Re: Richmond player being investigated by police

[year of the tiger]

That’s a crock of sh!t yott

Why would a woman take their top off, get a medallion from someone they do
Not know (or know very well) and agree to have a photo taken of their breasts with said medallion - if they were worried about someone else seeing it? Why do it in the first place?

Was she forced into it? Why do it if you are worried about a necked image of you being circulated??

Gia is on the money here

What - its her fault that the photo was distributed widely - hardly. That is the only issue here. Did she give consent for the photo to be distributed. Yes or No - that's what the cops will focus on. The media laws have moved on I think you will find and I will argue for good reason.

Don't get me wrong - I am p!ssed off big time this has happened - we have had to wait how long for success and then have this take away some of the good will the club has built up. Anyway - it's up to the police investigation now.

Glad Gia doesn't have my cash.

 

[MD Jazz]

No it’s not her fault it was distributed. if the player did it without her permission it’s stupid. and currently illegal.

Why pose for a photo if you only want the person to asking the photo to see it? They can see I already? Photos by their nature are taken as a permanent record of a moment. Was it for her own scrap book? Is it her screen saver? Did she not have a mirror she could check her look out in? Did she get paid for the pic?

 

[Giardiasis]

so if parents take and share/sell lewd photos of their children, that is ok, legally?

There is a crime committed in this case: sexual assault. The child may very well consent to it, but I think that would be very difficult to prove depending on the child’s age, intellgence, self-awareness, etc.

Perhaps I’ve been unclear, consent in the photo saga case should be around consent to be photographed. Not about consent for distribution. I think it should be criminal to take naked photos of people without their consent.

 

[Giardiasis]

I bet you would love it if someone had nudes of you and put them all over the net without a contractual arrangement.

And, how would you explain child pornography?

Perhaps you skimmed over the bit where I said it was morally wrong?

See answer above.

 

[Giardiasis]

I think you're missing the matter of consent there. An affair may be against your morals but it's not illegal. There must be some law around distributing naked images you've taken without permission to share them. Otherwise why woukd the police be investigating?

I understand there is a law in place, I’m arguing it is a bad law and should’t exist. There was consent, she consented to be naked in front of the camera. No one forced her against her will to strip naked and pose. That doesn’t give her ownership rights over the photo, it isn’t her photo.

 

[Giardiasis]

Talk about twisting things around - most articles I have read in papers, on talkbacks and on here are about rights of the lady in question and the rights of people to distribute sexually explicit material without consent. THATS WHY THE POLICE ARE INVOLVED. It's a legal matter not a political one.

I can't recall the discussion being about the law being wrong and hence getting the politics involved to change it.

For what it's worth - the law is there for a good reason - to protect those who are taken advantage of and if anything I wouldn't have a problem with it being strengthened even further.

Your comment about only having rights about a photo that you have a contract for isn't correct in my view.

Have a look at the thread, people are questioning how someone can get in trouble for distributing photos of someone that consented for them to be taken. They aren’t forming legal opinions based on what the law says. They are basing it on their own moral compass to what the law should say. That is a political discussion if there ever was one.

You yourself have now made a political statement saying you think the law should go even further!

It isn’t correct? I’m basing my opinion on property rights, which I think should form the basis of all criminal law. What do you base your opinion on? FYI I’ve asked a political question, it can tend to get a bit philosophical from here.

 

[Giardiasis]

One thing I’ll also mention about the law as it stands is that it incentivises people to have naked photos and videos taken of them so that they can take someone to court if it is distributed somehow. There still is the possibility in this case that the player in question has been taken for a ride. Surely it is a better situation for the law to discourage people to have naked photos and videos taken of them, especially with people they just met that night. You better trust the person you are doing the deed with if you are prepared to have it done.

 

[TigerForce]

There is a crime committed in this case: sexual assault. The child may very well consent to it, but I think that would be very difficult to prove depending on the child’s age, intellgence, self-awareness, etc.

Perhaps I’ve been unclear, consent in the photo saga case should be around consent to be photographed. Not about consent for distribution. I think it should be criminal to take naked photos of people without their consent.

It should be criminal to take any photos of strangers in the public. These mobile phones are reaching the equivalence of a gun as time moves on.

 

[year of the tiger]

Have a look at the thread, people are questioning how someone can get in trouble for distributing photos of someone that consented for them to be taken. They aren’t forming legal opinions based on what the law says. They are basing it on their own moral compass to what the law should say. That is a political discussion if there ever was one.

You yourself have now made a political statement saying you think the law should go even further!

It isn’t correct? I’m basing my opinion on property rights, which I think should form the basis of all criminal law. What do you base your opinion on? FYI I’ve asked a political question, it can tend to get a bit philosophical from here.

I know where your coming from but we will have to disagree - at the moment I believe you can take photos of strangers who are in the public without their approval legally but morally this can be questioned and many have questioned it.

