AFL PA Homophobic!

[morgoth]

Ever stopped to think that maybe the players don't want to appear on these sites? As the Ettinghouse case proved you cannot use someones image without their permission, in fact you can be sued!

Maybe they should have just insitgated legal action rather than making a reasonable request to have the images removed. Would you be happier with that?

How would you feel Tess if you image was used on an internet site in a way that you did not permit?

 

[tess]

Fair enough Morgoth, but whats next if the gayfooty site losses this fight. Will the players want "control" over what is said about them on footy fansites?

I would think we need gayfooty to win this, or all the sites/boards could be in jeopardy.

Having a Bay13 will not be good enough.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

It is already established that you cannot slander players on internet forums. Mods will remove such threads from most sites. Clubs examine sites for this sort of stuff also.

I suggest you refresh your memory with the ET case, image was used without his permission, it was sexual and he received a 6 figure pay-out. Defamation and slander laws apply to the internet as they do to any other form of media.

Either get the permission of the player(s) or remove them, it is pretty simple.

 

[rick James]

http://www.scrumdown.net/Aussierules.htm

http://www.gaysports.co.uk/afl_players/index2.php

The Oz site is nothing when compared to these as just an example.

I think the AFL PA are just trying to find some issue to make them relevant as a player organisation. They are a paper tiger the AFL laugh at, the AFL Clubs are very well set up and as we witnessed with the Pies/Morrison $20,000 saga, the AFL PA can huff and puff all they wanna. They are never going to blow any house down.

not sure if you realise but sites based in different countries have different laws applied to them.


Pretty straight (pun intended) forward really, the AFLPA are looking out for their members, and doing what they can to stop their image or likeness being used without authorisation.

how would you feel if an anti-gay site used your likeness to promote hatred of gays?

 

[Sedition]

Didn't a current Pies footy player do a feature photo shoot for 'Black and White Magazine' and 'Blue' magazine. They are hardly mags for the girls.

Well he did coz I just googled it to check that I was right.

 

[rick James]

Well he did coz I just googled it to check that I was right.

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuureee

Besides, that's not the issue - hte issue is that the players should be PAID for the use of their image in advertising. that player clearly didn't mind being used for htat magazine, cause they got PAID.

Notice Bigfooty doesn't use players for adverts? Wonder why? (cause Cheif is a tightarse most likely and won't fork out the dosh, but I digress)

Get dat paper

 

[Sedition]

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuureee

and I bet a few others are doin the same right now.

 

[rick James]

and I bet a few others are doin the same right now.

lol and good on 'em too. This isn't a gay vs straight thing anyway, it's just legal rights of the players vs persecution complex thing.

 

[MarkT]

Tess you are confusing and clouding issues. Infringing player’s rights in a manner that bothers them whether or not they are individually homophobic is exploitive and downright hypocritical and in terms of everything they would claim to hold dear as far as rights go. If this is the horse you intent tom flog it’s the wrong one because the sight was in the wrong to begin with. Accept it and pick your make better.

PS this shouldn’t be a footy thread.

 

[MarkT]

Yes, it must be quite a shock when you pose for pictures half naked and then find out some people are perving at them. Why on earth did they think the pictures were taken and published in the first place? I'd suggest the sensitive ones keep their clothes on. Otherwise keep tight controls over copyright so you can keep use of the images to places you are comfortable with.

2 comments:
1. Posed photos are not the same as candid photos.
2. Context changes apparent meaning and actual affect.

In the end though all that is actually irrelevant. A person has every right to object to how their image or photo is used. Whether they can change anything is a legal matter but they sure as hell have every right to object which is what I gather happened.

But some of what I've heard said since about the dangers of sites like this and the risks to the players (and their children!!!???) is, frankly, just weird.

Agreed but doesn’t prove the claim to a point? There are weird people all mover this planet. Some are gay and some are not. Some sell insurance and some sell ideas that don’t exist. A person has every right to be concerned on religious, sexual, personal value or commercial grounds.

 

[beatnik]

Your personality drives people towards homophobia, just as greenpeace drives perfectly respectable people away from environmentalism.

how do greenpeace drive people away from environmentalism?

I always thought that materialistic overconsumers like your good self were motivated by selfishness and greed rather than altruistic concerns

someone either has a social consciense or they dont...

they either empathise with the plight of the weak and helpless or they dont...

they are either a selfish yob or they are not...

