save the photographers, pt 2
[this started out as a reply to Ivan's comment in the last post, but got much too wordy for the comment box, and has therefore come into its own as a post with more explanation and refinement of the ideas expressed previously.]
Although much of Singaporean legislation is inherited and/or copied wholesale from the UK, the cultural bias is not merely due to the inheritance of the UK's cultural reasons as well because the UK copyright provisions no longer differentiate photographs from other artistic works - they are artistic works full-stop. No exception, no ifs buts maybes or perhaps.
If Singaporean legislators thought that photography was a valid and valuable art form, they could very well have amended the legislation similarly so as to give the same protection to photographs as they do to artistic works in general.
And also note that the NAC and other arts-related governmental bodies or government-related organisations represent those in the 'traditional' arts such as painting, sculpting, drawing, but not photographers.
Photographers don't have any representation at those levels because photography is not seen by the most part of society as an art form, but a technical skill that can be picked up upon by anybody and everybody. Because, obviously anyone can pick up a camera and start taking photographs, but not everyone can buy watercolours and start painting. Like, give me a break.
But, really, what I take offence at is not the cultural bias, because that is a given - legislation generally lags behind social acceptance/recognition (e.g. the continuing illegality of homosexuality in Singapore). What is offensive is that it is the little person (i.e. the photographer) who has to burden him/herself with the responsibility of varying or negotiating a contract for service so as to gain more rights for him/herself.
Under UK legislation, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states in section 11(1) that
There is therefore no other provision for works made under an agreement for valuable consideration, much less one specifically noting that the copyright in photographic works belongs to the person hiring the photographer for that particular job. The photographer is therefore the owner of his works and the copyright within his works unless he is an employee, and even then the rights are negotiable.
If there were similar legislation in Singapore, photographers acting as independent contractors would be in full ownership of their rights. This would enable them to give away/contract for less rights with those hiring them, but not leave them without any copyright as is possible under Singaporean legislation. The burden would then be on the other party to negotiate with the photographer for the permission to use his or her work in particular ways, rather than on the photographer to prevent it.
The funny thing is if, as I mentioned in the previous post, that more and more companies turn to foreign photographers to shoot their campaigns etc, those photographers would not only charge more for their services, but would also retain more rights than any Singaporean photographer is entitled to under the present legislation. But then again, it is because they are foreign and talented that we give them more concessions than locals, right?
So, there are several ways to change the situation. Professional photographers could a professional body to represent them and protect their rights, with accreditation and referencing systems. Or, they could use written standard form contracts which state exactly which rights are given up, for what purposes and for how long.
Or, they could work outside of Singapore and be very established there (case in point: Clang) - go to Europe, they have moral rights on top of copyright - and thus get greater protection, and could also come back to Singapore and charge higher prices whilst retaining more rights because they have overseas experience, and because they are basically the prodigal children returning into the fold and you'd give them anything they wanted to as to prevent another escape.
There's no point whining about the sad state of photography in Singapore unless someone's going to do something about it. And if the photographers in Singapore could look at the wider picture rather than be concerned solely with their own rice-bowls (of course it's important, but other things matter too), perhaps some joint effort would result in great leaps and bounds in copyright protection for photographers and their works.
If they don't save themselves, who will?
Although much of Singaporean legislation is inherited and/or copied wholesale from the UK, the cultural bias is not merely due to the inheritance of the UK's cultural reasons as well because the UK copyright provisions no longer differentiate photographs from other artistic works - they are artistic works full-stop. No exception, no ifs buts maybes or perhaps.
If Singaporean legislators thought that photography was a valid and valuable art form, they could very well have amended the legislation similarly so as to give the same protection to photographs as they do to artistic works in general.
And also note that the NAC and other arts-related governmental bodies or government-related organisations represent those in the 'traditional' arts such as painting, sculpting, drawing, but not photographers.
Photographers don't have any representation at those levels because photography is not seen by the most part of society as an art form, but a technical skill that can be picked up upon by anybody and everybody. Because, obviously anyone can pick up a camera and start taking photographs, but not everyone can buy watercolours and start painting. Like, give me a break.
But, really, what I take offence at is not the cultural bias, because that is a given - legislation generally lags behind social acceptance/recognition (e.g. the continuing illegality of homosexuality in Singapore). What is offensive is that it is the little person (i.e. the photographer) who has to burden him/herself with the responsibility of varying or negotiating a contract for service so as to gain more rights for him/herself.
Under UK legislation, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states in section 11(1) that
11.—(1) The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.also, under S90(2),
(2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.
an assignment or other transmission of copyright may be partial, that is, limited so as to apply—
(a) to one or more, but not all, of the things the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do.
There is therefore no other provision for works made under an agreement for valuable consideration, much less one specifically noting that the copyright in photographic works belongs to the person hiring the photographer for that particular job. The photographer is therefore the owner of his works and the copyright within his works unless he is an employee, and even then the rights are negotiable.
If there were similar legislation in Singapore, photographers acting as independent contractors would be in full ownership of their rights. This would enable them to give away/contract for less rights with those hiring them, but not leave them without any copyright as is possible under Singaporean legislation. The burden would then be on the other party to negotiate with the photographer for the permission to use his or her work in particular ways, rather than on the photographer to prevent it.
The funny thing is if, as I mentioned in the previous post, that more and more companies turn to foreign photographers to shoot their campaigns etc, those photographers would not only charge more for their services, but would also retain more rights than any Singaporean photographer is entitled to under the present legislation. But then again, it is because they are foreign and talented that we give them more concessions than locals, right?
So, there are several ways to change the situation. Professional photographers could a professional body to represent them and protect their rights, with accreditation and referencing systems. Or, they could use written standard form contracts which state exactly which rights are given up, for what purposes and for how long.
Or, they could work outside of Singapore and be very established there (case in point: Clang) - go to Europe, they have moral rights on top of copyright - and thus get greater protection, and could also come back to Singapore and charge higher prices whilst retaining more rights because they have overseas experience, and because they are basically the prodigal children returning into the fold and you'd give them anything they wanted to as to prevent another escape.
There's no point whining about the sad state of photography in Singapore unless someone's going to do something about it. And if the photographers in Singapore could look at the wider picture rather than be concerned solely with their own rice-bowls (of course it's important, but other things matter too), perhaps some joint effort would result in great leaps and bounds in copyright protection for photographers and their works.
If they don't save themselves, who will?
posted by ejl at 11:07 am
2 Comments:
Enjoyed a lot! » »
Hi,
I found your blog via a search for photographer's rights in Singapore.
I'd like to ask you a few questions -- basically I was stopped from taking photos of a series of bars along a famous nightspot in Singapore. I was on the public sidewalk and not in the establishment premises.
Is it legal for the staff to tell me (rather rudely) that I was not permitted to take photos, in the absence of any such signs or indications to the contrary?
I'd really appreciate some feedback as I am very outraged at the incident.
Thanks,
Eileen
Post a Comment
<< Home