Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Copyright Laws

No description
by

Darius Lum

on 12 March 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Copyright Laws

Thank You!
Copyright Laws
Introduction
Songs
Images
Photostating
Photostating is the reproduction of someone's work without his or her permission. Such acts carry a fine ranging from $10,000 to $200,000. This only applies if you steal more than 10% of someone's work.
Facebook
If one copied Miley Cyrus's Wrecking Ball music video and posted it on facebook, that would be considered copyright infringement if one did not include a link to her video. Miley Cyrus would have difficulties suing one for copying her video due to the difficulties of confirming that he stole it.
Content Page
Introduction Page
Copyright Laws in Singapore with relation to songs with case study
Copyright Laws in Singapore with relation to images with case study
Copyright Laws in Singapore with relation to photostating with case study
Copyright Laws in Singapore with relation to Facebook with case study
Summary
References
Names : Darius Lum (5), Chia Kwang Yang (4), Dexter Wong (6) and Dylan (7)
Class: Marcian 103
Tasks: Kwang Yang : A, B, C, D and I
Darius: E and I
Dexter: F and I
Dylan: G, H and I

Summary
References
To put it simply,
whoever writes the song owns the copyright and publishing revenue rights no matter if they were writing for a musical ensemble or they sold the recording. Those who use music without permission has to pay the owners of copyrights.
Images must be related to Singapore in a way.
If the person works for a company that requires the picture, the company has the copyright for the picture itself.
Copyright does not protect an idea but only the expression in a tangible form.( A picture , photo etc)
Copyright requires no registration unless the image is to be brought forth in court then it would require a certificate of copyright.
Copyright Laws protects an image for the owner's lifetime and 70 years after his/ her demise.
http://ppas.sg/site/index.php?Itemid=9&id=7&option=com_content&task=view
Case Study
During her summer vacation, a lecturer visits the Fundacio Miró in Barcelona. On seeing one of the paintings, the lecturer realises that it could form the basis of a lecture. She takes a photograph of the painting. Later she logs into her module web page. She uploads the photo of the artwork. The page has its security permissions set so that only staff and students can access it. The image will only be used in teaching of the module.
Case Study (Answers)
The lecturer has the copyright of her picture but not the painting so technically she is allowed to upload the image to her website for students to look at and discuss since she is the owner of the image. Therefore she is not violating any copyright laws on images.
https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/rbotoole/entry/four_case_studies/
http://wiki.nus.edu.sg/display/cs1105groupreports/Napster
(Changed it a little bit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_licensing (copied part of sentence)
http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/sph-demands-payment-from-local-sme-twelve-cupcakes-for-sharing-interviews-and-stories-written-about-them/ (changed a little bit)
Napster
-Music file-sharing system
-Created by Sean Parker and Shawn Flanning in 1998

Lawsuit against Napster
The recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) promptly filed a federal lawsuit against Napster in December 1999. It was responding to the fact that the recording industry realised that Napster was promoting the trading of files for free. This fact was noticed due to the popularity of Napster as a file sharing domain. RIAA did not directly sue Napster for copyright infringement. However, it alleged that the software used and services rendered allowed users to obtain copyrighted material free of charge.
A copyright is the right to copy or otherwise exploit a literary, musical or artistic work whether printed,audio,video etc. Under Singapore law, it is infringement as long as a substantial amount of the original work, quality wise, has been copied.
Lawsuit (cont.)
This made it responsible for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. In July 2000, Napster was issued a preliminary injunction to withdraw its music file sharing platform. Napster successfully appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay Judge Patel's preliminary injunction on July 28, 2000. Come February 12, 2001, the Court confirmed again that Napster was liable to the record companies for secondary liability, due to the contributory and vicarious nature of its service.
To summarize, copyright infringement is the violation of the rights secured by a copyright. Without such a law, anybody could just take what is not rightfully theirs and use it for their own personal gain.
Factors considered:
Direct Infringement by users
Contributory and Vicarious Infringement
Napster's "Fair Use" Defence
Statutory Defences
Facebook study
The boss of a successful home-grown SME ‘Twelve Cupcakes’ Daniel Ong was shocked to receive an email from Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) demanding payment for the interviews granted to its papers and magazines. Daniel Ong and his wife have given a couple of interviews to the SPH papers and magazines after which they share them with their ‘fans’ on Facebook and Twitter. However, SPH has sent them an email, saying that they would charge $535/story. They also charged him and his wife $214 to investigate them. Altogether, SPH has charged them around $3000 just for sharing on their social networking page. After they removed the articles, they still had to pay $214 for the investigation.
Case Study ( Answers )
12 Cupcakes had violated copyright rule by distributing the interview details whose copyright ownership belongs to Singapore Press Holdings. Therefore they had to pay over $3000 in compensation.
Case Study
A lecturer had seen a report online and thought it would be a good lecture topic. So she had edited the report and pasted the editted report on her students' website for their reference but the report contains more than 10% of the original report.
Case study( Answers)
The lecturer had violated the laws of copyright because she had copied 100% of the report instead of editing the report to that it contains less than 10% of the original report.
Full transcript