copyright case study in singapore

• Legal Services
• Support Team
• The Law & You
• Spiritual Well

• Intellectual Property , The Law & You

Hotel Caught Copying Artist’s Work Without Permission

Samuel yuen.

• December 20, 2016

On Dec 2015, Singaporean artist Richard Lee Xin Li was displeased to find that an artwork showcased in Hotel Indigo Singapore Katong included a modified version of his work. The hotel is run by the InterContinental Hotels Group, and the Group’s representative stated that Mr Li’s work was unknowingly used.

In Singapore, artwork is protected under the Copyright Act. Copyright in most countries, including Singapore, takes effect automatically. This means that there is no requirement for registration of the copyright, and the artist does not need to comply with any other formalities for his work to be protected. The artist will have exclusive rights in dealing with the art. For example, he owns the exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, and broadcast the work.

What Happens if Copyright is Infringed?

Where a copyright owner’s rights have been infringed, some civil remedies that the court can order include:

• An account of profits from the infringer to the copyright owner;
• An injunction to prevent the infringer from dealing in the copyrighted work;
• Ordering the infringer to pay damages to the copyright owner; and
• Ordering the destruction of the infringing copies of the work.

Furthermore, copyright infringement may also attract criminal liability. Someone who wilfully commits copyright infringement could be fined up to $20,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 6 months for a first offence.

Additionally, the public image of the business might suffer due to negative media coverage. The news of the copyright infringement might be especially detrimental to the business given the current prevalence of social media. The relationships between the business and both the artist and the artist’s supporters might also be adversely affected.

How Can Businesses Ensure That They are Not Infringing On Others’ Artwork?

The copyright in an artwork is likely infringed when someone other than the copyright owner deals in the work. If businesses would like to use an artwork, they should first obtain permission from the owner of the copyright. Alternatively, businesses can choose to use older artworks that are no longer copyrighted. For example, artwork that was published during the lifetime of the author will not be protected by copyright 70 years after the artist’s death.

Where businesses commission artwork, they can ensure the originality of the work by entering into a contract with the artist. The service agreement can state that the artwork has to be independently created and not copied from another source. The contract can also state that the artist indemnifies the commissioner from any liability that may arise from copyright infringement.

For assistance regarding intellectual property matters, do contact us to make an appointment.

Related Articles

White-Collar Crime & Investigations

Construction Law

Personal Injury & Motor Accident

Commercial & Civil Litigation

How to Respond to a Letter of Demand?

How to Defend a Lawsuit: Responding to a Writ of Summons in Singapore

SEND AN INQUIRY

For press enquiries, please contact:

Cheryl Mok 

Business Development & Marketing

[email protected]

Forward Thinking, Future Planning

Firm brochure, careers    |    privacy policy.

• +65 6536 6037
• [email protected]
• www.yuenlaw.com.sg
• 50 South Bridge Road #02-00 / #03-00 / #04-00 Singapore 058682

© Yuen Law LLC 2021

Message us on WhatsApp

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy

Developments in Singapore Copyright Law – Compilations, Fair Dealing and Originality in Derivative Works

I. introduction.

• Two recent decisions, one each from the High Court and Court of Appeal saw the Singapore Courts clarify / affirm certain principles in copyright law. This article explores these two cases in relation to the copyright doctrines of compilations, fair use and originality.

II. COMPILATIONS AND FAIR DEALING

• Both the plaintiff and defendant in Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd 1 (“ Global Yellow Pages ”) are publishers of telephone directories. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed its copyright in its directories by copying material owned by the plaintiff.
• The first issue that arose for determination is whether copyright subsists in the plaintiff’s telephone directories. A telephone directory is essentially a compilation of facts / data and whether this was sufficient to cross the threshold of originality had to be determined by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that: &nbps; For copyright to subsist in any literary work, there must be an authorial creation that is causally connected with the engagement of the human intellect … A compiler must exercise sufficient creativity in selecting or arranging the material within the compilation; and if the compiler does so, the resulting copyright will only protect the original expression in the form of the selection or arrangement of the material. 2
• Having found that only the arrangement of the Business Listings attracted copyright (albeit a “thin” one), there was nevertheless no copyright infringement as all that the defendant took was the data in the plaintiff’s directories. The plaintiff sought to mount the argument during the appeal that the defendant’s temporary database was an infringing work. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument on the basis that this was not sufficiently pleaded at the outset. 7 Nonetheless, even if the plaintiff could rely on the defendant’s temporary database, its claim for copyright infringement would have likewise failed on the basis that the defence of fair dealing would have succeeded.
• The purpose and character of the dealing, including whether such dealing is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
• The nature of the work or adaptation;
• The amount and substantiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole work or adaptation;
• The effect of the dealing upon the potential market for, or value of, the work or adaptation; and
• The possibility of obtaining the work or adaptation within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.
• Purpose of character of the dealing – this factor would require a Court to compare “the purposes of the infringing work and the original work and assess whether the dealing was fair” 9 . The Court of Appeal held that “the fact that the original and infringing works share the same purpose will tend to weigh against a finding of fair dealing” 10 . Also, the fact that commercial exploitation drives the dealing would generally (being simply one of the many factors to be considered) weigh against a finding of fair dealing. 11
• Nature of the work – the inquiry here is targeted at whether the type of work in question results in it being “closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others, with the consequence that fair use is more difficult to establish when the former works are copied” 12 . The Court of Appeal gave the example whereby fair dealing is less likely to be applicable to fiction-based (as opposed to fact-based) works because copyright protection is not as “thin”.
• Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work – the focus is on the quantity and value (i.e. qualitative importance) of the material taken and whether they are reasonable for the purposes of copying. 13
• Effect of the use on the potential market for the value of the copyrighted work – the Court will not only focus on the harm caused by the alleged infringing act but also whether such unchecked acts would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market, including the harm caused to the market for derivative works. 14
• Possibility of obtaining the work within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price – a finding of fair dealing is less likely where the defendant could have obtained the work on reasonable commercial terms. 15
• The above factors were applied to the facts and the findings are summarised as follows:

