Dato’ Mohd Radzi Abdul Razak v Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd (2013)

 📸 When a Newspaper Uses Your Photo Without Permission

Did you know that even a single photo you take can be protected by copyright? If someone uses it without your greenlight, you have the right to take action.

Let’s talk about Dato’ Mohd Radzi Abdul Razak v Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd (2013). This particular case made it clear that freelance photographers also have rights.

What Happened?

Dato’ Mohd Radzi was a freelance photographer. One day, he found out that Utusan Melayu, a well-known newspaper in Malaysia, had published his photographs without asking for permission and without giving him any credit.

He didn’t sell the photos to them, nor did he give them permission to use the images. Yet, the photos appeared in the paper as if they owned them.

So, what did he do? He brought the matter to court.

Why It Matters

A lot of people think that only big companies or famous artists can use copyright law. But actually, anyone who creates original work, like photos, drawings, music, or writing, owns the copyright automatically.

That includes freelancers, students, hobbyists, and even you!

In this case, Radzi was able to show that he took the photos himself and never gave up his rights. He never signed a contract transferring ownership. That means the copyright still belonged to him.

What Did the Court Say?

The court agreed with Radzi.

They said that since Utusan had used his copyrighted material without his permission, it was a violation of copyright law.

Even though the newspaper was a big media company, the law does not care whether you are big or small. What matters is who owns the copyright; in this case, it was clearly the photographer.

What Can We Learn From This?

This case is a reminder to:

  1. Respect the work of others: Even if something is on the internet or seems easy to copy, it doesn’t mean it’s free to use.

  2. Protect your work: If you’re a creator, keep records. Save your original files. Note down when and how you created something.

  3. Know your rights: Under the Copyright Act, 1987, you don’t need to register your work. Your rights start from the moment you create it.

Final Thought

No matter if you’re a freelance photographer or someone who just loves snapping photos for fun, your work matters. And yes, the law is on your side.

So next time someone uses your photo without asking, remember. You can do something about it!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Study: Sony Music Malaysia vs. Pesona Cipta Sdn Bhd (2000)

Case Study Background: In this landmark case, Sony Music Entertainment Malaysia filed a lawsuit against Pesona Cipta Sdn Bhd, a local production company, for unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Sony’s copyrighted music content. What Happened? Pesona Cipta was found to have duplicated and sold several audio CDs containing songs that were originally produced and owned by Sony Music without obtaining proper licenses or permission. These CDs were distributed to the public, resulting in profit from copyrighted content. Legal Action & Outcome: Sony Music sued under the Copyright Act 1987. The court found that Pesona Cipta violated Sony’s copyright and ordered the company to pay damages and stop distributing the copied materials. This case highlighted the seriousness of copyright infringement and the strength of copyright laws in Malaysia. Why This Case Matters This case sends a clear message that intellectual property rights must be respected, and even companies can face heavy ...
Read more

Case Study: Sara Nadzirah binti Zulkifli v Khirulanuar bin Mohamadiah (2023)

This case seems to be recent, with the rise in popularity of quick platform such as Instagram, and netizens posting without knowledge of copyright infringement. What's it about? The plaintiff named Sara Nadzirah is a social media influencer. The initial action that sparked the case was of her recording a 51-second video of herself eating durian as a "mukbang" and uploaded it to her Instagram account. The clip/video gain significant attention, as she had a following alongside platform algorithm. ​ Infringement The defendant named Khirulanuar was the reason as to why attention went to the video and Sara Nadzirah. He posted her video on his own platform without her permission, Ezydurian Services , as an opportunity to promote his brand over the plaintiff's image of being a small content creator. Legal Action Sara Nadzirah had demanded Khirulanuar to remove the video off of his brand platform, but he rejected her request. She later filed a lawsuit for copyright i...
Read more

Warner Music Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. Metro Music Sdn Bhd (2005)

Case Study: Warner Music Malaysia vs. Metro Music Sdn Bhd (2005) Date: 8th March 2005 Type: Copyright Infringement – Illegal Distribution of Music Background Warner Music Malaysia filed a case against Metro Music Sdn Bhd, a retail and wholesale business, for distributing pirated VCDs and audio CDs of copyrighted songs owned by Warner Music and its affiliated labels. What Happened? Metro Music was caught selling and wholesaling large quantities of unlicensed music recordings in local markets and through unofficial channels. The recordings were traced back to Warner's catalog, including international and domestic artists. Legal Action & Outcome Warner Music brought the action under the Copyright Act 1987, claiming substantial commercial loss and damage to reputation. The High Court found Metro Music guilty of infringement of copyright and ordered the company to pay statutory damages and legal costs. An injunction was also issued to prevent all other infringing activities. Why Thi...
Read more