I'm not sure how a few 'enthusiatic greenies' trying to save the environment is going to put people off environmentalism

I'm not trying to say you are wrong, just that you dont make any sense...

try again

 

[Joffaboy]

Tess you are confusing and clouding issues. Infringing player’s rights in a manner that bothers them whether or not they are individually homophobic is exploitive and downright hypocritical and in terms of everything they would claim to hold dear as far as rights go. If this is the horse you intent to flog it’s the wrong one because the site was in the wrong to begin with. Accept it and pick your make better.

PS this shouldn’t be a footy thread.

Agree entirely. Allow this site to infringe and trample on individual rights or they are labelled "homophobic".

What a farce.

What a bunch of melodramatic hypocrites.

And yes MarkT, what does this have to do with football apart from one member attempting to bang their tiresomey political drum.

 

[TigerFan]

sensationalism never achieved anything Tess

 

[beatnik]

Agree entirely. Allow this site to infringe and trample on individual rights or they are labelled "homophobic".

you were so busy trying to repeat what MarkT had written that I think you didn't actually comprehend it - i read his point as being: it's not a gay issue, it's an intellectual property issue

I would like somone with a bit more knowledge of the law reagrding intellectual property to confirm this but I think the following is still true:

once a text (be it an image, an article, an essay etc) is published in the public domain then it is on the public record and people then have the right to quote, reference or reproduce that text, providing that it is referenced properly and not claimed as original work or sold for commercial profit

this allows journalists and media organisation to do their job without malice - how else could you provide a critique of an offensive ad without quoting from or reproducing the ad in full or part?

the only time when this 'public record' debate does not hold is when it is defammatory in nature or invades the privacy of the individual concerned

the odd thing about Australia's defamation laws is that the definition means that even if your assertion is true, you can be found guilty of defamation if your material causes others "to shun and avoid" the person you wrote about (i.e. you can write things which defame someone but it is only the 'shunning' reaction in others that counts when trying to prove you have been defamed)

fortunately you cannot sue for punitive damages (i.e. stress, pain, anguish) but only for pecuniary damages (i.e. money you actually lost as a result of the defamation)

anyway, back to the topic:

it is not the websites using the images of the footballers (as long as they have not plagiarised the material) which can be sued but the person who shouldn't have been taking photos in the changeroom or toilet block in the first place - the players were in the shower and not in public and their privacy can be demonstrated to have been invaded

however, if footballers are at the beach in their underpants or doing half-naked 'hero' shots then they are on public record and they cant stop someone taking a photo and publishing it any more than the average joe can

so anyway Tess, you may be right that Brendan Gale's motivation for asking them to take the photos down was homophobic in origin but that is impossible to prove and is really just an opinion based on observations

the AFLPA is perfectly within it's rights to object but whether they have a legal standing (as MarkT said) is quite doubtful

personally, I have a real problem with celebs who court the spotlight when it suits them for $$$ or ego but then get snippity about who can say what about them and when - sorry, notoriety is a two-edged sword

peace

 

[Allefgib]

how do greenpeace drive people away from environmentalism?

I always thought that materialistic overconsumers like your good self were motivated by selfishness and greed rather than altruistic concerns

someone either has a social consciense or they dont...

they either empathise with the plight of the weak and helpless or they dont...

they are either a selfish yob or they are not...

I'm not sure how a few 'enthusiatic greenies' trying to save the environment is going to put people off environmentalism

I'm not trying to say you are wrong, just that you dont make any sense...

try again

some of this is a little black and white.. and i usually find it hard to see the world in grey myself! personally I think he makes perfect sense and also think many would agree with him. but maybe we are just selfish yobs I would suggest people who are trying to force things into a 'black and white' scenario are those that struggle to get empathy for their causes....

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

anyway, back to the topic:

it is not the websites using the images of the footballers (as long as they have not plagiarised the material) which can be sued but the person who shouldn't have been taking photos in the changeroom or toilet block in the first place - the players were in the shower and not in public and their privacy can be demonstrated to have been invaded.

Australian courts do not recognise a "right to privacy".

That part of your argument is bunk.

The official argument is that pictures of players in "a socially embarrassing position such as in the showers and in various states of undress are defamatory".

It's a flimsy legal argument.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

All photos are copyrighted, whether by the AFLPA, Getty Images or Joe Blog. Without their permission, it's a breach of copyright if the owner hasn't given permission. You also can't take a picture of someone and use it for commercial purposes either, so it could be requested to be removed by the person who is in the image if there are grounds (or someone who is representing them - perhaps the AFLPA in this case).

Do you actually know what you're talking about?

There's no such thing as a right to privacy in Australian law.

I don't know where you came up with this idea that you can't take a picture of someone and then use it for commercial pursposes.

That's a load of nonsense.

