March 9, 2010 .
MICHAEL Clarke has made a sudden exit from Australia's tour of New Zealand for personal reasons. Team officials are uncertain if or when he will return.
The Age understands his hasty departure is related to issues involving his fiancee Lara Bingle and not to health concerns over his father Les, who has been battling cancer for some time.
So if the whole photo thing is upsetting Lara soo much why on earth has she sold her story for $200k? and kept the media bandwagon going on? Why wouldn't she just let it go and move on? Have to wonder.
Now I will admit I am not a legal expert but I am still wondering on what grounds the Lara camp have to take Fevola to court? If he did not distribute the photo or make a profit from the sale, how can they get financial restitution?
11 comments:
An interview I saw with some media type reckoned the only thing they could try was unlawful use of an image, because Australia has not privacy laws when it comes to images.
Thank you anon. So how does that relate to Fevola? Yes he took the photo but he did not transmit or profit from it's production.
In fact the only party who has profited from the photo so far is Bingle herself.
Not arguing with you and though perhaps they are just trying to making good use of a bad thing.
I am uncomfortable looking at any photos where the subject was clearly not willing to be photographed in that instant (particularly in their own home), regardless of whether there are other formally taken naked photographs.
Smacks of violation to me and just because there are other naked photographs doesn't make it right.
That would be like saying a prostitute can't be raped.
And why has she sold her story to the very magazine that printed the picture?
Fev is a bogan and a dickhead for taking the picture but she is a gold digging opportunist.. I don't care if you want to make some cash, just don't cry victim in this case whilst you're doing it.
Yes. She has rather lost the moral highground there.
I agree on the fact that she can feel violated about the photo being published. I believe that is why other media outlets sat on the photo for months until it was published. If she did not consent to the photo in the first place then she has all the reason in the world to yell and scream about it.
But (there has to be a 'But' here), any form of outrage and protraying the victim starts to wear thin when the story is sold for allegedly $200k to the same media outlet as Mags pointed out.
"Oh Poor me, why was this done to me" followed by "Where's my cheque?"
It gets back to my post from a week or so ago asking about the timing and how it all fell into place with her signing a new agent.
I read that some of the money from the article will be donated to charities to help abused women. Funny how Max M said that Bingle had not been paid for the article.
Devils Advocate: perhaps since she can't sue the magazine because of our lack of legislation to do such a thing, she thought the next best thing to suing them was making them pay an exorbitant price for her response?
I'm sick of the whole saga. Why aren't they reporting on what is happening in Chile? Do they think everything just miraculously fixed itself and everyone is okay?
The dumbing down of the world. Read a book everyone!
Mags,
I am with you there. What about the on going humanitarian effort in Haiti? I see that the red cross is soon to remove the emergency field hospitals they set up over there due to other requirements.
These hospitals have been providing the only health care for the locals looking after both injuries and disease post earthquake as well as everything else.
Maybe Bingle could go there and help?
Oh no darling! She might get dirty or break a finger nail.. then she'll sue the Red Cross...
Oh yes it would be photo opportunities only. Silly me.
It really has be to be grouped into the "be careful what you wish for" file.
Lara: I want a bigger media profile. I want to be like posh and beks.
Max: What are you willing to do to get there?
Lara: anything really
Max: OK let us begin.
Post a Comment