Storm in a cupcake

ALL content used in this not-for-profit blog remain the property of their respective owners.
http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC120706-0000129/Storm-in-a-cupcake

The celebrity owner of a boutique cupcake bakery took to Facebook to air his grievances after he was asked to pay Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) nearly S$3,000 after he reproduced articles featuring his business on his company's website.

TODAY contacted SPH for comment at 3pm today, but had not received a response at 6pm.

In a series of Twitter and Facebook posts, Mr Daniel Ong - a former DJ for radio stations in both MediaCorp and SPH's stables - said he was asked to pay a sum of S$535 for each of the articles featuring his business Twelve Cupcakes or his wife and co-owner Jamie Ong that he had put up on the Twelve Cupcakes website and shared via social media.

He also said he had been charged an additional S$214 for "investigative fees". According to Mr Ong's Facebook post, SPH continued to ask payment for the investigative fees even after he agreed to remove the articles from his website.

Mr Ong wrote on his Facebook post: "Did you know? Business owners are not allowed to share stories about themselves on their websites unless they pay ... Stalls and cafes can't photocopy (articles) and put them at their stalls or signboards unless they pay. I never knew that!"

The Facebook post (http://tdy.sg/NGVDjn) gathered more than a thousand likes, 650 shares and 340 comments within 13 hours of its posting last night. Many of the comments expressed outrage, even though they acknowledged SPH owned the content.

"Yeah, they call us for stories and quotes, but if we wanna use them later on whichever platform, we have to pay for it," commented entertainer Mr Hossan Leong.

Mr Leong said he currently pays SPH to put their articles on his website, but intends to take them down in the future. "Next time they come calling for quotes and comments ... forget it," he added.

While many have offered support to Mr Ong, others within the media felt that it was within SPH's rights to protect their intellectual property.

Said tech journalist Aloysius Low: "Since SPH owns the copyright for the articles, it's the company's discretion on whether to charge for the articles. As a content producer, it's only fair that it charges for the article. It has to pay its writers, too."

However, Mr Low thought that the company could have handled it in a more PR-friendly manner. "Some discretion or goodwill should have been taken into account for the issue, and perhaps a prominent disclaimer should be on the Web site to inform users who wish to share content."

"The investigation fee charge was a little too much to swallow, even though I believe that the company has the right to charge for content that it created," he added.