III. ORIGINALITY IN DERIVATIVE WORKS

• In PropertyGuru Pte Ltd v 99 Pte Ltd 16 (“ PropertyGuru ”), both the plaintiff and the defendant were in the business of providing online property classifieds. The plaintiff sued the defendant for reproducing photographs found on the plaintiff’s website.
• It was not in dispute that photographs are artistic works in which copyright could subsist and thus found a claim in copyright infringement. However, these photographs were originally taken by the end users of the plaintiff’s service to which the plaintiff altered them before posting the same on its website. The alterations included resizing the photographs, tweaking the light balance and softening the edges of the photographs. 17 The question in this case is whether (and to what extent) the plaintiff owns the copyright in the photographs.
• The High Court approved the seminal case of Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc 18 that copying per se does not result in an original work and there must be an element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work 19 . By way of example, the High Court cited The Reject Shop Plc v Robert Manners 20 to explain that no copyright would subsist in photocopied and enlarged versions of copyrighted drawings. 21
• Upon comparing the original photographs against the altered photographs, the High Court held that: 22 Apart from the change in size, there is barely any discernible difference between each original photograph and its image. Absent the watermark, one would find it difficult to tell which is the original photograph and which is the modified photograph. I do not mean to say that digital editing of a photograph can never result in an altered image which is an original work in its own right. The technical possibilities for editing an image are now fairly advanced. Conceivably, a photograph might be so substantially altered, in a manner which obviously required much skill and labour of an artistic nature as to qualify for copyright protection. On the facts of this particular case, however, the original and watermarked photographs are, if not for the watermark, virtually indistinguishable
• As such, the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for copyright infringement was dismissed.

IV. CONCLUSION

• These two cases have shed light on important issues of copyright law and have helpfully clarified the issues relating to compilations, fair use and originality in derivative works.

If you would like to have further information on this write-up, please contact:

Ryan Huang Senior Associate Yusarn Audrey (Singapore) D: (65) 6358 2865 F: (65) 6358 2654 [email protected]

1 [2017] SGCA 28 2 Global Yellow Pages at [24] 3 Global Yellow Pages at [38] 4 Global Yellow Pages at [49] 5 Global Yellow Pages at [49] 6 Global Yellow Pages at [52] 7 Global Yellow Pages at [54] to [58] 8 Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed 9 Global Yellow Pages at [77] 10 Global Yellow Pages at [78] 11 Global Yellow Pages at [80] and [81] 12 Global Yellow Pages at [82] 13 Global Yellow Pages at [83] 14 Global Yellow Pages at [84] 15 Global Yellow Pages at [85] 16 [2018] SGHC 52 17 PropertyGuru at [103] 18 [1989] AC 217 19 PropertyGuru at [99] 20 [1995] FSR 870 21 PropertyGuru at [100] 22 PropertyGuru at [103]

Share With Everyone!

Related posts.

IP and SMEs – Taking Your Ideas To Market

Singapore Exchange Announces New Climate-Related Disclosure Rules for Listed Companies

Innovating in the Solar Energy Space

Case Commentary of Mohammad Hafiz bin Hamidun v Kamdar Sdn Bhd [2021] 4 MLI 878

Charging Ahead: E-vehicles, Automotive IP and Innovation

10 Highlights of the Malaysia Trademarks Act 2019

Going Digital as a Response to the Pandemic – Issues and Thoughts for Change

The “Right to be Forgotten” and Franchise Disclosure Requirements

Originality Under Singapore Copyright Law

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 06 June 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Althaf Marsoof 2  

66 Accesses

Situated within a cross-jurisdictional assessment of originality across multiple countries, this chapter offers insights into Singapore’s distinctive approach to conceptualizing and applying the concept of originality under copyright law. As a fundamental criterion for obtaining copyright protection, originality serves to delineate works that are worthy of copyright protection from those that do not qualify for such protection. Through an examination of the historical development of copyright law in Singapore and a careful analysis of key cases, this chapter provides an understanding about the specific standard of originality required under Singapore law. Moreover, it devotes some space to discussing the interaction between originality and developments in technology, such as artificial intelligence, within the context of Singapore’s copyright framework. By analyzing Singapore’s response to technological developments through the specific lens of originality, this chapter contributes to a comprehensive understanding of that concept, highlighting its significance within the broader discourse on copyright protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Chinese Copyright Law and Computer-Generated Works in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

Copyright and AI: Are Extant Laws Adequate?

Evolution and Future Trends of Copyright in Nigeria

L Bently et al., Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018), 93.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 9 September 1886, 161 U.N.T.S. 3, as amended on 28 September 1979.

WIPO and UNESCO, Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries , WIPO Publication No 812(E) (WIPO/UNESCO 1976).

Ibid, section 1(1) (dealing with works protected).

WIPO, Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works ( Paris Act, 1971 ), WIPO Publication No.615(E) (WIPO 1978), 17–18.

EF Judge and D Gervais, “Of Silos and Constellations: Comparing Notions of Originality in Copyright Law” (2009) 27 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 375.

MD Barr, Singapore: A Modern History (IB Tauris & Co 2019), 65.

Ng Sui Nam v. Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd [1987] SGCA 8, [36].

Copyright Bill No 8 of 1986.

A Gill et al., “The Development of Singapore’s Intellectual Property Rights Regime” (2014) Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy–Microsoft Case Studies Series on Information Technology, Public Policy and Society, 8–9 https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/case-studies/lkwms_series01_sg_ip.pdf?sfvrsn=5135960b_2

Copyright Act 1987, section 27(4).

As with the 1987 Act, connecting factors are usually established based on the author’s personal status (i.e., citizenship or residence in Singapore) or the work’s place of first publication. The key difference between the 1987 and 2021 Acts is the distinction that is drawn under the new law between “qualified persons” and “qualified individuals.” The term “qualified persons” includes corporations (see section 78 of the 2021 Act) but “qualified individuals” does not. In setting out the connecting factors for authorial works, the 2021 Act specifically uses “qualified individual” as opposed to “qualified persons” signaling certain developments that had taken place prior to the enactment of the 2021 Act. These developments are considerered in the next part of this chapter.

Auvi Pte Ltd v. Seah Siew Tee [1991] 2 SLR(R) 786; [1991] SGHC 165 ( Auvi v. Seah Siew Tee ).

Ibid, [9] (Chao Hick Tin J).

Ibid, [32] (Chao Hick Tin J) (citing the Privy Council decision in Macmillan & Co Ltd v. Cooper (K&J) [1923] 40 TRL 186 at 190).

Ibid, [33] (Chao Hick Tin J) (citing English High Court decision in British Northrop Ltd v. Texteam Blackburn Ltd [1974] RPC 57).

See Golden Season Pte Ltd v. Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 38, [178] (George Wei JC) (citing Auvi v. Seah Siew Tee , the Court observed “[w]hile the brochures as a whole may have been simple, simplicity per se does not prevent a work from acquiring copyright. All that is needed is that the author created it and has not slavishly copied it from another”).

JPG Enterprise Pte Ltd v. Hairspec Private Ltd [2020] SGDC 12 [15] (Vince Gui, Deputy Registrar) (“To impose such a requirement would be tantamount to elevating the requirement of originality to mean ‘novelty’ or ‘inventiveness’”).

