Technically, there may have been a breach of copyright (of whoever owns the copyrights in those photos), so these owners can sue.

But it is worth taking legal action against ST only if a decent amount can be claimed as damages (ie. monetary compensation). What these owners can claim as damages in turn depends on the loss suffered.

What loss did these bloggers suffer ? They are not famous so they can't claim that these pictures have a lot of commercial value (if printed and sold). Furthermore, they had voluntarily put up their pictures on the internet for everyone to see, so it may be argued that to begin with they did not place great commercial value on their pictures (otherwise they would have taken steps like inserting a copyright notice to warn against copying).

The copyright owners may by all means take this matter to court. It is however likely that they will be awarded only nominal damages (eg. $1).

the law is malleable in the little kingdom
-
`The police will look into the matter when a report is lodged` Cheryl Foo

For the royal family, but not for its peasants.

Would be nice to get the Shit Times. after all, they're famous for suing companies for putting an article/extract on the companie's website.

Yea sue the bastards!

What kind of standards do you expect from the 140th? Its only fit for lining the litter box of my doggie.

thats cruel. Straits Times has always been a reliable source of comic relief, and stomp is now carrying on the family tradition

I don't think it's a matter of getting damages, but the moral aspect of this issue. The Straits Times is the leading print media source in Singapore and should adhere to high standards of journalistic integrity.
This includes respecting copyright laws, and even if their usage falls under Fair Dealing, they should take the effort to get permission from the image owners (god knows, that's why there are comment boxes in blogs and private messages in Friendster)

I think the Straits Times owes an apology and shouldn't repeat this kind of action.

how silly can they get, to get themselves in such situations? it being a large part of the mainstream media, naturally gets alot of attention. and them doing such an act, definitely will get found out and grilled alive.

dont wanna talk about straits times anymore. i prefer a paper that is more govt-independent. if only straits times could be sued to their last penny, and an independent paper to take its place. this.. is revelation.

-lance.

I was the one who started the thread, and I called up the writer today. this was her response through email:

Hi Mr Quek,

Thanks for your call.

I checked. The pictures were taken from a selection of Singapore blogs and social networking sites. They were meant to depict how so many Singaporeans have got on to the blogging trend. My editors felt it would be interesting to trawl through the Internet in search of happy faces to illustrate the story. A few of my colleagues did this, so I'm not really sure how we came across your blog or site.

In addition, our lawyers had advised us that as there are no privacy laws in Singapore, the use of blog pictures does not infringe a person's privacy.

Nevertheless, if this has caused you any distress or inconvenience, I sincerely apologise.

Regards,

Sandra Leong
Journalist
Straits Times Life! & LifeStyle
Singapore Press Holdings
1000 Toa Payoh North
News Centre
E-mail: sandral@sph.com.sg

theres really no need for anyone to get upset with butchers
-
`Instead we have a political culture that values integrity, meritocracy and fairness`

So the editors made a mess. Didn't give proper instruction, did you? Heh. But still logically to ask each owner's permission prior to printing may take very long. Not practical & it's not like the owner would suffer any loss as a result of the (copyright) infringement. Oh wait, they're getting instant fame. Scary, huh? Bye, bye their much guarded privacy. Yeah right. And this is the thinking of those who blog? Puh-leaze.

I think the journalist apologizing is enough. She doesn't even have to do that. But she did. Whether she purposely evaded the issue of copyright infringement when the lawyers were consulted, nobody should conclude that. There's always a possibility that 1) the caller didn't convey clearly to her that the main concern about the copyright & NOT privacy or 2) she didn't convey clearly to the lawyers that the main concern about the copyright & NOT privacy.

Verbal sleight of hand.

Sandra Leong's response is technically correct but non-responsive to the copyright infringment allegations. It is true that there are no infringment of privacy laws in Singapore. It may also be true that they have good intentions for the use of the photos in newspaper article.

Neither of them are relevant for the purposes of copyright infringment.

you have to credit them for consistency.
-
`..because it makes me sad when I see old people carrying plates and cleaning the table at food courts`

Obviously, she thought some people were too dumb to tell the difference. Or maybe she didn't know the difference.

But then again, are we sure there aren't bloggers also guilty of the same alleged infringement, such as quoting massive chunks of news articles, sometimes entire ones, on their blogs or reproducing pictures/graphics/videos from other websites?

"So are you saying that Straits Times is now allowed to skirt aorund copyright issues since blogs do that?"

Is your motive a material or moral one? If it is the former, consult your lawyers. If it is the latter, consult your conscience.

Copyrights issue, subjective.

It's the choice of the title "iwant2befamous.com" and its juxtaposition with all the stolen pictures that is giving a very offensive non sequitur.

I happen to read the blog of one of the girls featured and heretofore, I find her rather private compared to most bloggers. I'd be really offended if I were her. In fact, I'm already annoyed by it.

"Dude", let me say

whatever personal feelings I have towards the article,
the main thing is the acknowledgement that copyrights be respected
and in the case of fair dealing, that proper acknowledgement of the copyright owners be given.

that is all.

I think that most blogs are on the creative commons licence. This means that you can quote, copyright laws do not apply to blogs. But the source must be acknowledged, that means that beside every photo on the montage, there had to be some acknowledgement about where the picture came from.

If a site like tomorrow has no qualms about profiling somebody else's blog, then how is it different just because it's the straits times?

I wonder if anyone would have complained if the article was a positive ego-boosting one.

word of the day: Naiveity

thats the word of the last 2 dynasties
-
`The Sultan and Temenggong gave up most of their administrative rights of the island, including the collection of port taxes, in return for lifelong monthly payments of $1500 and $800 respectively`

The solution is really very simple. If the copyright owner feels that he has a case, then take legal action. I am sure the lawyers will be more than happy to help him calculate the total damages. But of course, he has to be sure he is not digging his own grave in the peanut farm.

We are sending a letter in to The Straits Times which has been crafted in part by a lawyer., expressing our displeasure at the infringement of the Copyright Act
We would like to request the signing of this letter if you feel that this infringement of the Copyright Act reflects poorly on The Straits Times, the leading newspaper in Singapore.

Here is the link to the petition below

http://www.petitiononline.com/STCopyr/petition.html

The offending image can be found at

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7156/clipboard01hf9.jpg

We would like to request that you spread this link around for people to read and sign, and hopefully we can made our voices heard to The Straits Times as a group of people.

We would appreciate it if you give as much information about yourself so as to verify each signature on the letter.

Ultimately, our intention is not to gain any financial benefits from this letter. The response (or even the lack of response) we obtain from The Straits Times in relation to this letter will give us insight into their attitude towards their standards of journalism and ethics.

As a symbolic gesture, each signature on this letter will add more strength to it.