Saturday, 7 July 2012

Singapore Press Holidings' tussle with former radio DJ Daniel Ong

CLARIFICATIONS FROM SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS AND DANIEL ONG 

Cupcake storm: SPH reiterates copyright claims

SINGAPORE - In response to the complaints made by former-radio presenter Daniel Ong over Facebook on Thursday, media company Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) yesterday expressed over Facebook that it "does not object to the use of our articles for personal use (subject to limits prescribed by law) or in relation to other allowed exceptions under the law".

The dispute started when Mr Ong claimed he was charged "about S$3,000" by SPH, for reproducing SPH magazine and newspaper articles about his actress wife Jamie Teo, and their cupcake bakery Twelve Cupcakes, on their social media accounts and their company's website.

Mr Ong believed their actions had helped promote the articles and the SPH publications they were in, so he was upset that SPH would take them to task for reproducing the articles 

read more 

Daniel Ong says tussle with SPH is about "transparency", not copyright law 

SINGAPORE: "I am not contesting the copyright law!" said former-radio presenter Daniel Ong in another lengthy Facebook post on Saturday.

"SPH! I'm asking for more transparency! Or new rules in your organization that make your editorial team provide a disclaimer every time they interview someone!"

Ong was responding to a Straits Times article that same day, in which SPH reiterated that those who wanted to reproduce any of its articles for commercial purposes must pay a licensing fee. 

read more

Soicalpr.blogspot.sg
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) "Full story
Related:
SPH’s new extortion business “a stroke of genius” - Newnation.sg
SPH demands money from SMEs for interviews conducted and stories covered - Hardwarezone Forum

 

read more 

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. 


Cut and paste a Straits Times article and it could cost you SGD749

Cutting and pasting an article from the online version of The Straits Times into your blog or website is as easy pressing CTRL-C and CTRL-V. A website owner did just that and it might result in him SGD749 poorer.

Temasek Review wrote that Mr Gilbert Goh, the owner operator of transitioning.org, received a lawyer’s letter demanding he pay SGD$535.00 (Incl GST) being licence fees per article per year and $214.00 (Incl GST) being reimbursement to the legal firm in respect of their investigation fee.

I am not surprised by this as the article produced by The Straits Times is a copyright of their publisher, Singapore Press Holding. However, I am slightly surprised the reactions that people have over this.

This article came in useful for me as I stopped a client from posting an article about them on Facebook wholesale as I knew it was against the copy rights of The Straits Times.

I was searching for the cost, but it wasn’t that easy to find at The Straits Times website or at Singapore Press Holdings.
But do note that the licence fees is per article per year which means you have to renew it yearly.

So think twice before you cut and paste an article wholesale from the principal site.

It is also interesting to note that the Singapore Press Holdings have also been accused of infringing of the copyright of websites.

In August of 2009, Redsports.sg highlighted that they spotted a photo with the Redsports watermark was conveniently cropped off and posted on a SPH website and one its papers.

Wrote Redsports,
What part of “© REDSPORTS.SG” did they not understand? (© is the universally accepted symbol that stands for copyright)
The photo was taken by Marvin Lowe, a Red Sports volunteer, who confirmed that Omy did not at any time seek his permission to use the photo. Neither did they ask us. We would have rejected them outright because of the intended use of the photo.
Given the circumstances of the story, we think the infringement is especially vile. A young girl died tragically. Was OMY so eager to give a face to the story that they would stoop so low as to rip off someone else’s picture?
At the bottom of the www.omy.sg website, there is a line that says: SPH Copyright ©
The double standard.
read more

What is Copyright? (ntu.edu.sg)

Copyright is an intellectual property right recognized and protected by law. In Singapore this is essentially covered under the Copyright Act (Cap. 63).

Copyright exists in all forms of works, such as books, periodicals, magazines, compilations of information, photographs, diagrams, dances, scripts for plays, computer programs, drawings, sculpture, musical scores, lyrics, sound recordings, cinematographic films, television broadcasts, sound recordings and cable programme etc.

Who Owns Copyright and What Does It Entitle?

Generally, the author of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is the owner of the copyright.

In the case of other forms of copyrighted materials etc, sound recordings and films, the producer is the copyright owner, although in both cases, these rights could be subject to assignments. 

read more 

SPH’s new extortion business “a stroke of genius”

Struck by lacklustre newspaper sales and a series of unfortunate incidents which has dealt a severe blow to its credibility, Singapore Press Holdings, the country’s most reliable source of news, has unveiled an extortion business unit in an attempt to recover lost profits.