Real Electronics Industries Singapore (Pte) Ltd v. Nimrod Engineering Pte Ltd [1995] SGHC 289 ( Real Electronics v. Nimrod ).

Ibid, [26]–[33].

Ibid, [31].

Anacon Corp Ltd v. Environmental Research Technology Ltd [1994] FSR 659.

Real Electronics v. Nimrod , [29] (Rubin J).

Ibid, [36] (Rubin J).

See Copyright (Amendment) Act 1999.

Copyright Act 1987, section 7A(1).

Copyright Act 2021, section 13(1)(b).

Ibid, section 13(3).

Real Electronics v. Nimrod , [34]–[35] (Rubin J).

Ibid, [40] (Rubin J).

The English cases that were cited included University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601; Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc [1988] 3 WLR 678; Macmillan & Co Ltd v. Cooper (1923) 40 TLR 186.

Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Suncool International Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 19 ( Virtual Map v. Suncool ).

Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Suncool International Pte Ltd [2004] SGDC 190.

Virtual Map v. Suncool [12]–[14].

PropertyGuru Pte Ltd v. 99 Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 52 ( PropertyGuru v. 99 ).

Ibid, [98].

This was a reference to an English case that considered the point about material alterations: see Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc [1989] AC 217.

PropertyGuru v. 99 , [102] (Hoo Sheau Peng J).

Ibid, [103] (Hoo Sheau Peng J).

Copyright Act 2021, section 13(1)(a).

Ibid, section 13(2)(a).

Ibid, section 13(2)(b).

Global Yellow Pages Ltd v. Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 9 ( Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia ).

Ibid, [192] (George Wei J).

111 S Ct 1282 (1991).

Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia , [200] (George Wei J).

See G Chua, “‘Sweat of the Brow’ to the ‘Spark of Creativity’” (2018) Singapore Comparative Law Review 63.

Global Yellow Pages Ltd v. Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 28 ( Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia , CA decision), [24] (Sundaresh Menon CJ).

Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v. Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd [2011] SGCA 37 ( Asia Pacific Publishing v. Pioneers & Leaders ).

Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd v. Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 211 ( Pioneers & Leaders v. Asia Pacific Publishing ).

Ibid, [25] (Lai Siu Chiu J).

Ibid, (Lai Siu Chiu J) .

Ibid, [42] (Lai Siu Chiu J).

Asia Pacific Publishing v. Pioneers & Leaders , [41] (VK Rajah JA).

Ibid, [73] (VK Rajah JA).

Ibid, [75] (VK Rajah JA).

John Robert Powers School Inc and others v. Tessensohn Denyse Bernadette (trading as Clea Professional Image Consultants) [1993] SGHC 204 ( JRP School v. Bernadette ).

Ibid, [13] (Lai Siu Chiu JC).

Chua Puay Kiang v. Singapore Telecommunications Ltd [1999] SGHC 1 [89] (Rubin J) (“It is an aphorism that the law of copyright does not protect the ‘idea’ but it protects the ‘form of expression’. For a copyright to be infringed, the defendant must be shown to have copied that form of expression”).

WL Ng-Loy, Law of Intellectual Property of Singapore (2nd edn, 2014 Sweet & Maxwell), 92.

Asia Pacific Publishing v. Pioneers & Leader , [81] (VK Rajah JA).

Copyright Act 2021, sections 109(1)(a) and 110(2)(a).

Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia , CA decision, [24] (Sundaresh Menon CJ).

Bently et al. (n 1), 95–96.

See T Dadia et al., “Can Al Find its Place Within the Broad Ambit of Copyright Law?” (2021) 10 Berkely Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law 37, 52–60.

See D Ko, “Reprogramming Copyright Law–Comparing the Copyright Regimes in Singapore and the United Kingdom and Their Application on AI-Generated Content” (2021) Singapore Comparative Law Review 174, 180; E Bonadio and L McDonagh, “Artificial Intelligence as Producer and Consumer of Copyright Works: Evaluating the Consequences of Algorithmic Creativity” (2020) 2 Intellectual Property Quarterly 112.

Some have submitted that strong policy arguments exist against recognizing computer-generated or AI-generated works as a separate category and attempting to confer authorship on that basis. See T Aplin, B Schafer, and P Li, Response to UK IPO Open Consultation on AI and IP: Copyright and Patents (January 7, 2022) https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4003626 (commenting on section 9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which provides that the author of a computer-generated work “shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Business Law, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Althaf Marsoof

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Althaf Marsoof .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

Indranath Gupta

Section Editor information

O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

Vishwas H Devaiah

Manveen Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Marsoof, A. (2023). Originality Under Singapore Copyright Law. In: Gupta, I. (eds) Handbook on Originality in Copyright. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1144-6_14-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1144-6_14-1

Received : 02 December 2022

Accepted : 29 December 2022

Published : 06 June 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-1144-6

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-1144-6

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Law and Criminology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Learning Centre

Copyright Infringement in Singapore

Copyright infringement cases are not as common as debt recovery, divorce, or tenancy disputes. In fact, barely a handful of them gets decided by the Singapore High Courts in a year. However, with the advent of social media and this generation’s vulnerability to sharing and posting information online, there is a need for people to know their underlying rights and obligations when dealing with intellectual property.

What is Copyright?

It is important to understand copyright. Copyright protects the expression of ideas in tangible forms. If your work is copyrighted, that means you have the right to prevent others from reproducing, publishing, performing, communicating to the public, or adapting your work and you control their use and commercial exploitation. These rights are specifically provided for under the Copyright Act of Singapore (2021) which states that the copyright owner of an artistic work has the exclusive right to make a copy of the work, publish the work if it is unpublished, and communicate the work to the public. In addition, a copyright owner also has the exclusive right to perform the work in public, make an adaptation of the work, and rent the work.

Duration of Copyright

In Singapore, copyright protection is conferred upon a work at the moment of its creation. Thus, registration is not a requirement, or compliance with other formalities is not needed before a work is accorded copyright protection.

Different types of works are also conferred different durations of copyright protection. For example, literary, dramatic or musical works are protected from their creation up to 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Meanwhile, photographs, sound recordings, and films are protected within 70 years of first publication, and broadcast and cable programs are protected within 50 years of the year of first publication.

Copyright Infringement

As provided under the Copyright Act , copyright infringement can occur if someone does any of the above-mentioned exclusive rights without permission or license from the copyright owner .

An example of an infringing activity is posting a literary or artistic work on a blog without crediting the owner, may it be a piece of writing or a photograph. 

