Unauthorized Use Instances of unauthorized use material from 2Bangkok.com (Photo: 2Bangkok.com) How do we know MRTA reads 2Bangkok.com? - July 10, 2004 We had been told by our sources working at MRTA that 2Bangkok.com has been read there over the years, but we were still surprised to see a 2Bangkok.com photo (below) incorporated into MRTA's flash intro (left). (Photo: 2Bangkok.com) Last word on the unauthorized photos in The Nation - February 20, 2004 If you remember on February 9, The Nation used photos from 2Bangkok.com and then said we could not claim these photos were stolen from 2Bangkok. They said they were given the photos by WPM Film International Co. Ltd. The first time we talked to WPM they hung up on us and after two weeks of further promises to "contact us," we finally talked to the owner of the business who said "our PR did not know we couldn't use photos from the internet--so, sorry." They are basically not prepared to do anything or pay anything. There were further vague explanations like "we thought it was ok to copy photos from Pantip.com, etc." Further, we were told by sources in The Nation that the section of the paper that printed the stolen photos is notorious for getting into trouble by printing unauthorized material. The Nation responds - February 12, 2004 Just as predicted, here is the response to the unauthorized use of the Alexander photos: "...Just want to defend that we did not take the photos from your website as I didn't even know about the existence of the web prior the arrival of your e-mail. The photos were mailed to us by WPM Film International Co Ltd. Should you have any problem, contact the company at www.wpm.co.th. By the way, you must also stop running that small piece that said we stole the photos. Such accusation is libellious." When we called WPM Film International Co. Ltd. all they would say is that they would send us their media kit and then as we tried to explain the infringement issue, they hung up on us. The Nation's response is similar to the one from Chulalongkorn University who told us to "kindly remove the news" when we objected to them using our history of the second airport project in one of their reports unattributed. There is a difference between local and international ways of handling such unauthorized use. In a simliar earlier incident, The Economist at least pretended to be concerned about a breach of copyright while deftly deflecting our query to the company they bought the photos from. Dealing locally one is most likely to hear demands to remove any online mention of the infringement or else! Earlier: Unauthorized use of 2Bangkok.com photos in The Nation - February 11, 2004 Several readers pointed out how The Nation used two stolen photos from this site in the newspaper (the first and third photos). We have written the paper to complain. Typically the excuse in these cases is "someone sold them to us so it is not our fault." An earlier example of a photo taken from this site and used in The Economist is here. Earlier: Shooting Alexander - January 27, 2004 Anyone have shots of the big battle scenes? How to sue over copyright infringement on the net in Thailand - January 28, 2004 Stuart McDonald offers this info on how to sue over copyright infringement on the internet: 1) Get a complete copy of whatever is online that is infringing your copyright. 2) Get in touch with some lawyers and file the case. 3) The material is then sent to the court who decide if it is a bonafide case, if it is then the other party is contacted and advised that proceedings are being brought against them. 4) The information generally disappears shortly after that, but as you've already paid the lawyers, you need to continue through to at least a settlement to recoup your costs. 5)The haggling begins, this can take months, as generally nothing happens then there is a bout of haggling the morning that you're due in court. 6) If you settle, you still need to go to court to drop the case. I settled after two hearings and so dropped the case on the third hearing. The math Cases like these are filed through the IP Court (which is a criminal court) - this court has a reputation for speed - it only took my case eight months to run its course. Cases in other courts can drag on for years. The court can award from 20,000B to 800,000B in cases such as these. Whatever the court awards, it gets to keep half!!! [This is why most of these cases are settled out of court.] Although one would assume that would mean they rule high, in reality they tend not to - around 200,000 is a common ruling for cases like mine. Legal fees Fees depend on the lawyers. Mine charged me 75,000B +15% of the take - we settled for 180,000B, so I just over doubled my money. Would I use my lawyers again? No way. They gave me some poor advice midway through the process that led me to turn down a settlement of 350,000 (thinking I could get more) and in the end I got less. Be sure that your lawyers have dealt in this type of material before. If possible record everything your lawyers say - this makes it much easier when disputes arise