Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Originality Under Singapore Copyright Law

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook on Originality in Copyright

  • 65 Accesses

Abstract

Situated within a cross-jurisdictional assessment of originality across multiple countries, this chapter offers insights into Singapore’s distinctive approach to conceptualizing and applying the concept of originality under copyright law. As a fundamental criterion for obtaining copyright protection, originality serves to delineate works that are worthy of copyright protection from those that do not qualify for such protection. Through an examination of the historical development of copyright law in Singapore and a careful analysis of key cases, this chapter provides an understanding about the specific standard of originality required under Singapore law. Moreover, it devotes some space to discussing the interaction between originality and developments in technology, such as artificial intelligence, within the context of Singapore’s copyright framework. By analyzing Singapore’s response to technological developments through the specific lens of originality, this chapter contributes to a comprehensive understanding of that concept, highlighting its significance within the broader discourse on copyright protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    L Bently et al., Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018), 93.

  2. 2.

    Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 9 September 1886, 161 U.N.T.S. 3, as amended on 28 September 1979.

  3. 3.

    WIPO and UNESCO, Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries, WIPO Publication No 812(E) (WIPO/UNESCO 1976).

  4. 4.

    Ibid, section 1(1) (dealing with works protected).

  5. 5.

    WIPO, Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971), WIPO Publication No.615(E) (WIPO 1978), 17–18.

  6. 6.

    EF Judge and D Gervais, “Of Silos and Constellations: Comparing Notions of Originality in Copyright Law” (2009) 27 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 375.

  7. 7.

    MD Barr, Singapore: A Modern History (IB Tauris & Co 2019), 65.

  8. 8.

    Ng Sui Nam v. Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd [1987] SGCA 8, [36].

  9. 9.

    Copyright Bill No 8 of 1986.

  10. 10.

    A Gill et al., “The Development of Singapore’s Intellectual Property Rights Regime” (2014) Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy–Microsoft Case Studies Series on Information Technology, Public Policy and Society, 8–9 https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/case-studies/lkwms_series01_sg_ip.pdf?sfvrsn=5135960b_2

  11. 11.

    Copyright Act 1987, section 27(4).

  12. 12.

    As with the 1987 Act, connecting factors are usually established based on the author’s personal status (i.e., citizenship or residence in Singapore) or the work’s place of first publication. The key difference between the 1987 and 2021 Acts is the distinction that is drawn under the new law between “qualified persons” and “qualified individuals.” The term “qualified persons” includes corporations (see section 78 of the 2021 Act) but “qualified individuals” does not. In setting out the connecting factors for authorial works, the 2021 Act specifically uses “qualified individual” as opposed to “qualified persons” signaling certain developments that had taken place prior to the enactment of the 2021 Act. These developments are considerered in the next part of this chapter.

  13. 13.

    Auvi Pte Ltd v. Seah Siew Tee [1991] 2 SLR(R) 786; [1991] SGHC 165 (Auvi v. Seah Siew Tee).

  14. 14.

    Ibid, [9] (Chao Hick Tin J).

  15. 15.

    Ibid, [32] (Chao Hick Tin J) (citing the Privy Council decision in Macmillan & Co Ltd v. Cooper (K&J) [1923] 40 TRL 186 at 190).

  16. 16.

    Ibid, [33] (Chao Hick Tin J) (citing English High Court decision in British Northrop Ltd v. Texteam Blackburn Ltd [1974] RPC 57).

  17. 17.

    See Golden Season Pte Ltd v. Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 38, [178] (George Wei JC) (citing Auvi v. Seah Siew Tee, the Court observed “[w]hile the brochures as a whole may have been simple, simplicity per se does not prevent a work from acquiring copyright. All that is needed is that the author created it and has not slavishly copied it from another”).

  18. 18.

    JPG Enterprise Pte Ltd v. Hairspec Private Ltd [2020] SGDC 12 [15] (Vince Gui, Deputy Registrar) (“To impose such a requirement would be tantamount to elevating the requirement of originality to mean ‘novelty’ or ‘inventiveness’”).

  19. 19.

    Real Electronics Industries Singapore (Pte) Ltd v. Nimrod Engineering Pte Ltd [1995] SGHC 289 (Real Electronics v. Nimrod).

  20. 20.

    Ibid, [26]–[33].

  21. 21.

    Ibid, [31].

  22. 22.

    Anacon Corp Ltd v. Environmental Research Technology Ltd [1994] FSR 659.

  23. 23.

    Real Electronics v. Nimrod, [29] (Rubin J).

  24. 24.

    Ibid, [36] (Rubin J).

  25. 25.

    See Copyright (Amendment) Act 1999.

  26. 26.

    Copyright Act 1987, section 7A(1).

  27. 27.

    Copyright Act 2021, section 13(1)(b).

  28. 28.

    Ibid, section 13(3).

  29. 29.

    Real Electronics v. Nimrod, [34]–[35] (Rubin J).

  30. 30.