To successfully debunk a claim of copyright infringement in Singapore, the copying must fall under any one of the three categories stated below:

• there is a license or permission from the copyright owner;
• the copying is within the scope of one of the permitted uses; and
• the copying does not involve a substantial taking of copyright material.

Fair Dealing Doctrine

There is a defence that can be used in copyright infringement and that is the “fair dealing” exception. This means that a person will not be liable for copyright infringement if the use of a copyrighted work qualifies as “fair dealing.”

Likewise, Section 191 of The Copyright Act also provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court will take into account in deciding if a use of a copyrighted work is “fair.” These factors can include:

• The purpose and character of the use;
• The nature of the work one is using;
• The amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used in relation to the whole work;
• The effect on the potential market for, or value of, the work.

This list of factors though is not exclusive, and the court may take into consideration other attending circumstances like good faith of the other party and the character of the use. This is especially if the use case is imbued with public interest. Ultimately, the decision of the court will depend on the unique circumstances of each case.

Under normal circumstances, the breach of copyright typically leads only to civil liability. This entitles a copyright owner to damages or other civil remedies such as an injunction. In some cases where a copyright owner manages to establish an intention to “exploit for commercial purposes” or actual “commercial exploitation” of infringing copies, there could be criminal liability and the court may impose a hefty fine, a term of imprisonment or both.

Under Section 119(4) of The Copyright Act, additional compensation may be offered to the plaintiff when an infringement of copyright is established, and when the court is satisfied that it is proper to do so. In doing so, the court must consider the flagrancy of the infringement, any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement, and all other relevant matters.

Law Reform Updates on Copyright Law

On 21 November 2021, the new Copyright Act came into force, guaranteeing stronger rights for creators and performers alike. The new Act was targeted at addressing the loopholes that new technological developments had created. Under the new Act, some provisions were introduced:

• Creators now had default ownership of certain commissioned works;
• Creators and performers now had the right to be identified for their work;
• Usage of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes was now permitted when accessed lawfully.

This new Act thus accords greater ownership rights and privileges to the creators of original content, helping to support innovation in the process. 1

Furthermore, new rules under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 were implemented on 01 April 2022 to simplify the process of assessing copyright infringement claims. 2

Copyright Law in the News

Typically, issues related to copyright law are not directly highlighted in the news. However, copyright infringement has been noted as one of the reasons for the noticeable crackdown in the sales of illegal streaming devices since 2021. As recently as 07 October 2022, 17 people were arrested for their suspected involvement in the sales of illegal streaming devices. 1

Copyright Infringement Judgements

There have been many rulings related to copyright infringement in the past few years. Of recent noteworthiness are the following judgements:

1. DR. WHO WATERWORKS PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors v DR. WHO (M) SDN. BHD. & 3 Ors [2023] SGHC 156

In this case, the judge ruled that the first defendant had violated the copyright of the plaintiff. The judge noted that the breakdown of relations between both parties was not sufficient to justify the extent of time and resources spent on raising unfounded claims, arguing that the true dispute should lie within the issue of copyright infringement. 3

2. TIGER PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT LTD v ENCORE FILMS PTE LTD [2023] SGHC 138

This case addressed the first usage of the simplified process under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022. Notably, it emphasised the Court’s role in facilitating this transition to a simplified process that benefits both the courts and the parties involved, without having to drag out the dispute in the process. 4

3. SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE INC. v INZIGN PTE LTD [2023] SGHC 50

This case highlights how companies can be liable for the copyright infringement actions of their own employee, while also serving as a recent case assessing copyright claims in relation to software licensing issues. 5

Copyright law can be a thorny issue to navigate, especially when it comes to identifying cases of fair dealing. It is important for us to stay clear of violating another person’s copyright, so that we can create a safer and more responsible cyberspace for all.

Glossary and Key Terms

Copyright : The protection of one’s expression of ideas in a tangible form

Infringement : Refers to the violation of copyright by reproducing, publishing, performing, communicating to the public, or adapting your work without permission or license

Fair Dealing : Refers to the “fair” usage of copyrighted work by virtue of its transformative value, purpose, character of use etc.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can I copyright an idea or concept?

A: Copyright does not protect ideas or concepts. It protects the expression of those ideas or concepts in a tangible form. To be eligible for copyright protection, a work must be original and fixed in a physical or digital medium.

Q: Can I use copyrighted material if I give credit to the original creator?

A: Giving credit to the original creator is a matter of attribution, but it does not automatically grant permission to use copyrighted material. You generally need explicit permission from the copyright owner or a valid legal exception, such as fair use or a specific licensing agreement.

Q: What are the penalties for copyright infringement?

A: The penalties for copyright infringement can vary depending on the severity of the infringement. They can include monetary damages, injunctions, and potential criminal charges in some cases.

Q: How do I enforce my copyright if someone infringes on my work?

A: To enforce your copyright, you can send a cease-and-desist letter, file a lawsuit seeking damages and injunctions, or pursue alternative dispute resolution methods. Consultation with an intellectual property lawyer is advisable to understand the specific steps and options available in Singapore.

• https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/press-releases/2021-11-19-commencement-of-copyright-act/
• https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/SCJA1969-S205-2022?DocDate=20220321
• https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_156
• https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_138
• https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_50\

General Lawyers

Senior Partner - Head of Dispute Resolution

Mohamed Baiross

Founding Partner

Related content

Understanding trademark law in singapore, a comprehensive guide to arbitration in singapore, comprehensive guide to sentencing frameworks under the road traffic act in singapore: insights from [2024] sghc 129, simplified deputyship applications in singapore: a step-by-step guide, unilateral mistake, fraudulent misrepresentation, rescission, and restitutio in integrum: a deep dive into axis megalink sdn bhd v far east mining pte ltd [2024] sghc(a) 15.

• Practical Law

Copyright Litigation in Singapore: Overview

Get full access to this document with a free trial.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can improve productivity, efficiency and response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

650+ full-time experienced lawyer editors globally create and maintain timely, reliable and accurate resources across all major practice areas.

83% of customers are highly satisfied with Practical Law and would recommend to a colleague.

81% of customers agree that Practical Law saves them time.

• Cross-border - IP&IT

This site has not been designed for your version of Internet Explorer. To get the best experience we recommend you upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer , Firefox or Chrome ..

• Skip to navigation
• Skip to main content (accesskey s)
• Skip to footer (accesskey x)

Singapore High Court finds employer vicariously liable for employee’s copyright infringement

13 March 2023

Siemens Industry Software Inc (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) v Inzign Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 50

In the recent decision of Siemens Industry Software Inc (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc) v Inzign Pte Ltd , the General Division of the High Court held that an employer was vicariously liable for copyright infringement committed by its employee, notwithstanding that the employer was not aware that its employee had committed the acts complained of and had not authorised the employee to commit the said acts. Prior to this decision, the question whether the doctrine of vicarious liability applies to copyright infringement had not been settled under Singapore law.

