Skip to main content

Singapore Press Holidings' tussle with former radio personality puts spotlight back on copyrights

Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) , the publisher for The Straits Times, issued Daniel Ong, a former radio personality in Singapore, a bill of $749 for republishing an article about his venture into the F&B businesses.

Wrote Daniel Ong,

"We get an email stating that we need to pay SPH $535.00 per story about Jaime(my superstar wifey) and our Successful business Twelve cupcakes. Oh And there's also a $214 fee for investigating us...huh?!?!?!?! So all in all we owe them about $3k...??? FOR sharing it on social media and our own website.
..So, we grant them the stories...n after the story gets published... of course we SHARE IT with our following! In total about 30,000 people we reach out to...on FB and twitter(maybe lotsa duplicates).. "

Supporters of Daniel Ong have claimed SPH for being greedy to ask for an interviewee for payment to republish the entire article.

It is also rather disappointing that some communication professionals are putting down SPH's copyright and claiming that is a "new" ruling.

This blog wrote in 2010 on a website was asked to pay the same amount for republishing Strait Times articles without permission.

One has to note that granting an interview to a publication, be it The Straits Times or any others, does not give the interviewee the rights to publish the full article on another medium without the permission of the publisher.

However, if you do want to put your article online, it is best to stick to the 10% rule of photocopying.

From NTU's note on Copyrights,


Copying of works in the following instances will not constitute infringement:-
1. You are deemed to have copied for the purpose of self-study or research and thereforenot infringed copyright if:-
(a) you copy one article in a periodical publication; where a literary, dramatic or musical work is not less than 10 pages, you copy up to 10% of the number of pages in a published edition of the work or
(b) if the work is divided into chapters, up to one chapter.

As they say in Singapore, law is law.

Comments

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…

Social Media 101: How To Be The Most Hated Person In Singapore Instantly

It is amazing how we are quick to forget that a single wrong comment on social media can make one the most hated person in Singapore.

Back in 2012, we had Amy Cheong. Her comments on Facebook about a Malay wedding under her HDB void deck resulted in an online CSI that cost her her job.

Fast forward to 2017 and we have Thomas Chua Poh Heng and whose name will forever live in Internet infamy.



Thomas reposted a video of the funeral of a Traffic Policeman who died while on duty. Thomas then commented that his death was well deserve as Thomas was once given a traffic ticket by the same Traffic Policeman.

Even the Home Minister for Singapore, who is responsible for the Police Force, was offended by Thomas' statement.



The screenshot showed that post was marked global by the Globe image next to the Singapore tag which could hint that this post was meant for all to see. As such, the argument of a "private"post does not hold any weight here.

Just as expected, after this post was s…

Those Who Gamble Online Have Poorest Control - NCG Survey In 2012

Singapore will soon exempt local operators, Singapore Pools and Turf Club, from online gambling ban and the sites will be ready in November 2016.

Ministry of Home Affairs explained that a complete ban on remote gambling drives demand and activities underground, and may create larger incentives for criminal syndicates to target Singapore."

Yet in a 2012 survey by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCG) found that those who gamble online have the poorest control.

 Source: https://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Summary/research/EDGD/Gambling%20participation%20survey%202011.pdf
For those who indulged in online gambling, 30.4% said they gambled for a longer period than they planned to, 33.3% gambled with more money than they planned and 29.2% gambled more frequently they planned to. 
Will launching the online gambling sites be like opening a Pandora Box that will create more issues in the future?