later on (as they often do). Would I do it again? No way. I had no idea who it was I was actually suing. We live in a no security apartment and were concerned about assaults/robberies related to the case, however in the end nothing happened. It was eight months of stress and worry, when, if I'd sent the clown a letter, he probably would have taken it down anyway. Next time I'd send them some legal mumbo jumbo and see if it disappeared. In this case I needed to act as I had sold the content to another person online and they were upset about it. The Thai courts are quite intimidating - everything is in Thai and no allowance is made for convenient translations. You are expected to sign off on volumes of documents in Thai without translations being made available. Your lawyer says they're all OK - but to this day I have no idea what I signed. More plagiarism - September 7, 2003 Ever wonder where thaivisa.com get all their good info? Why, they simply copy it from 2Bangkok.com. Look up any phrase from our visa page on Google and you'll find it repeated on thaivisa.com. Business-in-asia.com has also copied the entire thing without permission... We're almost afraid to look up any text from our sites on the web since we always find someone reprinting it and claiming it as their own. Even Chulalongkorn University copied our NBIA page in the past. Here's a rather funny thaivisa.com page copied entirely from 2Bangkok.com: It even includes the part about "I did throw a big fit recently.." to explain how I got my work permit extended. It strange that anyone would be so crass as to present this as their own effort and build their website around it... Post-mortem on the stolen photos - February 28, 2003 September 3, 2002 - Everyone loves Siriluk P.'s photos of the light and water show in front of Democracy Monument. Forbes magazine liked them so much they used one in their June 24, 2002 issue without permission. 2b has written to Forbes asking for an explanation. September 6, 2002 - Forbes promptly wrote back and said they were given the photo by "Thai authorities." They are checking into the situation. September 17, 2002 - 2b has determined Forbes actually aquired the photos from a local media supplier--World Media Co., Ltd. This company also represents major publications in Thailand, selling advertising for them. The company has a rather telling slogan: "Selling Thailand to the World." September 27, 2002 - World Media's Managing Director Chower Narula wrote back with a release form with a blank to fill in an amount. There was no explanation of why this was not done in the first place. They say they're sorry and "please remove the news" - February 28, 2002 We got a kind note concerning the plagiarized item from this site. They apologized and the pdf has vanished: ...We understand that the copyright role is very important and we had felled to acknowledge the source of information we took. We also know the fact that non of team members will be able to have that information by oneself, since SBIA project is a mega project all documents are belong to governmental organization and also large private firms and joint ventures. In the case of academic report, the case has to refer to the original source of information... And in a second message: There is nothing related to Chulalongkorn University, I ; as the web-master of Department of Landscape Architecture ; would like to take this opportunity to accept all the mistake within only my responsibility. As I informed you before that I posted it without concerning the consequences of the report, initially just want to have it only as an example of EIA study and information on SBIA. Hope you please understand us, and could you please kindly remove the news(new) posted date :27th February, 2002 from your web-site.... University paper plagiarizes this website - February 27, 2002 If you take a look at this pdf doc, you'll find a PhD student has copied the entire first page of our Suvanabhumi Airport Site for the first five pages of a 21-page report. Halfway down page three is a single footnote crediting Pas Saengsong next to the heading "Background/History of the Project." Pas, webmaster of Bangkok Highrises wrote the entire article on the airport for 2Bangkok.com. Pas wrote: I just couldn't help myself stop laughing. So funny, bizarre and... shall we say, dumb? It's beyond me why would someone copy everything (even the section headings as well!!) then publish it for academic purposes on the web?? (At the very least, it's a grave error in referencing.) ...most universities... use the Harvard Referencing system (ie. if you take a quote from a source, you name the author, publisher, date it was published, etc.). I doubt a professor would take kindly to having a quarter of a paper lifted from another source. I wonder where he copied the rest of his report from? BTW: In the past, we've also had someone copy our entire sister site, Angkor.com and publish it as their own. They were so lazy, they didn't even change links to other parts of our network of sites or change mentions made to Angkor.com within the text.