The plaintiff was the copyright owner of the NX Software, which was used to create, develop and test models of products. The defendant was a Singapore company which already licensed certain modules of the NX Software. The defendant had employed a machinist (“ Employee ”) whose role required him to use the NX Software.

In 2020, the Employee installed an unauthorised version of the NX Software on an unused laptop belonging to the defendant which the Employee found in a toolroom at the defendant’s premises. The Employee had done so to practise using the NX Software.

The use of the unauthorised version of the NX Software was subsequently discovered by the plaintiff through an automatic reporting function built into the NX Software. After the plaintiff informed the defendant of the existence of this unauthorised version of the NX Software, the defendant conducted internal investigations and eventually uninstalled the unauthorised version from the laptop.

Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant for copyright infringement, arguing that the defendant was both primarily and vicariously liable for the actions of the defendant’s Employee.

High Court’s decision

As the parties did not dispute that the defendant’s Employee had infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in the NX Software, the High Court’s decision focused on whether the defendant was primarily and/or vicariously liable for the Employee’s copyright infringement.

With respect to primary liability, the High Court held that the starting point of the analysis was section 31(1) of the Copyright Act 1987 (2006 Rev Ed) (“ Copyright Act ”), which stated that the defendant would be liable for copyright infringement if the defendant was found to have either (a) carried out the infringing acts or (b) authorised the infringing acts. The Copyright Act was repealed when the current Copyright Act 2021 came into force on 21 November 2021. Section 146(1) of the Copyright Act 2021 is the equivalent of section 31(1) of the Copyright Act.

The High Court decided that the defendant cannot be said to have carried out the infringing acts, as there was no evidence that the Employee’s infringing acts were in the course of the Employee’s duties as an agent of the defendant, nor in the exercise of any powers granted to the Employee from the defendant’s constitution or in general company law. Further, the Employee had signed the defendant’s anti-software piracy policy in 2015, which stated that employees were not allowed to install, download or use any unauthorised software onto the defendant’s computers.

Furthermore, the High Court found that the defendant did not authorise the Employee’s infringing acts. While the defendant may have facilitated the copyright infringement by failing to account for the unused laptop and to install administrative controls onto it, the defendant had no control over what the Employee did with the laptop and the Employee’s infringing acts were carried out without the defendant’s knowledge. Further, the existence of the anti-software piracy policy supported the conclusion that the defendant would not have granted the Employee the right to commit the infringing acts.

However, the High Court proceeded to review decisions from the United Kingdom and Australia and held that in the absence of express restrictions in the Copyright Act, the doctrine of vicarious liability may be extended to copyright infringement.

The High Court went on to decide that the defendant should be made vicariously liable for the Employee’s infringing acts, as the circumstances in which the Employee was allowed to work provided the Employee with the opportunity to commit the infringing acts. The defendant had failed to take reasonable steps in preventing the Employee’s infringing acts due to its lax supervision of the Employee and the insufficient implementation of its anti-software piracy policy.

In support of those findings, the High Court pointed out that the unused laptop on which the infringing acts were carried out was mismanaged by the defendant, as the toolroom manager did not bring the existence of the unused laptop to the defendant’s attention and neither was the laptop properly secured in the toolroom. This mismanagement created the circumstances which facilitated the Employee to commit the infringing acts.

It must be noted that the High Court also found that the infringing acts were committed in the context of the Employee’s employment for the defendant’s benefit, as the Employee had committed the infringing acts to practise using the NX Software for the purpose of improving the Employee’s performance in relation to the tasks assigned by the defendant.

In finding the defendant liable, the High Court also considered the fact that imposing vicarious liability on the defendant would ensure effective compensation of the plaintiff, as the Employee was unlikely to possess sufficient financial resources to compensate the plaintiff. The High Court also concurred with the plaintiff’s arguments that this case would incentivise employers to take further steps in reducing the incidence of copyright infringement by their employees.

Key takeaways

The High Court’s decision establishes that the doctrine of vicarious liability can be applied to copyright infringement under Singapore law and in particular, that employers can be made vicariously liable for acts of copyright infringements by their employees.

The factors that would lead a court to find employers vicariously liable are linked to the opportunities employers afford their employees to commit infringing acts and the extent to which the infringing acts may further the employers’ aims.

In this regard, it is notable that while an employer’s imposition of an anti-software piracy policy on its employees may assist in avoiding primary liability, it may not be sufficient to avoid vicarious liability. Failure to ensure compliance with an anti-software piracy policy would render the existence of such a policy pointless in the face of a claim for vicarious liability.

Employers should therefore take greater care and exercise effective control over all electronic devices within their office premises that can be used to commit infringing acts and steps should be taken to ensure that all electronic devices are secured both physically and electronically from unauthorised use. Employers should also be proactive in the enforcement of their anti-piracy policies and ensure that these are regularly updated and brought to the repeated attention of their employees on a regular basis.

Reference materials

The judgment is available on the Singapore Courts website www.judiciary.gov.sg .

This site uses cookies and by using the site you are consenting to this. Find out why we use cookies and how to manage your settings. More about cookies

• ScholarBank@NUS
• 2. Students
• Ph.D Theses (Open)

Files in This Item:

Google Scholar TM

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Case Study 42 - Copyright enforcement actions against illegal downloading in Singapore

Background:

Two Hollywood studios, “Voltage Pictures” and “QOTD Film Investment”, are the right owners of the two movies “Father & Daughters” and “Queen of the Desert”. They have been subject to serious copyright infringement carried out by illegal downloaders in Singapore for quite some time.

Actions Taken:

The two studios attempted a procedure against illegal downloaders in Singapore by applying to the Singapore High Court to compel local Internet Service Providers to release the particulars of internet subscribers who allegedly downloaded the movies, such as names, identity card numbers and addresses.

In April 2017, the Singapore High Court dismissed the application on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to show a link between the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and the alleged illegal downloaders. Many people may be sharing the same Wi-Fi connection, so it doesn't mean that the registrant at a specific IP address is actually illegally downloading. Hence, an IP address alone is unlikely to be sufficient to identify the alleged illegal downloader.

IP lessons:

• Illegal downloading is a common and challenging issue in South-East Asian countries of which copyright holders need to be aware.
• Copyright holders have the right to enforce their intellectual property against illegal downloaders, but they need to identify the account holder before they can ascertain whether a person is the actual illegal downloader.
• Copyright holders are recommended to consider enforcing their copyright via other means. For instance, the amended Copyright Act of Singapore, effective from December 2014, lets content owners seek a High Court order forcing Internet service providers to block piracy websites.

