Fark wouldn't accept the larger version. The names are almost legible at Fairfaxfrontpages

Thanks to The Age for maintaining digital images of their front page.

everything about this is ok except "Woman complains"

I'll be in my bunk.

Stephen_Falken: everything about this is ok except "Woman complains"

Perchance you are unfamiliar with the fairer sex?

Welcome to the big world kiddo.
Once in a while you are actually responsible for your actions.

/Fark those low life Press Council people.

so in australia, even if you are in public, a paper can't publish your picture without consent?

Drunk in public, though luck Lady drunken slut!

Awwwww, poor stupid slut gets trashed and photographed then wakes up regretting it. I repeat: awwwwww. Is she ashamed and maybe mommy and daddy might find out what a stupid farking worthless gash she is?

daffy: Drunk in public, though luck Lady drunken slut!

pardon?

She was able to give "proper consent" to another beer.

IMHO, Out in Public = Fair Game

When are Australians not drunk? If they had to wait for someone to be sober before photographing them, nobody would ever know what an Australian even looked like!

Drunken Aussie ho, meet Barbara Streisand. Babs, meet one of your disciples.

Here's my thought on this.

If you are of proper mind and age to know what drinking causes, and then you proceed to drink, anything you do while under the influence is your responbility.

Basically, stupid whore went out and got drunk like a fool. You got drunk = you deal with the consequences.

Just like a woman to change her mind when she sobers up.

Don't know about australian law, but intoxication is a fun topic in US law. You are not responbile for any contracts you sign, but you are totally responsible for any and all torts you commit, both intentional and through negligence.

Interesting duality.

Maybe if she wasn't wasted she wouldn't have done what she did.

Or you could be like me and outlaw cameras at your functions.

/realizes this really doesn't apply here
//get your farking cell phone out of my face.
///cell phone = two words

hetheeme: Don't know about australian law, but intoxication is a fun topic in US law. You are not responbile for any contracts you sign, but you are totally responsible for any and all torts you commit, both intentional and through negligence.

Interesting duality.

Nah, makes perfect sense, when you consider that our legal system partially has its roots courts of equity. If you're intoxicated when you sign a contract and the other side knows this and is taking advantage of it, then they're acting unfairly and you shouldn't be held responsible. On the other hand, if you get drunk and hurt someone, intentionally or negligently, it would be unfair to stick the victim with the costs. Both are equitable resolutions, so are not contradictory whatsoever.

Support for this lies in the fact that if you're blitzed when you sign a contract, but are completely steady on your feet with no outward signs of intoxication and the other party has no reason to suspect, and they then start making steps to perform the contract, you are responsible. It's not about the intoxication, it's about the equitable fairness.

Not available for comment

Eye bleach available here NSFW (new window)

Lucidz: Awwwww, poor stupid slut gets trashed and photographed then wakes up regretting it. I repeat: awwwwww. Is she ashamed and maybe mommy and daddy might find out what a stupid farking worthless gash she is?

Did you get rejected last night? Or are you always this empathetic?

This thread needs more drunken sluts.

After fining the larger picture (page 18 I think) I am forced to concede that looking for it was a waste of time.

Leopold_Desciple: daffy: Drunk in public, though luck Lady drunken slut!

pardon?
Sorry I meant tough (tuff) luck.

Well at least she can always get a job sucking Elliot Spitzer's dick.

eddyatwork: This thread needs more drunken sluts.

Seriously, what DOESN'T need more drunken sluts?

Ashtrey: After fining the larger picture (page 18 I think) I am forced to concede that looking for it was a waste of time.

There was a larger version of the front page at that site. Of course it is a waste of time. But it's large enough to see why the girl and her friends would be quite embarassed. Why else are you here?

Link (new window)

the best version I can find but its still crappy.

Dunno how it works in Australia, but in the U.S. the newspaper doesn't need your consent to print your photo. If you are in a public place and the photo is for news or at a public event, the paper can take your picture and publish it even if you ask them not to. The courts have been consistent on this. So here, in the U.S., at least, this woman would have no case.

Robokev: Seriously, what DOESN'T need more drunken sluts?

THIS

shoegaze99: Dunno how it works in Australia, but in the U.S. the newspaper doesn't need your consent to print your photo. If you are in a public place and the photo is for news or at a public event, the paper can take your picture and publish it even if you ask them not to. The courts have been consistent on this. So here, in the U.S., at least, this woman would have no case.

A few months ago we were doing a charity Dr Who themed thing. A kid was photographed with the K-9 model and the photographer from the local paper had to ask the mothers permission to print it. They also asked everyone they took a photo of and filmed.

hetheeme: Don't know about australian law, but intoxication is a fun topic in US law. You are not responbile for any contracts you sign, but you are totally responsible for any and all torts you commit, both intentional and through negligence.

