Skip to main content Founder sends open letter to Singapore opposition party, SDP, to stop using articles without permission

The founder of local sports blog,, has written an open letter on his Facebook notes to the Singapore Democratic Party to stop taking stories from the blog without permission.

Wrote Leslie Tan, founder of,

By putting my name and the name of up on your site at the head of the article, you make it seem like I contributed the article to you willingly and am part of your news gathering crew. I never was, am not, and never will be (especially after this incident).

I wish to tell you in no uncertain terms to stop taking any stories from now on without permission. This is the second infringement. The first time, we put down to an honest mistake. The second time is just dishonest.

Leslie was referring to the two articles, first on the YOG and the second on the brawl at a recent S-League match.

The article on the S-League match has since been replaced with another story from, but still infringes on the copyrights of the UK daily.

Though SDP has linked when they cut and paste and article, but by putting the Redsports byline to it may associate the blog to it against the wishes of the blog owner.

SDP should have just put the header, the first two paragraphs, a link to the post and a disclaimer on the post.

Copying a headline was recently judged by an Australian court to be not an infringement on copyrights.


The Federal Court’s Justice Bennett has ruled that no copyright exists in headlines, in a defining case brought by Fairfax Media Publications against Reed International Books Australia (trading as Lexis Nexis).

Justice Bennett found that Fairfax had failed to prove that any of the ten selected Australian Financial Review headlines it submitted was a discrete work of joint authorship in which copyright could subsist.

(PS: Technically, Leslie’s open letter in Facebook isn’t that open as it requires a log-in to a Facebook. Maybe Leslie should consider putting it on


Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.

"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Did She Run Or Did She "Just Fake It" For Adidas?

Andrea Chong, a Adidas appointed influencer, posted a photo of herself in the middle of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2015 and captioned how she was "all smiles" during the run.

Unfortunately for Andrea or the PR agency, one of her readers checked her bib number #75148  at the Marathon's website only to find it to belonging to somebody else.

That somebody else is Kuvin Kuar, a intern at Edelman PR and the bib number had a status "DNF" or did not finished.

This raised the first red flag as one of the rules stated that "A Participants is strictly not allowed to transfer his or her race entry to another party".

This cascaded into perceptions that Andrea herself did not even start or complete the race and was only "planted" by Adidas or the PR agency, Edelman PR, to look pretty in the marathon.

Marketing Magazine noted that Adidas declined to comment about the incident which lead to further speculation that Andrea was possibly just …

Kudos To Huawei 2 Year Warranty For P9 Series

When it comes to smartphones, I think I am jinxed.

For my history of owning smartphones, every time it comes close to the end of the two year contract with my mobile service provider. This time round, it happened to my Huawei P9.

All of a sudden, the LCD screen sort of decolourised. I thought it was a temporary issue but the decolourisation lasted for a few hours. Then the nightmare began.

The touchscreen couldn't be touched. This made it the smartphone a brick.

I thought the Huawei P9 only had one year of warrant. With my contract ending in mid-year, I thought I would have to wait it out till the contract ended and allowed me to buy a new phone under a contract.

Luckily, a friend reminded me that the phone came with a 2 year warranty.

So I decided to go to the Huawei service center, right smack in the center of the city, to see if my phone is under warranty and if Huawei would honour their 2 year warranty.

Thankfully, Huawei isn't as popular as the Samsungs or Apples, and the …