy about how people are so eager to share with the world every wart in their lives?" amongst other patronising and damaging phrases.
The words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in their natural and ordinary meaning.
14. When viewed in the context of the Article, the Photographs potentially reflect on the Subjects reputation therein, so as to lower the Subjects in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.
OBJECTIVITY AND CREDIBILITY
15. The Straits Times has consistently cast blogs in a negative light, and has made various thinly veiled attacks on blogs over the past year. This does not reflect well on the objectivity and credibility demanded from a well-respected newspaper. We would like to suggest that The Straits Times be more objective in its approach towards the topic of blogs and bloggers in the future.
WHAT IS DESIRED
16. In light of the foregoing, we would like to request that the Straits Times:-
16.1. issue an apology in the Forum section any day before 19th August 2006 in a column of 9cm x 15cm minimum;
and
16.2. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on Page L2 of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum; or
16.3. issue an apology on 12th August 2006, on the Back Page of Sunday's Lifestyle section in a column of 12cm x 18cm minimum;
17. We hope that the Straits Times will maintain high standards of journalism and that this sort of lapse is not repeated in the future.
Sign The Petition
Continue with Google
OR
If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.
Shoutbox
Goal
50 signatures
Goal: 100
Latest Signatures
5 December 2015
50.
Matthew Q
|
Address
4E Buckley Road
Phone number
91377827
I hope that this acts as a reminder to The Straits Times to be aware that even if its actions fall within the legal framework, it must take care to maintain its credibility and integrity among the general pub
2 August 2015
49.
Bernard O
|
Phone number
9385 8381
Asking is a Basic Courtesy. Taking without asking is stealing. Boy.. I'm glad my mom brought me up well and fine!
25 June 2015
18 June 2015
11 August 2014
3 June 2014
22 April 2014
11 March 2014
3 January 2014
42.
Jon Vaughn
|
Address
NA
Phone number
NA
A friend of mine was quite distraught about being on the cover, I feel really bad for her and others, the headline was really distasteful.
9 November 2013
28 October 2013
24 October 2013
15 August 2013
4 June 2013
12 April 2013
23 January 2013
1 November 2012
12 October 2012
11 October 2012
30 August 2012
18 August 2012
30.
Sebastian S
|
Phone number
96283133
Is this the kind of behaviour we expect to see from our national paper?
22 June 2012
4 April 2012
29 January 2012
5 January 2012
Tags
No tags
Embed Codes
direct link
link for html
link for forum without title
link for forum with title