Interesting duality.

A few years back a waitress was tipped like 20,000 bucks by some low level royalty douche-bag who was hammered and had fallen in love with her for the evening and told her he wanted to see her go to college. The guy sued her for the money back. Of course he got every penny of it back.

Its less interesting than it is ridiculous.

Molavian: Just like a woman to change her mind when she sobers up.

Unfortunately, this.

Evilmogwai: Link (new window)

the best version I can find but its still crappy.

Right search. Wrong result. You wanted the other one published on that date.

Let's run that through the CSI Enhance-o-meter:



/unflattering!
//let's sue!!

Smackledorfer: hetheeme: Don't know about australian law, but intoxication is a fun topic in US law. You are not responbile for any contracts you sign, but you are totally responsible for any and all torts you commit, both intentional and through negligence.

Interesting duality.

A few years back a waitress was tipped like 20,000 bucks by some low level royalty douche-bag who was hammered and had fallen in love with her for the evening and told her he wanted to see her go to college. The guy sued her for the money back. Of course he got every penny of it back.

Its less interesting than it is ridiculous.

If she had immediately donated the money to a charity she had no connection to, instead of attempting to keep it, would he have lost the suit?

Evilmogwai: A few months ago we were doing a charity Dr Who themed thing. A kid was photographed with the K-9 model and the photographer from the local paper had to ask the mothers permission to print it. They also asked everyone they took a photo of and filmed.

That probably falls into the category of 'being a good neighbor.' For soft news stories involving random citizens, it's just better to ask and avoid a headache, even if in the end the paper can technically do whatever they want.

Any photojournalists around who can clear this up?

The coont should've sued for damages caused by their raping of her.

Evilmogwai: shoegaze99: Dunno how it works in Australia, but in the U.S. the newspaper doesn't need your consent to print your photo. If you are in a public place and the photo is for news or at a public event, the paper can take your picture and publish it even if you ask them not to. The courts have been consistent on this. So here, in the U.S., at least, this woman would have no case.

A few months ago we were doing a charity Dr Who themed thing. A kid was photographed with the K-9 model and the photographer from the local paper had to ask the mothers permission to print it. They also asked everyone they took a photo of and filmed.

A few months back in my own town there was a major murder in a chinese restaurant. The front page photo was of a woman on her cell phone covered in blood and looking shocked. There was a slight controversy because no permission was asked. No one had talked to the woman before during or after her getting her photo.

On the other hand, when there are shots of children in the paper in any context, I usually see names attached. It's usually the adults who are made 'anonymous'.

And then there's all the anonymous people (and dead) of Katrina in the United States. I find it hard to believe that ALL of them were asked if their photos could be published, in their time of shock and need.

If there had been a shoot-up at the charity, would the photographer still have had to ask for everyone's permission before publishing a photo? or is permission to be obtained for children even in the event of an 'Event'?

HitInTheJunk: Evilmogwai: A few months ago we were doing a charity Dr Who themed thing. A kid was photographed with the K-9 model and the photographer from the local paper had to ask the mothers permission to print it. They also asked everyone they took a photo of and filmed.

That probably falls into the category of 'being a good neighbor.' For soft news stories involving random citizens, it's just better to ask and avoid a headache, even if in the end the paper can technically do whatever they want.

Any photojournalists around who can clear this up?


Yeah, its a good neighbor thing and not required. People sometimes get all up in arms about their children being photographed, even if it is benign... Editorial usage does not require consent.

Can you imagine the headache of trying to get permissions from every single person who appears in a photograph in a newspaper or magazine?

For some reason, UK (and by extension, australian) law is much more sensitive toward libel and the press. You can file complaints about unflattering portrayals, in the US you're SOL for the most part unless it is outright lying.

Robokev
Seriously, what DOESN'T need more drunken sluts?

My house definitely needs fewer. Unless you want to come over here and raise the resultant crotchfruit? Why can't someone invent an alcohol based contraceptive?

MySpace, Facebook, and alcohol are the world's greatest screening tools.

Like to get drunk and make a fool out of yourself in public? No career/college admission for you!

Getting drunk, making a fool of yourself, and then deliberately posting pictures of it on MySpace/Facebook is like the triple crown of epic failure.

Just saying...

1) The ladette in question didn't complain. An unidentified family friend did. Huh?

2) The Press Council has no punitive power. Instead, the paper's editors are to feel great shame at the adjudication result. Public stocks and such, eh?

Shall we expect to find the editors and publisher weeping remorsefully in a corner? of the same bar?

