****** don’t get me started or I’ll write a 3 page rant!!
Rant son, rant
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Dreamtime 2020 Game Day
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Rant son, rant
I think Harold Thomas knows exactly what he's doing.
Oh dear: Google flagged over logo dispute
An Australia Day artwork by Jessie Du will be viewed by millions on Google's home page today but one feature of her original design is conspicuously absent - the Aboriginal flag.
"
Thomas said he allowed health, education, legal and other organisations that help Aboriginal people free use of the flag, but generally charged a fee to commercial entities.
He was upset that Google asked his permission only after the judging process was finished and the prize handed out, despite prominent Australian artist Ken Done being on the Doodle 4 Google judging panel.
"It's a one-off situation where a commercial company wants to use someone else's copyright, so what you do is you offer more than is necessary to convince the copyright owner to agree," Thomas said.
"[But] they first contacted me wanting it to be used freely ... you don't start off negotiations that way - they put me on the back foot, and therefore I had to protect my interests in a respectful way.
"They didn't give me a straight-out offer, and with all their money and machinery and know-how, they should have known what to do - it's as simple as that."
Thomas would not say what fee offer from Google would have been acceptable."
Seems to me to be a smart, commercial guy, but with what the flag means to the aboriginal people is it that ethical for him to do this. Its legal I know but seems he knows what he wants to do and how much he should be profiting from the flag.
I'm not sure what you are getting at from this. I'm far from a racist and will not be targeted in that way.
What I dispute with you is, a white man gains exclusivity of the flag but is deemed racist and its a race issue that this white man is stopping the aborigine people using their flag, but the aborigine sitting behind that (with the copyright) is not to be targeted or blamed for this. Really??
I didnt call anyone racist.
I said the appropriation of the aboriginal flag is a race issue.
Jumpy
It doesnt take a racist to shaft Black fellas . Everyone does it
I didnt call the wam clothes people racist. I called them c *smile* s, which they clearly are
I think Harold Thomas knows exactly what he's doing.
Oh dear: Google flagged over logo dispute
An Australia Day artwork by Jessie Du will be viewed by millions on Google's home page today but one feature of her original design is conspicuously absent - the Aboriginal flag.www.smh.com.au
"
Thomas said he allowed health, education, legal and other organisations that help Aboriginal people free use of the flag, but generally charged a fee to commercial entities.
He was upset that Google asked his permission only after the judging process was finished and the prize handed out, despite prominent Australian artist Ken Done being on the Doodle 4 Google judging panel.
"It's a one-off situation where a commercial company wants to use someone else's copyright, so what you do is you offer more than is necessary to convince the copyright owner to agree," Thomas said.
"[But] they first contacted me wanting it to be used freely ... you don't start off negotiations that way - they put me on the back foot, and therefore I had to protect my interests in a respectful way.
"They didn't give me a straight-out offer, and with all their money and machinery and know-how, they should have known what to do - it's as simple as that."
Thomas would not say what fee offer from Google would have been acceptable."
Seems to me to be a smart, commercial guy, but with what the flag means to the aboriginal people is it that ethical for him to do this. Its legal I know but seems he knows what he wants to do and how much he should be profiting from the flag.
yeh I don’t know. As I said I don’t know this particular artist. I haven’t read anything on it either. He is talking about google and not the clothing company. I have no beef with you having an opinion poshman, just giving some context to the local landscape up here
Fair call, and I'm sure there are plenty out there trying to shaft people. Its not just aborigines, there are people out there always trying to shaft another person for a quick buck and appreciate the local context.
I used that example, as it was outside of his agreement with WAM (and therefore we can take their owners who are deemed as the only bad guys out of the equation).
The way that was written to me suggested that Thomas was more put out by not being invited to be on the judging panel and therefore took it out on how much they would pay. There are obviously 2 sides to the story, google saying "we'll do anything we can" and Thomas saying "they wanted to use it for free, I wanted a fee" (which is fine btw) but what is a pittance?
For what its worth on the google one, its hard to differentiate how google wanted to use the flag symbal and how the legal, health etc entities wanted to use it.
" Thomas said he allowed health, education, legal and other organisations that help Aboriginal people free use of the flag, but generally charged a fee to commercial entities."
Google would not have profited from the use of the symbal, they make money from SEO and from clicks on promoted links. This would do nothing to do that. They wanted to promote the aboriginal flag for the benefit of the aborigine people. Yes I get that Google are a commercial entity, but having the flag there or not, would actually do nothing for their business. There was no commercialisation of the flag, it was actually a method to promote not commercialise, so to me it provides an insight into the man behind the flag.
True.
But black fellas get shafted at least 20 times harder than white fellas and 20 times more often from 20 different direction.
Which is why we have dreamtime at the d.
Its a celebration of a triumph.
It’s hard to comment without making assumptions and generalisations. Which I have already managed to do. The flag itself means very little to me personally but I understand to some extent why it means a lot to other people. It looks very much like a corporate take over if a recognised community commodity (meaning the way it is embedded as a collectively owned image) The artist may be articulate and have good reason to demand payment but I still consider this exploitation. It MAY equate to someone buying a dilly bag that took days to make for cigarettes and food when someone is hungry and trying to feed their family. Which happens a lot on community. Yes it is a consensual exchange but not a fair one. We do not know the personal situation of the artist. He could be (and given stats and the reality many aboriginal people live in) sick and/or financially vulnerable. The company that now owns the copyright should have some understanding that in denying public use of the image it is denying Visibility of an important symbol Of unity. I still think it stinks and agree with @eZyT that it is a race issue.
I don't think you're giving posh any credit here. There's dots being joined without any evidence.
We need to hear from Harold Thomas.
Harold is actually pretty inconsequential to my point.
White fellas bought a black fella icon, and restrict its free use.
Hope we brought the gloves this time.
I have a memory that port pants us in hot muggy conditions last time in Darwin because we couldn't mark or hold onto the ball.
I have a memory that port pants us in hot muggy conditions last time in Darwin because we couldn't mark or hold onto the ball.
Harold is the key to the whole thing isn't he?
An alternative view would be a black fella sold out his countryman.
