SPH smelly?

[Kklee]

7 hours ago, Eyke said:

i take a photo/video of someone, the IP belongs to me

Can I then use the photo/video of the someone  where the IP belongs to you for the purpose of criticism, review or reporting of current event while giving sufficient acknowledgement to you?

[Columbian78]

11 hours ago, t0y0ta said:

Liew Mun Leong is lucky to have this guy to contrast with him.

At least LML did not actively destroy the companies placed under him by Ah Gong.

If a young Liew Mun Leong in his prime 50s is put in charge of SPH in the year 2020, things may not turn out any better.

If Ng Yat Chung was put in charge of Capitaland during the early 2000s, he might become a legend.

[Mustank]

12 hours ago, Columbian78 said:

If a young Liew Mun Leong in his prime 50s is put in charge of SPH in the year 2020, things may not turn out any better.

If Ng Yat Chung was put in charge of Capitaland during the early 2000s, he might become a legend.

Amd was losing for years

they brought in a genius 

 

[Will_I_Am]

On 9/12/2020 at 11:34 AM, Spurman said:

The low res photo makes a typical breathless unker next door

Ng Yat Chung was my CO @ 3 DIV donkey years back. I remembered always got Fried Bee Hoon and nuggets for these high flyers during Exercise. Life was good for them. 😎

[ToyotaShuttle]

On 9/13/2020 at 11:25 AM, Mustank said:

Amd was losing for years

they brought in a genius 

 

 

Are you talking about Jim Keller or Lisa Su?

[Mustank]

7 minutes ago, ToyotaShuttle said:

Are you talking about Jim Keller or Lisa Su?

Actually I also Donno who is the one who make money for amd hahaha

[Angcheek]

Now SC ads also damn smelly .... block 30% of my mcf screen 😄

 

After posting this ... now ok . Thry must be reading here 😜

Edited September 14, 2020 by Angcheek

[Mustank]

good deal

[Atrecord]

On 9/12/2020 at 9:08 PM, Kklee said:

Can I then use the photo/video of the someone  where the IP belongs to you for the purpose of criticism, review or reporting of current event while giving sufficient acknowledgement to you?

The answer should be yes.

[Atrecord]

On 9/12/2020 at 10:05 AM, Jusnel said:

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/11/straits-times-removes-homes-video-interview-with-lawyer-anil-balchandani-after-being-called-out-for-not-seeking-consent-for-use-of-video/

Not just the unauthorized use of video without getting permission 

I didn't know that they actually charge people for using their own videos.

Is this an international practice or just uniquely Singapore?

SPH wants to run a story on me, using me as the main object of the story. Without me, SPH has nothing to talk and nothing to sell. I want to use the video and I have to pay SPH?

Nowadays with home made videos and digital storyboard creation, people can create their own videos, do their own interviews, and placed them in all social media platforms GLOBALLY.  

What value proposition does SPH has?

What is it that SPH can do, that other platforms cannot do? 

If they can't answer these 2 questions, they are fossilised in this digital age. 

It sounds like thug bullying to me.

SPH charges an arm and a leg if you want to reproduce materials 'created' by them, under permission.

So if they charge people so much, then they themselves should know better than to reproduce other's IP without permission. This is outrageous.

It's also mentioned that when SPH takes photos/videos, very often the subject matter of the photos/videos cannot get to use the photos/videos too. This can actually be negotiated beforehand. If you want to interview me or make a video or take a photo of me or my company, you will need my permission/cooperation. As the condition of my giving my permission/cooperation to you to take the photo/video, i would want you to let me use the photo/video for <whatever purpose>.  State this clearly to them and have them agree in writing before the interview/shoot. If they think your photo/video is important enough, they will agree. If not, then no deal.

[Atrecord]

On 9/12/2020 at 11:38 AM, Ct3833 said:

Provided the personnel given loyalty fees first. If the person gets nothing,  then it is not fair to charge him for using the video, especially for personal use only.

If the interviewee wanna be paid, must be agreed beforehand - but I don't think this is common practice. As stated, if want to use the video, a smarter way is to negotiate and have agreement in writing, before the interview takes place.

Minor point: it should be royalty, not loyalty 😊

 

On 9/12/2020 at 11:02 AM, yishunite said:

The use of HOME video without permission prolly violates PDPA on several levels. Thats why quickly taken down

It's not PDPA in this case, it's copyright infringement.

 

On 9/12/2020 at 11:18 AM, Mcscot said:

Ohhhhh ... this is common SPH practice. I remembered the last time my company used an article ST wrote about us and we were told to remove it as it violated copyrights. We needed to pay ST a fee to use the article on our website etc etc.

I wonder if they do the same to the Hawkers they feature in the food section.