If she doesn't want to be seen like that in public, she shouldn't go out in public like that.

hetheeme: Don't know about australian law, but intoxication is a fun topic in US law. You are not responbile for any contracts you sign, but you are totally responsible for any and all torts you commit, both intentional and through negligence.

Interesting duality.

I wonder if the woman in question had gone home with some joker he could have been charged with rape because she was too drunk to give consent. What if the man had been drunk as well?

ExperianScaresCthulhu: If there had been a shoot-up at the charity, would the photographer still have had to ask for everyone's permission before publishing a photo? or is permission to be obtained for children even in the event of an 'Event'?

Basically, you have a natural copyright to your image and likeness, so anytime it is published anywhere, especially if it is for profit, you need to waive your copyright. If thats not done, you are legally entitled to 100% of the profits derived from that image and can revoke it from being published. Times like Katrina et al, is basically extralegal as they are hoping most people will not bother doing the whole court process. Celebrities have a higher standard of proof as well. But if the average person brought it to Court, in a likelyhood they will probably win.

obkredcloak: Here's my thought on this.

If you are of proper mind and age to know what drinking causes, and then you proceed to drink, anything you do while under the influence is your responbility.

Basically, stupid whore went out and got drunk like a fool. You got drunk = you deal with the consequences.


Actually, you're wrong, but thanks for sharing your worthless opinion.

chu2dogg: ExperianScaresCthulhu: If there had been a shoot-up at the charity, would the photographer still have had to ask for everyone's permission before publishing a photo? or is permission to be obtained for children even in the event of an 'Event'?

Basically, you have a natural copyright to your image and likeness, so anytime it is published anywhere, especially if it is for profit, you need to waive your copyright. If thats not done, you are legally entitled to 100% of the profits derived from that image and can revoke it from being published. Times like Katrina et al, is basically extralegal as they are hoping most people will not bother doing the whole court process. Celebrities have a higher standard of proof as well. But if the average person brought it to Court, in a likelyhood they will probably win.

obkredcloak: Here's my thought on this.

If you are of proper mind and age to know what drinking causes, and then you proceed to drink, anything you do while under the influence is your responbility.

Basically, stupid whore went out and got drunk like a fool. You got drunk = you deal with the consequences.


Actually, you're wrong, but thanks for sharing your worthless opinion.

Huh? All the photographer sites seem to say you're wrong.
http://www.google.com/search?q=photographer+rights

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

...Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, rest-
rooms, medical facilities, and inside
their homes.

Your nonsense about Katrina is nonsense.

It was the blonde, right? Had to be. And she's only complaining because she doesn't look cute in the picture. The dark one looks dumb but fun.

chu2dogg: ExperianScaresCthulhu: If there had been a shoot-up at the charity, would the photographer still have had to ask for everyone's permission before publishing a photo? or is permission to be obtained for children even in the event of an 'Event'?

Basically, you have a natural copyright to your image and likeness, so anytime it is published anywhere, especially if it is for profit, you need to waive your copyright. If thats not done, you are legally entitled to 100% of the profits derived from that image and can revoke it from being published. Times like Katrina et al, is basically extralegal as they are hoping most people will not bother doing the whole court process. Celebrities have a higher standard of proof as well. But if the average person brought it to Court, in a likelyhood they will probably win.



Haha, sorry, I am a working photographer, and this is wrong. Firstly, you cannot "copyright" your likeness, that doesn't make any sense. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is.

You do have the right to restrict your likeness in use for profit, but this is restricted to commercial advertising usage of it to sell a product as it may imply that you are endorsing the product.

Also, most claims will typically go out the window if you are in any way compensated for the picture. (there have been some exceptions here, as some have claimed they expected it to be used one way, but not another...)

Your likeness can be used numerous ways without your permission, including but not limited to:

-Editorial usage or journalism
-Works of art
-Displays of works of art

To be on the safe side, many entities get "model releases" from people appearing in photographs which are essentially boilerplate permission forms that cover everything.

When I work with modeling agencies, we do NOT give out model releases because the terms are covered in the contract with the agency and compensation is involved.

TheWizard: Lucidz: Awwwww, poor stupid slut gets trashed and photographed then wakes up regretting it. I repeat: awwwwww. Is she ashamed and maybe mommy and daddy might find out what a stupid farking worthless gash she is?

Did you get rejected last night? Or are you always this empathetic?

i agree with lucidz. and people who sympathize too much with the drunk get burned -- hard. she was drunk. she was stupid. if she can't hold her alcohol or she can't deal with the consequences of not holding her alcohol, she should be banned from being served alcohol. unfortunately the world doesn't work like that -- but it should.