Architectural photographer Darren Soh gets annoyed when people use his photos on their online platforms without crediting him.
"I keep getting my images ripped off - mainly by property agents who use them to sell properties. People just lift them off the Internet," grumbles Mr Soh, 45, who regularly uploads his work on social media.
The prominent photographer is one of many artists in Singapore who welcome two proposed changes to the local copyright law, even as they wonder how effective they might ultimately be in safeguarding creators' rights.
Under these changes, which were tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, people who use materials publicly - including online - will need to acknowledge the creator or performer of the content.
At the moment, creators and performers do not have the right to be identified when their work or performance is used. They only have the right to stop these works from being falsely attributed.
Another proposed change is that the copyright of works such as photographs, portraits, engravings, sound recordings and films would also go to the creator by default, whether or not the work is commissioned. At the moment, the commissioning party owns the copyright by default.
Under the current copyright law, a person already needs to ask for permission to use someone's content before doing so for commercial purposes. This would be unaffected by the changes, and crediting the creator would not exempt a person from this need to seek consent.
Lawyer Adrian Tan, head of intellectual property at TSMP Law Corporation, turns to Mr Soh's example of the property agents.
"If the agent, for example, was on Facebook and just shared it to say, what a lovely photo of, say, (the Monetary Authority of Singapore) building, taken by Mr X, that's fine.
"If the agent instead says on his Facebook site that 'This is a photo of such-and-such condominium and I'm selling this unit in it', then he's infringing copyright, because he's doing it for his business gain."
In this second scenario, the agent would have to credit the creator and also ask for permission to use his content. The creator might then say yes and ask for a royalty.
Most of the provisions in the copyright Bill will come into effect in November if the Bill is passed. The rules apply to commercial groups as well as the public, but would not affect past uses of content.
Under the new Copyright Act, if a person does not credit the creator of a work that he uses publicly, the creator could ask to be identified under the amended law. If the person refuses, the creator could take legal action to be credited or have the work taken down, and seek financial compensation if potential loss of income can be shown.
There are some exceptions to the right to be identified - for instance, if the creator or performer is unknown and cannot be reasonably determined.
Some arts practitioners wonder how practical it would be for time-and resource-strapped artists to go after all the offending parties.
Mr Soh, who often has his photographs used online without attribution or permission, says: "If I went after each and every single one, I wouldn't have the time to do anything else. Nobody would offer to pay me, they would only offer to take the images down."
Another creator who welcomes the proposed right to attribution is Singapore-based visual artist Christine Lok, 26, who once had a photographic work copied by a watercolour artist who sent it in for a competition.
"But the public might still lack awareness," says Ms Lok, who now watermarks the images she posts.
Ms Nicole K. runs an online mental health publication, the content of which has been used on other websites without credit or permission.
"People are so used to online content these days that they assume that whatever is on the Internet is free for the taking, which isn't the case," says the 39-year-old, who did not want to be known by her full name.
The changes "may encourage more creative content to be put out there without creators fearing that their ideas and creations might get stolen or 'adapted'", she says, although having to figure out who the creator is could also cause consumers of content to not share these materials as freely.
The other proposed change to the law requires copyright to go to the content creator by default, unless said otherwise in a contract.
Jazz maestro Jeremy Monteiro, 61, says the proposed changes are a step towards more First-World practices, noting that creators did not always receive due credit in the past. For instance, the copyright for the song Singapura, Sunny Island (1962), went to a broadcasting group rather than the creators.
"David Lim was the lyricist for the version of Singapura we know in English. We only know the surname of the composer, Van Moring. But what's his first name? And did he write both the lyrics and the music? We don't know."
Mr Monteiro is worried, however, about "knee-jerk reactions" from commissioners, who might craft more onerous contracts for hiring composers in a bid to protect themselves against the amendments.
Creators could be made to sign all kinds of agreements, says Mr Soh.
"The problem is a lot of creatives in Singapore are clueless when it comes to negotiating legalities, when it comes to their rights. Or they are afraid that if they broach the subject, they won't get the job."
Presenter-producer Audrey Lim, 34, thinks the proposed changes are good but do not go far enough.
"With freedom of contract, service purchasers in the know can still insist on holding all the rights, and with the incredible asymmetry of power between creators and arts workers and service purchasers, the former are unable to meaningfully negotiate without being seen as 'difficult' or worse, dispensable in favour of a more compliant creator or arts worker."
Ms Lim, a former candidate for the arts Nominated MP position, thinks arts institutions that commission work should be more willing to allow creators to retain copyright of their content, "instead of insisting on using old boiler plates that take most of the rights away from the creators".
She says that while it is admirable that arts administrators have previously taken efforts to professionalise the creative scene - for instance by providing templates for contracts - service purchasers do not always take kindly to creators' attempts to negotiate contracts.
"It remains to be seen if this one-sidedness and lack of level playing field for negotiation will persist even among the administrators, whose legal teams will be more savvy and resource-enabled than individual creators and arts workers and will know how to contract out of these newly sought rights of attribution or where the presumption of ownership lies."
Some members of the public The Straits Times spoke to were surprised that the law did not already require creators to be attributed.
Ms Sherrie Goh, 27, who works for Co., a social space for work and events, says: "I thought this was always a requirement. It's great that we finally acknowledge the work of creators.
"I think there need to be clearer guidelines. Examples have to be given, so people know what they can do and what they can't."