Depends on what's the T&Cs agreed on before they interviewed/featured the stalls/companies. If never asked, SPH will prob act blur and continue their usual practice. 

But if you cut out newspapers of the feature article and display it, they should not be able to do anything.

 

On 9/12/2020 at 10:39 AM, Stratovarius said:

Actually I don't think that's wrong. They are the one who created the article. So the article is their property. The subject might be you but sph is the one who created the article. If you use their article as a form of advertisement, I think they have the right to charge. No?

It's like those food shows on mediacorp. I always feel that the shop owners paid mediacorp to advertise them on tv. 

Yes, whatever they created is their IP, but then they - of all people - should be very vigilant about IP for the same reason. So taking HOME's video without permission is a serious - not honest - mistake.

[Kklee]

5 hours ago, Atrecord said:

The answer should be yes.

Eh... sure yes one. 

[Kklee]

5 hours ago, Atrecord said:

Yes, whatever they created is their IP, but then they - of all people - should be very vigilant about IP for the same reason. So taking HOME's video without permission is a serious - not honest - mistake.

AFAIK and IMHO.
Ownership and usage is totally different.
In the Copyright Act,  there is a provision for fair dealing where one can use certain IP for specific purposes without infringement. 

There could be many reasons to take down the video - I would think one of which is to avoid future cost. 

P.S.   when using video and especially images,  do avoid mis-representation.
 

[Atrecord]

1 hour ago, Kklee said:

AFAIK and IMHO.
Ownership and usage is totally different.
In the Copyright Act,  there is a provision for fair dealing where one can use certain IP for specific purposes without infringement. 

There could be many reasons to take down the video - I would think one of which is to avoid future cost. 

P.S.   when using video and especially images,  do avoid mis-representation.
 

The future cost = damages?

i don't see how fair dealing can be relied on in this case.

[Kklee]

40 minutes ago, Atrecord said:

The future cost = damages?

i don't see how fair dealing can be relied on in this case.

IMHO.
If ligation begins, there is a cost - win or lose. 

For discussion purposes,  in what way you do see fair dealing  unable to be relied on in this case ? 
 

[Jusnel]

8 hours ago, Atrecord said:

SPH charges an arm and a leg if you want to reproduce materials 'created' by them, under permission.

So if they charge people so much, then they themselves should know better than to reproduce other's IP without permission. This is outrageous.

It's also mentioned that when SPH takes photos/videos, very often the subject matter of the photos/videos cannot get to use the photos/videos too. This can actually be negotiated beforehand. If you want to interview me or make a video or take a photo of me or my company, you will need my . As the condition of my giving my permission/cooperation to you to take the photo/video, i would want you to let me use the photo/video for <whatever purpose>.  State this clearly to them and have them agree in writing before the interview/shoot. If they think your photo/video is important enough, they will agree. If not, then no deal

Everyone should have a hard stand that SPH shld allow the usage of their curated videos/materials of the subjects.

Again in this digital age, SPH should ask themselves what is the value proposition they can offer? 

Last time dinosaur age, readership and viewership are through their papers and advertising.  If I I want to advertise myself, I have to ask SPH to interview me and write stories about me, hoping that people will read about me on papers and TV.

Now? What options do I have if I want to advertise myself?  Definitely not through SPH anymore.  The other options on hand are free and easily accessible by anyone in the world.

 

[Stratovarius]

On 9/12/2020 at 10:47 AM, Jusnel said:

Yeah, the most impt component is the subject. Without any subject, what article can they create?

This may be the biz model all along, but at this digital age, it's time to change the model.

Last time, the only means is through mainstream like SPH, ST, etc.  The common people have no access to other means.

Now is different. I don't need SPH or ST to run my story. I can create my own storyboard with video and whatnot and put them in any platform I want. 

Again, we got to ask the fundamental question: What value proposition does SPH has? 

We can't change how a company functions. It's their policy and they probably will bring this out before settling for the interview. 

But as a company, they have their own interest to protect. If I produce a product and allow people to distribute freely, who will pay for my product in the future?

As consumer, you definity can do your own video and share it on social media. If you are doing this professionally, you would want to monetise from your video. Say in a similar situation, you do an interview of a person and put up on your YouTube channel and found out the person you interviewed put the same video on his/her personal channel, taking away view counts from your channel and affecting your income. Would you do something about it?

[Stratovarius]

9 hours ago, Atrecord said:

Yes, whatever they created is their IP, but then they - of all people - should be very vigilant about IP for the same reason. So taking HOME's video without permission is a serious - not honest - mistake.

Ya. They are not practising what they preach. HOME can definity take action even when sph took the video down. Like the "admin fee" they charged others. 😂