What you can't do is distribute the photos without permission when, by doing so, you are doing so for profit or will cause harm to the person involved (which can simply be argued by the subject that their image is viewed by people they don't know or they will get a bit of a laugh from it). Most media codes of conduct that I have been involved in have a "public interest test" so the person with the photo should think carefully about why the photo should be placed on the public domain (broadly defined as any Facebook, blog site or email sent to multiple persons). In this case the law (ie who actually owns the rights - as you suggest property rights - of the photo - clearly falls to the subject, not the person who took the photo.

I could be wrong so don't hang me but I think what you reference as political arguments I interpret as arguments trying to attack the lady in question because she agreed to the photo in the first place and so therefore the law for some reason shouldn't stand. I have seen sexist arguments, arguments of class (she is only a hooker) and arguments of tradition (boys will be boys and this is what we have always done, what did she expect etc) but none that I agree with. Again I didn't view them as political.

Yes I do have a view of this law but that in itself doesn't make this a political argument.

Anyway let's see what the investigation shows and hopefully the Tigers have not overstepped the mark.

 

[pete and tys]

This is interesting, as the GF night n Swan street had people on TV celebrating by doing things like taking pants off.
I saw one such case, including the persons face (and bum) , whilst he was deep in the crowd,maybe atop a car.
He would not have been aware nor have given permission for his image to be distributed by TV for finncial gain.

 

[Willo]

This is interesting, as the GF night n Swan street had people on TV celebrating by doing things like taking pants off.
I saw one such case, including the persons face (and bum) , whilst he was deep in the crowd,maybe atop a car.
He would not have been aware nor have given permission for his image to be distributed by TV for finncial gain.

When people say a persons image belongs to him/her and photos can only be distributed by consent. There are circumstances and circumstances.
I wonder if photographers need to get permission from every individual if they do a crowd shot.
What about when a person's close image is used on TV?
Does that persons image belong to him/her, or is there a different rule or law. Or just common sense?
Personally, where a persons face isn't shown and identity isn't known I find it hard to believe the outrage, as in this case. Is it because she came forward, hired a lawyer and now (some) people know who it is? I dont know her name or what she looks like.
What if whoever took the photo sent it to her as a momento and she actually snapchatted/instagrammed (whatever they call it) a friend or two, then next morning had some regrets?
I'm just curious how she was identified by a set of breasts (when her head wasn't shown in the photo) sounds like a "friend" may have spilled.

 

[year of the tiger]

This is interesting, as the GF night n Swan street had people on TV celebrating by doing things like taking pants off.
I saw one such case, including the persons face (and bum) , whilst he was deep in the crowd,maybe atop a car.
He would not have been aware nor have given permission for his image to be distributed by TV for finncial gain.

Correct but the media would successfully argue that it is in the public interest for them to show those images on tv - that people are celebrating in that manner which you could argue is not normal behaviour (tiger fans celebrating a GF is not normal in my recent lifetime ;D)

Harder argument to sustain in the tiger photos that we are talking about

 

[Giardiasis]

I know where your coming from but we will have to disagree - at the moment I believe you can take photos of strangers who are in the public without their approval legally but morally this can be questioned and many have questioned it.

What you can't do is distribute the photos without permission when, by doing so, you are doing so for profit or will cause harm to the person involved (which can simply be argued by the subject that their image is viewed by people they don't know or they will get a bit of a laugh from it). Most media codes of conduct that I have been involved in have a "public interest test" so the person with the photo should think carefully about why the photo should be placed on the public domain (broadly defined as any Facebook, blog site or email sent to multiple persons). In this case the law (ie who actually owns the rights - as you suggest property rights - of the photo - clearly falls to the subject, not the person who took the photo.

I could be wrong so don't hang me but I think what you reference as political arguments I interpret as arguments trying to attack the lady in question because she agreed to the photo in the first place and so therefore the law for some reason shouldn't stand. I have seen sexist arguments, arguments of class (she is only a hooker) and arguments of tradition (boys will be boys and this is what we have always done, what did she expect etc) but none that I agree with. Again I didn't view them as political.

Yes I do have a view of this law but that in itself doesn't make this a political argument.

Anyway let's see what the investigation shows and hopefully the Tigers have not overstepped the mark.

I’m fine with being able to take photos of people in public, it is in private settings that questions of rights violations become apparent. This is compounded when the photos concern a sexual nature.

Why do you think that the owner of the photo clearly falls to the subject? The photo isn’t really a physical thing, it’s just electronic binary code, so no one can really own it. When it gets distributed, no one owns all the digital copies made. So really not even the photographer owns the photo. Someone might own a camera with a photo on it, just like someone owns a computer with a copy saved to their hard drive. The physical hardware can be owned. I understand that the law doesn’t view ownership this way. The law creates artificial scarcity where it doesn’t otherwise exist. Other examples are copyright and patent law.

Sure those arguments have been made, I agree they are more related to a legal discussion, but there was certainly a fair amount of posters saying that the situation is stupid, and that police should be concerned with real crime rather than addressing the law as it stands i.e. the law should be different. Arguments relating to how laws should be set are political and arguments relating to how the current law should be interpreted are legal IMO.