Hoops

NH: AFL goes after doctored Ablett photo

I think this incident demonstrates the AFL's true colours.

Current media coverage clarifies the AFL Players Association's position on this. It argues that the image (Ablett's head on a player in Gold Coast uniform) was non-editorial use (i.e. an advertisement rather than news coverage) and therefore the newspaper required Ablett's (and presumably the AFL's) permission to publish it.

Isaac, the way I read it, the AFL is claiming ownership of the image. Maybe that's a faulty interpretation by me. If not, the AFL's claim (and it seems to be backed by the Players' Association) might end up being tested in court. If the photo was an official AFL image, the AFL's rights would seem to be cut and dried. The water might be murkier if it was taken by a press photographer authorised to cover a match or team training, depending on the terms and conditions under which authority is granted.

It's an interesting situation, and one which I am pleased to see aired because image theft is a growing problem for photographers.

It boils down to ownership of the photo and/or the images which have been used to enhance it. If the newspaper is not the owner, and permission has not been granted, the newspaper is infringing copyright.

Ownership and permission are the key words, and all arms of the media have to observe these strictures as much as anybody else has to. I've sued a newspaper successfully for using one of our 36ers photos without permission, and just in the past two weeks, I had a European media organisation remove four of my photos which had been put on their website without my permission.

So, as I said, if the AFL owns the image, it seems to be legally in the right (the precedents were set long ago), but not practising terribly good PR in the circumstances.

Considering he will most probably go there, is it a big deal??

If the AFL owns the copyright and hasn't given permission for the photo to be used in this way, I believe it's legally correct. But IMO, it has taken a foolish and counter-productive stance in this case. Not good PR, especially if it takes the matter further.