Now it’s Manila Bulletin’s turn. The newspaper filed a counter suit against photographer and blogger Anton Sheker.
Anton earlier filed a Php 1.2 Million copyright lawsuit against Manila Bulletin (including the graphics artist and section editor) for publishing his photos without his permission {see earlier story here and the first coverage here}.
In return, Manila Bulletin is suing back Anton with exemplary and moral damages for Php 2.0 Million. MB claims fair use in its publication of the photos.
The developments are getting juicer. Will post updates once I get a copy of the complaint.
Loading ...
do they share the same lawyers with sulpicio? LOL!
since when did blatant copyright infringement became ‘fair use’?
“Manila Bulletin is suing back Anton with exemplary and moral damages” - they are the one should sued by this thing. Theres no “fair use” to what MB did to Anton. (astig si kuya Abe, makakakuha pa ng copy)
MB filing counter charges is normal (I think) for most civil cases. Happened to us too in another civil case. copy of complaint is available to the public if you know what court it is filed.
I wonder if MB will settle. If civil case, first step is court annexed mediation before trial.
Shame on Manila Bulletin! They could not pay for the mere photos and they are the leading newspaper in the country (i think).
Good for Inquirer they pay for photos they published, i got paid.
Visit http://www.manilablog.com - win 10$ or a domain…
MB’s defense could go something like: if bloggers can use other bloggers’ photos on their sites, so can print media. Fair use.
Interesting. I’d like to see how this thing pans out.
This will be a landmark case.
I think this will end to a settlement.
Pero i hope it wont.. para magkaron na tayo ng legal reference sa mga ganitong issue.
i don’t think sir anton is after the money in the first place, its the principle of copyrights that is the issue. MB should be ashamed
If I remember correctly, JJ Disini said something to this effect during the 4th iBlog (I took notes, heh):
Though in a way, I agree with MiGs. Kailangang may legal reference talaga tayo.
The Philippines is largely emulating the U.S. copyright system. In the U.S. fair use is copyright infringement by definition but one that is legally allowed. So, not all forms of copyright infringement is illegal. Those that aren’t illegal are considered fair use.
Now, fair use is determined in a case-to-case basis. Just because it was deemed in one case that thumbnails are fair use doesn’t mean that all uses of thumbnails are also fair use. So while a ruling in the Sheker vs. MB case may set a precedent, it’s by no means a set-in-stone rule after.
Abe,
Thanks for the post.. i will refrain from saying anything for the moment.. we have 10… oops 9 days to file our reply..
more power anton!
turuan ng leksyon yang MB na yan!
bakit idinemanda? bakit hindi sinagot na lang yung unang demanda? ang gulo. nalilito ako.
offtopic: there’s an error on your paginated comments. I can’t read the previous comments, clicking the pages is sending me to the home page.
This is ridiculous. Companies like Manila Bulletin should realize that it’s just a hell of a lot cheaper to pay people for their work instead of filing ridiculous countersuits.
that mb! i will no longer buy that daily. anyhow puro classifieds lang naman laman nung paper nila. mag online claasifieds ads na lang tayo. not that i do buy dailies nowadays. MB is so proud, why not admit that they erred. iba talaga pag may armada of lawyers.
Hello.
I know that Anton has said that he’s not going to make any comment at this point (Reply #13), and it’s only right.
But I do hope he pursues this further. “Fair Use” doesn’t apply in this case. You only have to use your common sense. Manila Bulletin does not have a case. They’re acting like a big bully corporation trying to step on a hapless civilian, hoping he would go away. But really, they’ve got NOTHING. They’re bluffing and I hope Anton calls them on it.
It’s the classic case of “Sya na ang gumawa ng mali, sya pa ang galit.”
oh ano? simulan na ang call for MB boycott? marami pa namang ibang classifieds out there. saka wala naman laman ang panorama. LOL
anton,you should go ahead and meet MB head on. i agree with all the previous comments. MB doesn’t have a case. they are simply used to bullying and being big.and they’ve probably done this in the past but nobody as much as whimpered. rock and roll!
how can MB be so arrogant? but then if you’re big and have been used to bullying,you ignore RULES like copyright. i agree about simply paying up–how much is a contributor’s photo these days? they probably pay a measly 100-200 pesos. PDI pays 250 for contributors so I don’t think that’s too far away from MB’s price. anton would probably price his work much higher and it would be his right,of course. but MB would rather sue? such arrogance! go ahead anton and do them in. this will be an interesting case to watch. good luck out there.
Does anyone have a copy of MB’s response? I’m interested in how they are handling this issue. Most likely in instances like this, it is the fault of one person rather than the company, so I wonder why this developed into a counter suit banking on “fair use”.
That’s just Manila Bulletin’s way of intimidating Anton to drop the lawsuit. If Anton backs down because of it, that’s going to be a big blow to the entire bloggingcommunity kasi matatakot na ang lahat mag-upload ng digital content nila online.
TEAM ANTON!!!
This is why nobody reads the Bulletin anymore.
I wonder what is “fair use” when stealing images.
If anyone still gets the Manila Bulletin, scan one of their page 1 photos and use it for an article that the photo doesn’t suggest. Hey, why don’t everyone do that. Fair use.
i agree with mr patrick that this is a just a their (MB) to intimidate Anton to back down. instead of settling which would be admitting to the theft!
“That’s just Manila Bulletin’s way of intimidating Anton to drop the lawsuit. If Anton backs down because of it, that’s going to be a big blow to the entire bloggingcommunity kasi matatakot na ang lahat mag-upload ng digital content nila online.” -patrick e.
Manila Bulletin could have easily avoided this by publishing an errata, citing the lack of attribution for the original photos. Real newspapers do that all the time — mistakes are unavoidable, given the deadlines of putting the paper to bed. But, nooo, the Bulletin cannot be bothered with that little inconsequential detail.
Their fair use defense is laughable. IANAL, but I seem to recall that fair use is for criticism (for example) and adding new value to the body of knowledge as a whole. In my opinion, this one is a clear and blatant duplication of the original — an infringement — and cannot be defensible under the fair use doctrine.
How terribly creative of the MB legal team. Seriously, they should just settle and compensate the photo source. Local “big” companies are really such big fat bullies; no wonder a lot of SMEs and freelancers don’t want to bother even asserting their rights in the first place.
Go Anton!
can’t wait to here more of this.. ::) a bit scary pero worth the fight..
What? Fair use? They’re kidding right? WTF!
i for one will no longer be buying manila bulletin.