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.


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…

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.

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?

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 …