• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Former Radio Deejay In Copyright Tussle With SPH

Conqueror

Alfrescian
Loyal
630Facebook_twelvecupcakes.jpg



Former radio deejay Daniel Ong and his wife Jaime Teo are embroiled in a copyright tussle with Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) over a series of articles about his cupcake business.

In a Facebook post on Thursday, Ong, 36, said he was first approached by SPH writers and granted several interviews to The Straits Times (ST) and The New Paper who wanted to feature his successful four-outlet bakery business Twelve Cupcakes.

His wife, Miss Singapore Universe in 2001, has also appeared on the covers of SPH-owned magazines such as Her World and Nu You.

Shortly after he started sharing the published stories on his website and social media accounts, he received a bill from SPH stating he owed the company about S$3,000 for republishing their stories without permission.

After he offered to remove the articles from Twelve Cupcakes' Facebook page and website, he was told that he still had to pay S$214 for the "investigation fee" incurred by legal costs.

"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 [to] us to say we need to pay!," said Ong, in a Facebook note on Thursday night.

"Did you know? Business owners are not allowed to share stories about themselves on their websites unless they pay… Stalls/cafes can't photocopy and then put it at their stalls or signboards… unless they pay," he added.

His post has since gone viral and has been shared close to 900 times as of Friday afternoon.
Ong's supporters have stood behind the couple and called the move by SPH "ridiculous".

"It was not you who approach them to spread the word about your business. It was them who initiated it right? So what's their point? This is daylight robbery," supporter Tarsheeni Tania said on Ong's note.

However, Ong is not the only one who's had to pay the price for reposting SPH articles about his own business.

A similar tussle happened in 2010 to Gilbert Goh, the founder of unemployment support group Transitioning, when he received an email asking for payment for a ST article. According to SocialPR, Goh received a lawyer's letter demanding he pay $749 (for an article and investigation fees) for reposting a ST article.

Television host Hossan Leong also chimed in on the incident and commented on Ong's Facebook, "Yeah, they call us for stories and quotes, but if we want to use them later on whichever platform, we have to pay for it. Which I've been doing because I need the articles for my website."

EXPERTS SAY…

Despite the ruckus caused, Singapore Management University's (SMU) law professor Saw Cheng Lim said SPH does have a case and can stake a copyright claim against Ong.

"Even though Daniel has allowed the journalists to do a write-up on his business etc, the copyright in the published article still belongs to SPH (as employer of the journalists) and not to Daniel. Daniel merely contributed the basic ideas and information surrounding his business, but it was the journalists who compiled all the information … into a full-blown feature/story which was subsequently published by SPH," he said.

However, SPH should make a compromise on the $214 investigation fee, as a sign of goodwill, if Daniel has taken the necessary steps to remove the articles.

"What does SPH hope to achieve by doing this, expect to make more enemies out of its readers? I believe that copyright owners must be able to distinguish between genuine cases of ignorance of the law and those copyright pirates who make a living/profit from engaging in copyright-infringing activities on a regular basis," Prof Saw said.

Yahoo! Singapore has contacted SPH, which said it is preparing a reply.
 

kingrant

Alfrescian
Loyal
Maybe SPH has the legal rights lah, but must they exrecise it? Is the SPH Goliath doing a Durai on the poor chap? Like that, how about all those hawkers who paste laminated write-ups by ST/NP/today/Mediacorp etc in front of their stalls? Why don't go after them too? Talk about helping our SMEs to grow, this is one example where lip service is paid only lah by govt.
 
Last edited:

Alamaking

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Then how about those famous food stalls placing their news articles in front of their stall, also have to pay?
 
Last edited:

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I see any food stalls with the write up's from any of the local press including the whatever 'sutra' or photos of the owners with any of the "pappies" or any artistes, I give those stalls a miss. They can be sure to be over priced, over hyped, and worst value for money.
 

yinyang

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Probably SOP by in-house legal eagles. Even after backdown (to avoid underdog lobby), he's making a big meal of it. No commercials
 

Jumong

Alfrescian
Loyal
Like that, how about all those hawkers who paste laminated write-ups by ST/NP/today/Mediacorp etc in front of their stalls? Why don't go after them too?

Think of it this way. SPH is the publisher of the book and you're the protagonist in the book. The publisher pays for everything, including circulation of the published books. SPH is the rightful owner - copyright owner - of the published works, though the book is all about you.

I think there is a difference between pasting an original newspaper write-up on your stall front versus photocopying an original newspaper write-up. It's like putting the original book which you paid good money on your stall front and making a copy and putting it up on your stall front. The copying or republishing itself is an infringement.

I would say the hawkers who put up on their stall front the 'original newspapers cuttings' did not infringe the copyright laws.
 

Devil Within

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
SPH is so desperate for money since losing readership and advertisers, that they have to go after these small files after tricking them with an interview write up. How laughable.
 

Nik1971

Alfrescian
Loyal
He is trying to get free publicity for themselves, period.


Yeah! SPH should just sue and take him to the Cleaners! this Daniel is chow Kar!

SPH do not be cowed by this David vs Golliah stuff. Sue him and see what he is made of!

Make sure he pay, u can't write off this! Call his bluff
 
Last edited:
Top