The fact that celebrity photographers snap celebrities and then sell their pics to magazines flies in the face of your suggestion. Or have Kylie or Elle or whoever signed release forms for every candid pic that appears of them?

These discussions would be more interesting if less people pretended to know something about the issue.

 

[Allefgib]

These discussions would be more interesting if less people pretended to know something about the issue.

Oh I highly doubt that... more constructive.. for sure.. more interesting.. probably not

 

[Trump]

Brando Says:

"Stella, Hey Stella!"

 

[m0nty]

The AFLPA have very little legal justification for what they asked for. There is no right to privacy in Australia, nor any right of celebrity... I think some Aussies have been watching too many US cop shows. It is ridiculous to assert that putting a person's picture on a gay Web site is defamatory. Is it also defamatory for a gay newspaper to put a picture of a non-gay person anywhere in its pages? Would it be defamatory to mention a non-gay person's name on a gay radio show? It's just silly.

I heard a bit of an interview on SEN yesterday with the owner of the site, Glenn, conducted by Mark Doran (I think) which was very harsh. Doran was arguing that having a picture of a footballer with a child on the site was defamatory because it implied the footballer was a pedophile. Only people who hold the homophobic view that all pedophiles are gay (and all gays are pedophiles) would believe that in the first place, so it's not Glenn's fault that people are ignorant and bigoted. I was disappointed with the highly aggressive nature of that interview.

BTW, in case it matters to anyone, I am straight and don't know Glenn.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Do you actually know what you're talking about?

There's no such thing as a right to privacy in Australian law.

I don't know where you came up with this idea that you can't take a picture of someone and then use it for commercial pursposes.

That's a load of nonsense.

The fact that celebrity photographers snap celebrities and then sell their pics to magazines flies in the face of your suggestion. Or have Kylie or Elle or whoever signed release forms for every candid pic that appears of them?

These discussions would be more interesting if less people pretended to know something about the issue.

You'll probably find that the mags use these types of images under the guise of "editorial purposes". Perhaps the website in question does this too, which is why I said "if there are grounds". In both cases however my first statement still stands and these images are probably being shown in breach of copyright (IF they don't have the permission of the copyright holder).

 

[RizzoTheRat]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/afl-gay-site-ban/2006/06/29/1151174303828.html

I thought Gale's response was reasonably considered.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I doubt if many players are NTTAWWTs anyway. The idea that 10% of males are limp wristers is put about by the homosexual apologists but it is nonsense. More like 2% at best and few of them in footy.

The numbers at things like Gay Pride are swelled by Straights out for a party. I don't care if someone is poovey but don't let's think every dressing room is harbouring them. That is not so.

 

[beatnik]

Australian courts do not recognise a "right to privacy".

That part of your argument is bunk.

its not my argument - I tried to share what I knew on the topic and I invited someone with a bit of knowledge on the topic to epxand what I had begun but unfortunately there was noone like that and so you responded instead

The official argument is that pictures of players in "a socially embarrassing position such as in the showers and in various states of undress are defamatory".

It's a flimsy legal argument.

read it again chump - whose argument are you quoting? i have said nothing of the sort...

I specifically said that there was no case for defamation regarding ther NM shower shots and that it would have to be a privacy/trespassing issue (as the Australian constitution does not provide an explicit right to privacy and legislation is disjointed and sometimes contradictory)

however, anyone taking photos in the showers/changerooms needs to be accredited by the club and/or the AFL

therefore the photos were either in breach of the accreditation guidelines or taken while trespassing

I made no comment as to the strength of the case, simply that it would not be a defamation one

once again old Smokescreen Shortloin was very heavy on the invective but didnt actually contribute anything to the issue

"i said, nice one bruvva"

 

[Bombers 2003]

It's no bloody wonder that no man playing AFL footy has ever come out of the closet.

The AFL PA has "requested" that a popular AFL site aimed at the GLBT market removes all pictures of AFL players in various stages of undress. From being dacked on the field to the now famous North Melbourne Premiership Shower scene. Even Pictures of players frolicking around at beach side baths is included in this homophobic request.

There are many many INTERNATIONAL sites (just google naked sportsmen) that show the AFL players naked at times and certainly leaving very little to the imagination at other times.

But the AFL PA has decided that because this site is named as a GLBT site and is based in Melbourne Australia it will have a go at them.

No frigging wonder Mr Gale non of the boys will ever run to you for support as they prepare to come out. BTW how many have come out....... says something doesn't it Mr Gale. Wake up to yourself.

Tess.
According to Brendan Gale,the issue is a privacy one.
The players have said they have 'no issues'over the photos.