Share this page

• News & Articles
• Case Studies

Trade Marks & Brands

• Geographical Indications

Technology & Patents

Consultancy.

• Management Consultancy
• IP Consultancy

Brand Protection/Anti-Counterfeiting, Anti-Piracy and Enforcement

• Brand Protection and Anti–Counterfeiting
• Copyright and Anti-Piracy
• Complex IP Enforcement
• Arbitration

Digital & Commercial

• Outsourced In-House Counsel
• Digital and Data Regulatory Compliance
• Marketing Campaign Clearance
• IP Transactions
• Hong Kong SAR

South East Asia

• Philippines

Europe, Middle East & Africa

• United Arab Emirates
• Saudi Arabia
• United Kingdom

Announcements

Code of conduct, diversity, equality & inclusivity, environment, social & governance.

• Environment
• ESG Annual Report 2022-2023
• The Mitrataa Foundation

Where We Work

Latest news, trending topics.

• Brand Protection and Anti-Counterfeiting
• Digital & Data Regulatory Compliance

You are now registered for our Rouse Insights Newsletter

Singapore: Copyright Infringement Defence for AI Machine Learning

A key  amendment to the 2021 Singapore Copyright Act ( CA ) is the introduction of defence of copyright infringements for machine learning.

This is the first in the South East Asian region and no doubt with the aim to attract AI investments into Singapore. This machine learning defense (referred to in the Copyright Act as “computational analysis”) is found in sections 243 and 244 of the CA.

This article discusses the application and scope of the computational analysis defense for machine learning and the limitation of the defense.

We also discuss what businesses should do about their IT infrastructure. Singapore and in the ASEAN region.

The legal defence under Computation Analysis

Machine learning requires data and information to learn from and typically this comes from content scraped from third party websites which could potentially be regarded as copyright infringement.

This risk could now be neutralised by the Computational Analysis defense of the CA - under section 243:

Interpretation: what is computational data analysis

• In this Division, “computational data analysis”, in relation to a work or a recording of a protected performance, includes —

(a) using a computer program to identify, extract and analyse information or data from the work or recording; and

(b) using the work or recording as an example of a type of information or data to improve the functioning of a computer program in relation to that type of information or data.

Illustration

An example of computational data analysis under paragraph (b) is the use of images to train a computer program to recognise images.

Copying or communicating for computational data analysis

244.—(1)  If the conditions in subsection (2) are met, it is a permitted use for a person (X) to make a copy of any of the following material:

(a) a work;

(b) a recording of a protected performance.

“The permitted acts” include reproducing as well as storing works for the purpose of “computational data analysis”.

“Computational data analysis” is defined to include: “using a computer program to identify, extract and analyse information or data from the work or recording”; and “using the work as an example of a type of information or data to improve the functioning of a computer program in relation to that type of information or data”.

The provision gives an example of computational example of using images to train a computer program to recognize images.

“Computational analysis” would arguably be broad enough to have machine learning fit into its purport.  The scope has been confirmed by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore ( IPOS ) in a fact sheet released on its website, which says that it is a defence to “the copying of copyright works specifically for the purpose of computational data analysis, e.g. sentiment analysis, text and datamining, and training machine learning.”

The defense extends to use of the copyright work for the purpose of “verifying the results of the computational data analysis carried out”.  It also extends to sharing of the same work with another party provided that it is “collaborative research or study relating to the purpose of the computational data analysis”.

Necessary conditions to invoke the defense. The defense applies where:

• The use of third-party works are for computational analysis as described above;
• the user had “lawful access” to the copy of the work which he or she accessed (the “first copy”);
• where such “first copy” is an infringing copy, the user was not aware of this.

Scope of the defense - the scope for lawful access is broad as clarified by Section 187 CA which says that the defense cannot be excluded or restricted by contract – such contractual terms will be void and unenforceable.   It is arguable that restrictions in a website’s terms of use will therefore be rendered ineffective by Section 187 CA, and those terms will not negate the computational analysis defence assuming that the access was not made by circumventing any pay wall in the first place.

Territorial application - As is the case with most countries’ copyright laws the computational analysis defence will only apply for acts carried out in Singapore.

South East Asian countries

As at the date of this article, neighbouring countries Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand have yet to consider adopting similar copyright infringement defences.  Providing a defence tailored to generative machine learning will offer business certainty to businesses that have adopted the technology or intend to invest in AI tools in Singapore.

This amendment goes towards Singapore’s ambition to promote its AI powered data center sectors as well as businesses that are adding or stepping up  their AI capability especially in the generative AI field.

Practical implications for businesses

Businesses with IT operations in South East Asia should consider the location of their infrastructure and/or data centers hosting their cloud servers. Businesses should review the respective copyright and AI governance position in each of these countries. Those with machine learning infrastructure in Singapore should review their internal IT policy in the light of the scope and limitations under the Singapore Copyright Act’s computational analysis exception, so that the benefits of this exception are capitalised fully.

Kin Wah Chow

Related Articles

4 minute read

21 Aug 2024

• #personal data
• #training ai

1 minute read

Yen Vu, Khanh Nguyen

19 Aug 2024

• #cross border data

15 Aug 2024

How can we help you?

Get in touch with us or   find an office to help you.

I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use .

• Graphic design trends
• Design inspiration
• Design history & movements
• Famous design & designers
• Creative thinking
• Top 9 at 99
• Design basics
• Design tutorials
• Design resources
• Logo & branding
• Web & digital design
• Video & animation
• Packaging & label
• Marketing & advertising
• Book design
• Art & illustration
• Clothing & merchandise
• Other design
• Entrepreneurship
• Freelancing
• Crowdsourcing
• Business resources
• Case studies
• Our community
• Our designers
• Our customers
• Engineering
• Get inspired
• Learn design
• Build a business
• Grow an agency
• Look inside 99d

5 famous copyright infringement cases (and what you can learn)

• Apr 19 2013

Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it’s an inescapable issue.

Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright — how it’s handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

1. Rogers vs. Koons _

Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rogers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image.

Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rogers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.

The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a “typical person” would be able to recognize the copy. Koon’s defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement — without copying Rogers’ work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rogers.

Significance

This is one of those famous cases that encompassed a larger issue in the art world, the issue of appropriation art. Can you build upon another’s work to create your own original piece? And if you do so, does that constitute derivative work?

It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? Neither of these issues was entirely answered by the case, of course, but it has also become a reference used in many cases afterward.