The new department, called STEAL, adopts the best practices from loansharks — by asking small businesses to pay exorbitant hidden fees after they are featured in any of SPH’s publications.

This is in line with SPH’s mission to engage minds and enrich lives — their own.

STEAL’s most recent client is celebrity couple Daniel Ong and Jaime Teo, who run a successful business called Twelve Cupcakes. They were recently interviewed by The Straits Times, The New Paper, plus a couple of magazines, all owned by SPH. The couple shared the stories on their Facebook Page, as anyone would.

Unexpectedly, SPH sent an email to the wife, demanding what is claimed to be about $3,000 in payment for sharing the content. Daniel, playing nice, took the stories down.

But SPH replied by saying that they also need to pay a $214 “investigation” fee. The entire story is narrated in a Facebook note by Daniel Ong. 

read more 

SPH demands money from SMEs for interviews conducted and stories covered 

GLGT: SPH bully 12 Cupcakes!

Share share share! In support of SME in SG and all other people who got screwed by large corporations!

It's arguable whether 12 cupcakes deserved it for violating copyright laws, but investigation fee as well?????
Eg: Can I charge Singtel $500 for making me waste my time figuring out I had to clear my browser cache every time before I can log into their stupid website to pay my monthly bill?

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.ph...d=256318402630

Hi Guys,

So we've been consumed with something we received in the mail recently. Here's the story in a nutshell.

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.

We granted a couple of interviews to SPH...ST and TNP and Jaime was also on a couple of Covers of their magazines . We love the fact that some people are interested to find out about us and what we are up to,how our biz has grown etc... and we are also on good terms with the editorial staff...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)

So...Where's the mutual benefit here? They write about us...We help spread the word about the article...they get more readers and readership...Everyone happy...no? SPH then writes us to say we need to pay!!!

Did you know? Biz owners are not allowed to share stories about themselves on their websites unless they pay... Stalls/cafes etc ...cant photocopy and then put it at their stalls or sign boards for people to see...Unless they pay...

I NEVER KNEW THAT!!!

Whats even better... i replied them saying we will take down all articles and we get a super cold reply saying "Since you will remove the articles..." YOU NOW NEED TO PAY SPH $214 as an investigation fee on you. HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

They then said...just coz they published an advert on ST once about this new rule...EVERYONE must know it. and therefore you have been duly informed...resulting in you sharing the story and infringing on their rules. HUH? how many people read ST??? why has it become the bible?

They then added, there was 4 workshops about these new rules...I WASNT EVEN INVITED?!?!?!?!? How should i know about your rules?

Is something amiss here? am i the only one? apparently not, coz tons of people feel my bewilderment...this is insane!

Hossan leong replied and said ..."it IS weird...coz we are the ones providing them the CONTENT in the first place!!"

Mr Brown retweeted me and then BOOM , hundreds of replies on twitter on how absurd they think this is. Neil humphreys is shocked too. Except one lady who replied to say she is a SPH shareholder...and she loves the way her company is getting her profits. hahaha...

Me n jaime are still puzzled as well. Guess we should give scoops and story angles to Mediacorp instead huh? They havn't written to ask for any money yet. LOL.

Only one thing to do now...first thing in the morning...

Cancel my ST subscription.

Sigh...i just dont get it. What would you do? How would you react?

dan.

Yahoo! reaches settlement on counterclaim against SPH

Yahoo! has reached a settlement in its counterclaim against Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) on the publication of Yahoo!'s original material on the Singapore media firm's STOMP site without permission.

In line with the settlement, Yahoo! has withdrawn its counterclaim, and each party will bear their own legal costs. 


Yahoo! pledges vigorous defense against SPH claim 

Yahoo! Southeast Asia filed on Tuesday a memorandum of appearance with the courts to defend itself against allegations by Singapore Press Holdings that the digital media company had infringed on its copyright.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this suit," Yahoo! Southeast Asia managing editor Alan Soon said on Wednesday. "Our editorial business model of acquired, commissioned and original content is proven."

In its claim, SPH cited 23 articles which it alleged were reproduced from its stable of newspapers without permission. Yahoo! has denied the allegations in an earlier letter to SPH's lawyers. 

read more

Copyright case: SPH amends claim against Yahoo

The ink has not dried on this one. Just when the legal tussle between news giant Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Internet resources provider Yahoo seemed to be making ground towards a resolution, a new development has turned the heat up.

SPH yesterday filed an amended statement of claim against Yahoo in relation to its suit against the latter for copyright infringement, taking the number of articles infringed to 254.

In court filings last November, SPH alleged that the US-based Internet company had reproduced news content from its newspapers without permission. 

read more