    Ibid, [40] (Rubin J).

  31. 31.

    The English cases that were cited included University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601; Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc [1988] 3 WLR 678; Macmillan & Co Ltd v. Cooper (1923) 40 TLR 186.

  32. 32.

    Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Suncool International Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 19 (Virtual Map v. Suncool).

  33. 33.

    Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Suncool International Pte Ltd [2004] SGDC 190.

  34. 34.

    Virtual Map v. Suncool [12]–[14].

  35. 35.

    PropertyGuru Pte Ltd v. 99 Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 52 (PropertyGuru v. 99).

  36. 36.

    Ibid, [98].

  37. 37.

    This was a reference to an English case that considered the point about material alterations: see Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc [1989] AC 217.

  38. 38.

    PropertyGuru v. 99, [102] (Hoo Sheau Peng J).

  39. 39.

    Ibid, [103] (Hoo Sheau Peng J).

  40. 40.

    Copyright Act 2021, section 13(1)(a).

  41. 41.

    Ibid, section 13(2)(a).

  42. 42.

    Ibid, section 13(2)(b).

  43. 43.

    Global Yellow Pages Ltd v. Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 9 (Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia).

  44. 44.

    Ibid, [192] (George Wei J).

  45. 45.

    111 S Ct 1282 (1991).

  46. 46.

    Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia, [200] (George Wei J).

  47. 47.

    See G Chua, “‘Sweat of the Brow’ to the ‘Spark of Creativity’” (2018) Singapore Comparative Law Review 63.

  48. 48.

    Global Yellow Pages Ltd v. Promedia Directories Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 28 (Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia, CA decision), [24] (Sundaresh Menon CJ).

  49. 49.

    Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v. Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd [2011] SGCA 37 (Asia Pacific Publishing v. Pioneers & Leaders).

  50. 50.

    Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd v. Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 211 (Pioneers & Leaders v. Asia Pacific Publishing).

  51. 51.

    Ibid, [25] (Lai Siu Chiu J).

  52. 52.

    Ibid, (Lai Siu Chiu J).

  53. 53.

    Ibid, [42] (Lai Siu Chiu J).

  54. 54.

    Asia Pacific Publishing v. Pioneers & Leaders, [41] (VK Rajah JA).

  55. 55.

    Ibid, [73] (VK Rajah JA).

  56. 56.

    Ibid, [75] (VK Rajah JA).

  57. 57.

    John Robert Powers School Inc and others v. Tessensohn Denyse Bernadette (trading as Clea Professional Image Consultants) [1993] SGHC 204 (JRP School v. Bernadette).

  58. 58.

    Ibid, [13] (Lai Siu Chiu JC).

  59. 59.

    Chua Puay Kiang v. Singapore Telecommunications Ltd [1999] SGHC 1 [89] (Rubin J) (“It is an aphorism that the law of copyright does not protect the ‘idea’ but it protects the ‘form of expression’. For a copyright to be infringed, the defendant must be shown to have copied that form of expression”).

  60. 60.

    WL Ng-Loy, Law of Intellectual Property of Singapore (2nd edn, 2014 Sweet & Maxwell), 92.

  61. 61.

    Asia Pacific Publishing v. Pioneers & Leader, [81] (VK Rajah JA).

  62. 62.

    Copyright Act 2021, sections 109(1)(a) and 110(2)(a).

  63. 63.

    Ibid, [75] (VK Rajah JA).

  64. 64.

    Global Yellow Pages v. Promedia, CA decision, [24] (Sundaresh Menon CJ).

  65. 65.

    Bently et al. (n 1), 95–96.

  66. 66.

    See T Dadia et al., “Can Al Find its Place Within the Broad Ambit of Copyright Law?” (2021) 10 Berkely Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law 37, 52–60.

  67. 67.

    See D Ko, “Reprogramming Copyright Law–Comparing the Copyright Regimes in Singapore and the United Kingdom and Their Application on AI-Generated Content” (2021) Singapore Comparative Law Review 174, 180; E Bonadio and L McDonagh, “Artificial Intelligence as Producer and Consumer of Copyright Works: Evaluating the Consequences of Algorithmic Creativity” (2020) 2 Intellectual Property Quarterly 112.

  68. 68.

    Some have submitted that strong policy arguments exist against recognizing computer-generated or AI-generated works as a separate category and attempting to confer authorship on that basis. See T Aplin, B Schafer, and P Li, Response to UK IPO Open Consultation on AI and IP: Copyright and Patents (January 7, 2022) https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4003626 (commenting on section 9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which provides that the author of a computer-generated work “shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Business Law, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Althaf Marsoof

Authors
  1. Althaf Marsoof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Althaf Marsoof .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Indranath Gupta

Section Editor information

  1. O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Vishwas H Devaiah

  2. O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Manveen Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Marsoof, A. (2023). Originality Under Singapore Copyright Law. In: Gupta, I. (eds) Handbook on Originality in Copyright. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1144-6_14-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1144-6_14-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-1144-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-1144-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation