DID I INFRINGE 'EH, GOONDU' COPYRIGHT?

In my last 2 blogs I used Sylvia Toh's book cover as an insertion in my feature image. She has very politely asked me to take it down and I have obliged with apologies. I usually ask permission or give credit to images I use. I did not ask Sylvia’s permission as to my best knowledge, there was nothing improper.

We all make mistakes. When we do, own up and make good what we can. Life is not that complicated. However, did I infringe Sylvia’s copyright, that’s what I want to get into here.

In any case, I like to say that my "Eh, Goondu" is not name calling Ho Ching. You will note in all my many blogs, whilst I have been critical of Ho Ching's decisions or speech, I only attacked the issues. Check out my 2 Eh, Goondu blogs (3rd one coming soon), there are no ad hominems, but facts and my opinions on issues.

Eh, Goondu is not specifically referring to madam, rather a poor attempt to use a comical icon of the past to humour all those who I believe, hold an incorrect interpretation of national reserves. I certainly hope Singaporeans are not so uptight as to agitate at such triffles. Afterall, those who recall Eh, Goondu understand Sylvia was not disparaging anyone. It was a tongue-in-cheek name calling. Although goondu is local slang for idiot, it is used in a sort of endearing way.

To the younger generation who don't know what it's all about, "Eh, Goondu" is a creation of Sylvia long ago. It was her classic comic sketches with classy Singlish and was the spice of my generation’s earlier days when Singapore was not such a money-faced metropolis and ministers earned depressed wages.

I'm sure my reference to Eh, Goondu refreshed in many feebled old minds, the fun of yesteryear. Too bad Sylvia does not wish to join in rekindling her old fame and rejuvenating an iconic trope.

I have always said, in all honesty and humility, that when stuff happens and one is blessed with certain knowledge, it presents a teaching moment not to be wasted. However, let’s not be presumptuous to call it teaching, let’s just call it sharing.

I want to share some pointers on COPYRIGHT, specifically relating to my Eh, Goondu blogs. This has great relevance to most folks who write, copy, cut and paste, and post or comment regularly online. Copyright protection law is wide-ranging, and still evolving as the digital era brings with it new legal challenges. I don’t lay claim to any professional expertise. What I do know and want to share, relates only to my Eh, Goondu situation.

In Singapore, copyright protection used to be under Copyright Act 1987, now superseded by Copyright Act 2021.

So actually, Sylvia has no copyright over her Eh, Goondu bookcover and book since it was published in 1982. It’s the doctrine of Lex prospicit, non respicit. It means laws have prospective effect, never retroactive.

Another thing to know is something called ‘public domain’. Anything in public domain has no copyright protection. So when does a piece of work enter public domain? (a) You’ll be surprised the statute of limitation for copyright is much more longer than other serious illegal acts. For authorial works such as books, the protection lasts up to 70 years after the death of author. Thereafafter it is public domain property. (b) When the owner allows it to be used publicly. (c) In most countries, like US, copyright may or may not be registered. Those works not registered generally enter the public domain. In Singapore there is no registration of copyright. By default, the owner of the work has the copyright. Sylvia’s Eh, Goondu is obviously in the public domain since it is pre-1987.

Although you can freely use what’s in public domain, it does not mean you can pass it off as your own work. That's illegal. You cannot make profit out of it, and you still need to give attribution. In my Eh, Goondu blogs, Sylvia’s name was prominently displayed. In fact, her book was promoted.

One cannot claim copyright over phrases and common words. There is no infringement of any kind in my continuing to use “Eh, Goondu”.

Holy Blood Holy Grail was a best selling non-fiction book in 1982 whose idea originated from Henry Lincoln, who later co-authored with Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. Some time after it’s publication, Dan Brown came out with his fiction Da Vinci Code. The novel and movie had huge financial success. If you had read both books, like I did, you will be one million percent convinced Dan Brown copied the ideas from HBHG. Baigent and Leigh sued and lost. Back then, I never understood why Dan Brown won the suit. It seemed totally unfair. Years later I learnt what it was all about. It is not specifically mentioned in the Copyright Act, but it is an established principle that expressions of ideas cannot be copyrighted. This has nothing to do with the Eh, Goondu issue. It’s an interesting concept in copyright I thought I throw it in here.

Finally, a fairly new legal concept you need to know is “fair use”. Very basically, this allows one to use someone’s work in furtherance of some good work you are doing which benefits the community, such as research work, education related, etc.

Now, the question is, if I am certain there was no infringement of copyright, why did I take down the Eh, Goondu bookcover image. The answer is very simple. Beyond legal boundaries of right and wrong, there is an ethical issue. It's the same way I view the Da Vinci Code suit. Although I was very certain there was no copyright infringement, I still accept Sylvia as the rightful owner. So if the rightful owner respectfully asked to take it down, I obliged. But had she approached me like the mafia DOJ in US pursuing American conservatives, the outcome could have been different.

With all due respects to Sylvia, I don't think she really cares about the copyright thingy. She's not selfish. I think she fears being associated with a seemingly anti-establishment post. I have some requests from a few folks not to share such posts with them. In fact, a handful 'unfriended' me on account of this. Whatever, everyone is entitled to what they want, which I respect. Just for the record that I am saddened folks live under such psychological duress in Singapore.

The purpose for this blog is, as I have stated, it is a ‘teaching moment’. More importantly it is also to cover my integrity that I strive to write with no fear or favour, but within legal, moral and ethical confines.



A parting shout out :

Plato said:
“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
If you like what you read here and feel it matters Singaporeans know stuff like this, please click and share with your social circle. This makes my effort worthwhile.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.