|
Marcus, in the link you provided the use of the terms "commissioner" and "commissioned party" is very unclear. It looks to me as though the meanings may be the opposite from your interpretation, based on the context of some of the usage. It says "where a portrait is commissioned by another party" and then goes on to establish the categories of "commissioner" and "commissioned party." Because the term "party" is initially utilized to refer to the client, it seems to me that "commissioned party" also refers to the client and not to the artist.
Furthermore, in all other respects it appears that Singapore copyright law and custom are parallel to that which exists here in the U.S., so it also does not make sense that in the case of commissioned works, and in that case alone. the law should be exactly the opposite. Is there anyone you can check with about this wording?
I would not voluntarily give up the copyright to a work for any reason. But my understanding is that unless a release is signed I cannot utilize the image in any public manner, even on my own website. I also can't sell copies to others, even with a release, unless that use is stipulated or at least implied in the text of the release that's signed.
Leslie
|