You can parallel this with vector-tracing a photograph for your design. Are you creating a derivative work that subtracts value from the original artist?

2. The Associated Press vs. Fairey _

Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama’s first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama’s campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval.

In January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey allegedly based the design was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia — with the AP demanding compensation for its use in Fairey’s work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn’t reduce the value of the original photograph.

The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Though there wasn’t a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. It’s unlikely that Garcia’s work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Fairey’s poster. Garcia himself stated he was “so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had,” but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for it’s originator.

Credit, credit, credit! On 99designs you cannot use licensed work — but in the right circumstances you can use stock imagery. When doing so, make sure everyone knows the source.

3. Cariou vs. Prince _

Richard Prince is a well known appropriation artist — one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. For an exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Cariou argued that it wasn’t fair use, but copyright infringement.

A judge ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou’s photographs weren’t significant enough to constitute a change in meaning — fair use. However, the case is currently in appeal and the final decision has not yet been reached.

The initial ruling in this case in favor of Cariou has created huge divisions in the artistic community. It brings up questions about artistic intent and the subjectivity of art, asking “who was this judge to determine whether or not the appropriated artwork had enough meaning to be considered fair use” when the art could be interpreted differently by each person who viewed it. The jury is still out on this one.

Imitation vs. inspiration

Don’t be a designer who creates work too close to that of another. You have to make sure you are creating something original and not derivative.

Update 4/25/2013

Not two weeks after this article was published, the original decision in this case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince’s work transformed the work in the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use.

Read more about the decision as well as the 5 pieces which are still under review by a lower court in The New York Times and Hyperallergic .

4. Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation _

Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. The firm alleges that illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale, and filed a lawsuit in 2011.

TBD. There hasn’t been a decision yet in this case but Modern Dog has been campaigning online pretty heavily for publicity and funds to help with its legal fees over the issue.

The Modern Dog case has brought to light a question burning in the mind of many designers and artists — what happens if a major corporation with many more resources than me, utilizes my artwork for profit?

Modern Dog was recently forced to sell their studio to cover the legal costs associated with this battle, so it’s turning into a very extreme situation for them. We’ll have to keep an eye out for how this progressed and continues to change the conversation around this issue.

Always defend your designs. Regardless of who you’re going up against — if you think your design is in the right, then make it known.

5. Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury _

Vanilla Ice had a hit, in 1991, with Ice Ice Baby — it sampled but did not credit the song Under Pressure by David Bowie and Queen. Though at first denying it, Vanilla Ice later retracted the statement saying it was “a joke”. Facing a lawsuit by the duo, Vanilla Ice ‘fessed to sampling the work.

The case was settled privately out of court with Ice paying an undeclared sum of money and crediting Bowie/Queen on the track.

There’s really not a ton of meaning directly related to design with this one (except for, don’t use other people’s creative work!). But I couldn’t resist adding it. This is one of the most hilarious copyright cases ever.

There are more cases out there! Any you have learned from?

Want design tips & business trends (and the occasional promotion) in your inbox.

Our newsletter is for everyone who loves design! Let us know if you're a freelance designer (or not) so we can share the most relevant content for you.

By completing this form, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Google Terms of Service apply.

Current design contests

Designers, check out these contests so you can start building your career.

• Logo design
• Web page design
• Brand guide
• T-shirt design
• Illustration or graphics
• Browse categories
• How it works
• Find a designer
• Inspiration
• 99designs Pro
• Design contests
• 1-to-1 Projects
• Discover inspiration
• 99designs Studio
• Business card
• Browse all categories
• 1 800 513 1678
• Help Center
• Become a designer

Copyright Law In Singapore: A Brief Overview

Reading time: 6 minutes, a brief history of singapore’s copyright law.

Singapore’s modern copyright law started on 10 April 1987, when the Copyright Act passed by Parliament on 26 January 1987 commenced. It was passed as a result of pressure from America (US). In comparison with Bahamas, another country which had to amend its copyright laws due to US pressure, Singapore did not adopt the US model. Therefore, Singapore does not have a copyright registry.

Originally adopted from the Australian Copyright Act, Singapore’s Copyright Act has been amended several times either to keep pace with developments in technology or to meet our international obligations. The last major amendment took place in 2004 where it was made to align the law with the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 2003.

Copyright can exist in different types of works or subject matter. In this article, we shall concentrate on literary works. The law is slightly different for different works or subject matter but the concepts remain the same.

What is Copyright, and what does the law cover?

Essentially, copyright protects form and not substance. This is called the “idea-expression dichotomy’. It is the manner which an idea or information is expressed and not the information itself. For this reason, the British government could only sue Peter Wright, the author of “Spycatcher” for breach of confidential information and not copyright. This is because Wright wrote the book himself using information belonging to the British secret service.

Copyright does not confer on the creator of a monopoly on the ideas within the work. It basically protects the work from being copied. Over time, the law started classifying other unlicensed actions as infringing acts. They include unauthorised public performances and broadcasting.

The Copyright Act should be thought of in terms of a bundle of rights that is legally conferred for a specific period of time.

In order to determine the types of actions restrained by the Copyright Act, we need to consider the work or subject matter in questions. They are categorised as:

• “Creative works” – that is, original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works like novels, plays, musical compositions, paintings, sculptures, and compilations; and
• “Entrepreneurial works” – such as sound recordings, films, broadcasts, cable programmes and published editions of the works.

So, I’ll automatically have copyright over all my work?

We need to distinguish between ownership from authorship for creative works. Whilst ownership may be transferred, authorship cannot be transferred. The fact that a person created a work cannot be changed. This is the basis for moral rights.

Generally, the first ownership belongs to the author of the works. The exception is when the work is created in the course of employment. In such situations, the first owner is the employer.

For entrepreneurial work, first ownership usually accrues to the producer of the work.

Do I need to register my copyright?

Unlike registered designs, patents and trademarks, there is no formalised registration process for copyright in Singapore.

However, three conditions need to be fulfilled. They are:

• nexus to Singapore or a convention country; and
• originality.

Fixation means that the expression needs to be recorded on some tangible matter e.g. CD disc.

For nexus, we need to consider if it is published or unpublished work. We shall only deal with published work here as the occurrence of this type of work is higher. The nexus can be either:

• the citizenship or the country of residence of the author; or
• the country which the work is first published.

We need to take note that the citizenship or country of residence consideration is measured against the author and not the owner. This is because the first owner of a work may sometime not be the author.

