This is Part 1 of a four-part series updating our original 2004 article on intellectual property in the digital economy. Singapore’s Copyright Act has been completely rewritten since then. This instalment covers what changed and what it means for your business today.
A Reversed Default Ownership Rule
The single most practically important change is default ownership of commissioned work. Under the old Copyright Act, a business that commissioned a photograph, portrait, sound recording or film generally owned the copyright in it. Under the Copyright Act 2021, which came into force on 21 November 2021, the position is reversed: the photographer, videographer or sound recordist who creates the commissioned work owns the copyright by default, not the paying client.
This catches out businesses regularly. A company using event photography or a corporate video for years, on the assumption it owns those files outright, may not actually hold the rights unless a written assignment was signed at the time of commissioning. Employee-created works are unaffected: the employer remains the default owner of copyright in anything an employee creates in the course of employment. The change applies specifically to independent contractors and freelancers commissioned for photographs, portraits, sound recordings and films.
New Rights and New Offences
The Act also introduced a right of attribution, meaning creators and performers generally have the right to be identified when their work is used publicly, a right that did not exist under the old Act. Separately, it created specific offences targeting the commercial sale of illicit streaming devices and services, closing a gap that had allowed set-top boxes providing access to pirated content to be sold openly.
Rights Management Information and Technological Protection Measures
The original 2004 article discussed Rights Management Information (RMI), the electronic identifying details attached to a work, such as an author’s name, and the offence of removing or altering it. This protection continues under the current Act, alongside protection for technological protection measures (TPMs), the access controls and copy controls publishers attach to digital content. Circumventing a TPM, or dealing in tools designed to circumvent one, remains an infringing act.
This area has become more contested rather than less. IPOS and the Ministry of Law have been consulting since 2024 on whether narrow exceptions to the anti-circumvention rules are needed, particularly where TPMs block legitimate research or AI-related computational uses. Businesses building products that interact with access-controlled content, rather than simply publishing their own, should treat this as an evolving area rather than settled law.
Practical Takeaways
- Review vendor and freelancer contracts for commissioned photography, video and audio. Without a written assignment clause, you may not own what you think you own.
- If you use content protected by TPMs in a product or service, confirm whether your use falls within a permitted exception before building around it.
- Attribution is now a right, not a courtesy. Factor it into how you licence and republish third-party content.
Next in the series: open source licensing, linking, and registering your rights.
This article is intended for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.
OTP Law Corporation advises businesses on intellectual property and digital economy compliance. If you would like to review your contracts against the current copyright framework, do get in touch through our Contact Us page.