The country concerned can be Singapore or any of the countries in the treaties with which Singapore has signed. Basically, after acceding to the treaties, Singapore then passed a subsidiary legislation to fulfil its international obligation of extending protection within its jurisdiction to works of the countries which are member states of these treaties. The most important treaty in terms of the number of countries covered is the TRIPS as it has more than 164 member states. The United Nations has 193 member states. Under the rules of the WTO, it is permissible for territories with an identity crisis. A good example is Taiwan which is not a sovereign state under public international law.

The word “publication” includes the concept of simultaneous publication. This means that if the work is not published within the list of countries within the Act, as long as they are published within these designated countries within 30 days, the work shall be protected.

Copyright owners are encouraged to print the authors’ names, year of publication and the sign © on their works. Where a person’s name appears on a published work, he is presumed to the author of the work.

What are my exclusive rights if granted copyright, and how long do they last for?

Under the Copyright Act, the list of exclusive rights granted to a copyright owner are:

• First publication of the work
• Reproducing the work in material form
• Publicly perform the work
• Broadcasting the work
• Transmitting the work via cable
• Making an adaptation of the work
• Renting the work

This does not mean that every work or subject has the same rights. Some have more than the others.

For published creative works, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years after his death. We need to note that this is not the minimum standard under international copyright law i.e. major copyright treaties. The international standard is the life of the author plus 50 years. Singapore increased the duration of protection after the US-Singapore FTA as USA protects its literary works for 70 years after the author’s death. This is the result of the Sonny Bono Act, the singer-songwriter who was once Cher’s husband. The standard in the European Union is the life of author plus 70 years, as well.

For published entrepreneurial works, it generally lasts for 70 from the year of first publication.

How should I prove authorship of my work?

There is no one single, foolproof ‘magic bullet’ that can definitively prove authorship of one’s work. Some of the methods are:

• Depositing a copy of the work with solicitors or a depository. USA has a copyright office which does this. Though not part of the Singapore system, it can be good prima facie evidence.
• Going to the Commissioner of Oaths to make a declaration of the facts of ownership and date of creation.
• Using the postal service to send themselves under registered AR a copy of their work. Upon receipt, the envelope must not be opened.
• Emailing themselves a ‘read-only’ softcopy version of their work at the time of creation.

The last two are the most cost-efficient. Recent copyright reform consultation by the Ministry of Law is studying the feasibility of creating a registration system.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1:  can i sue someone for copyright infringement for using part of my work.

It depends on the usage. Copyright is infringed when there is a substantive reproduction of a work in the material form. What is substantive is qualitative and not quantitative. Naturally, if the amount is 90%, it is easier to prove infringement. As for what is qualitative, we will need to look at cases for guidance.

Question 2:  Do I need to seek the consent of the owner of the copyright to the lyrics of a song when I want to produce a cover version in a different language?

Generally, under Singapore’s copyright law, copyright in the music and lyrics of a song are separate and distinct. However, it the writer has written both the music and the lyrics, it will not make any difference.

Where the writer of the music and lyrics are different individuals, we begin on the premise that they are separate and distinct. However, the creative process may be such that the lyricist and composer can claim that they are joint owners of the song. As such, the lyrics music may not be considered as independent. There are also commercial arrangements between the two to consider.

Question 3:  How do I collect royalties from users such as restaurants which have piped in music, since there are so many?  

Owners of copyright should look for collective management organisations to do this on their behalves.

The difficulty in licensing and collecting fees from multiple users is the reason why collective management organisations are formed. For performing rights to the public for songs, the relevant organisation is Composers and Authors Society of Singapore (“COMPASS”).

Need legal advice on Intellectual Property matters?

If you have a legal question on Intellectual Property, you can request a quote with George Hwang . Alternatively, you can get a Quick Consult with a practicing lawyer for a transparent and fixed fee. With Quick Consult, you can check out in minutes and the lawyer will call you back on the phone within 1-2 days to answer your questions and give you legal advice.

This article is written by George Hwang from George Hwang LL.C and edited by Tang Chee Seng of Asia Law Network.

This article does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion on any matter discussed and, accordingly, it should not be relied upon. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the law and practice in this area. If you require any advice or information, please speak to a practicing lawyer in your jurisdiction. No individual who is a member, partner, shareholder or consultant of, in or to any constituent part of Interstellar Group Pte. Ltd. accepts or assumes responsibility, or has any liability, to any person in respect of this article.

Continue reading:

• A Guide to Legally Using Images from The Internet
• 5 Common Misconceptions about Copyright in Singapore
• Protecting your Graphical User Interface (GUI)

George Hwang

Known for his clarity and focus, commercial acumen and strategic foresight, George's practice focuses on Intellectual Property, Information Technology, Entertainment and Media Law. With more than 15 years of experience in the industry, George is the leading expert in copyright contracts, intellectual property transactions and management. Whilst working in Hong Kong, George was part of a team that successfully negotiated an agency agreement on Ephemeral Rights. He also developed and implemented regional licensing structures and policies for music companies, taking into account the tax regimes of the countries involved. Back in Singapore, he negotiated an industry agreement between two key players in the music business. His portfolio includes IP infringement proceedings, brand management and transfer of technology transactions. As an Entertainment and Media Law specialist, George believes that the right to free speech underscores every aspect of Media Law. He is the first member of the South East Asian Media Defence Network to represent the International Bar Association on trial observation missions. His pioneering and adventurous spirit has led him to work in many countries across the world, and often in roles where he is the only Asian face. Significant undertakings have included assignments in the European Commission, Bulgaria, Hong Kong. George has also taught in tertiary institutions in Singapore and the Bahamas. He is fluent in English, Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien and French.

Keep reading related posts

Cryptocurrency regulation – now and the future, how to handle overseas assets in your will.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

Case Study From Singapore: Inspiring the Next Generation of Leaders to Prioritize Well-Being

• Published: November 2020
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Introduction

In the decades since Singapore’s independence in 1965, the nation has transformed from one facing basic challenges related to sanitation and disease prevention, to a world-class economy and a gold standard for health care. Factors that contribute to this trajectory include a stable government with a long-term vision of how Singapore should grow economically, guided by a high-level Economic Review Panel of global and local business leaders, international and local academics, and political officeholders. This group meets periodically to chart the direction of Singapore’s economic growth by projecting two to three decades into the future.

While this approach has brought tremendous gains for the country and its people, an unintended consequence of this economics-first approach has been the reinforcement of values and narratives that equate financial wealth with success . And while health has improved across a range of indicators in the process, it nevertheless remains a distant second as a values driver in both national decision-making and in the choices Singaporeans make daily. In many instances, young working adults often pursue wealth at the expense of their health, not recognizing that their current unhealthy lifestyle will result in chronic diseases as they age.

First Page Preview

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.