WTF Channel 7...stop rewriting history!!!

[JonoFord68]

I reckon they need to sort their HD coverage before worrying about some blurry vision!

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by JonoFord68

I reckon they need to sort their HD coverage before worrying about some blurry vision!

true - i was wondering why there was cigarette advertising on parts of the cars and the track (sometimes)
why else would they have pixellated half of the car at times and the track on others

[OLDFORDNUT]

hey Jim Goose are you on the board of Seven or just fully agree with all the do gooder brigade turning our country into mindless robots,how many posts can you put up hanging it on forum members ,with your statements that are just plain WRONG.
you can not be fined for your replica with old logo's channel seven cant be fined for showing old footage either.

[The Snout]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Really? That's a bit slack. Seeing as how they transmit every two-bit football game with someidiots kicking a ball around in HD, why wouldn't they at least do it for the fiftieth anniversary of an iconic race?

Combine that with the changing of historic race footage, and you get the impression they're getting a bit complacent and think the bogan public will tune in no matter what. Maybe a different broadcaster might take things in a new direction?

That's because the bogan public will tune in no matter what.

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

hey Jim Goose are you on the board of Seven or just fully agree with all the do gooder brigade turning our country into mindless robots,how many posts can you put up hanging it on forum members ,with your statements that are just plain WRONG.
you can not be fined for your replica with old logo's channel seven cant be fined for showing old footage either.

wtf maybe your right,Jim Goose,I give up ,The laws have gone crazy these days. Im glad im not young anymore and trying to have some harmless fun, like we did back in the day where you were responceable for your own actions

[MAD]

The laws are not that crazy, seven just went over the top for the race.
See my previous post with footage from Sunrise (on 7)

[XRDeeze]

Originally Posted by Grunter

I watched the start and the end on 7. Then knowing how much more I'd enjoy watching in HD, recorded it on Speed. Been watching it this afternoon and it all looks spectacular (and advert free)!
Got me stuffed why 7 doesn't broadcast in HD, especially for Bathurst.

It was run on Channel 7's SD, because Bathurst Telecast is on the AUS 'Anti Siphoning' list. but I think they chose not to broadcast it in HD..maybe cause of the costs involved.

[tezxr8man]

Originally Posted by Mercury 8

Spot on.Australian Broadcasting laws are responsible not CH7 rewriting history.

how about the Gallaher cigerettes or whatever GT's?? they weren't blurred out at all

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

hey Jim Goose are you on the board of Seven or just fully agree with all the do gooder brigade turning our country into mindless robots,how many posts can you put up hanging it on forum members ,with your statements that are just plain WRONG.
you can not be fined for your replica with old logo's channel seven cant be fined for showing old footage either.

Yes obviously im from CH7... or a commie... one or the other i cant remember.

Sadly people dont get it.

Ill retype it.. the laws were passed over 4yrs ago... I DIDNT MAKE THE LAW.
Whinging about it now, when for the past 4 yrs or so they have blurred out the vision is pointless.

CH 7 DIDNT WRITE THE LAW..... if they blurred it out it was obviously on legal advice. Again, I DIDNT TELL THEM TO DO IT.

[MAD]

Sorry Jim, but you're the one not getting it.
There are exceptions to the laws as have been stated, and Channel 7 have been selective on when they apply it anyway (see my youtube link for a sunrise episode days before the race)

There is NOTHING in the legislation that says historical footage/events/items, need to have the advertising removed.

This is 100% a pussy-foot on the behalf of CH7.

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by jpd80

No, broadcasting recognised cigarette brand names on those car is enough to be in breach of the ban.

Has there been any case law to support that argument?

Originally Posted by cobramania

The logo's on the historic cars & footage thereof, would be incidental to the matter being broadcast, also Ch.7 or the vehicle owners, would not be receiving any benefit or payment from broadcasting the said logo's. Therefore the way I read it, it's OK to be broadcast.
They are incidental because of this. The dictionary definition of incidental is: "accompanying, but not a major part of something". Tobacco logos accompany the story on historic footage, be-it for Brock or someone else, but are not a major part of it, nor is the story about the particular tobacco company. Therefore is is incidental to the subject matter in the footage being shown.

I agree with that interpretation.

The law is indeed open to interpretation, and unless I see case law that suggests otherwise, I think that blurring out tobacco advertising on cars is absolutely not necessary because not doing so wouldn't contravene the law as I see it.

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Remember when Jordan F1 had 'Buzzin and Hornets' instead of Benson and Hedges? Pretty sure they got in trouble for that.

Nope, they did that because some of the countries they raced in did not allow tobacco advertising. But back then, F1 had not yet had a blanket ban on tobacco sponsorship. Their main sponsor was still Benson & Hedges.

Every other F1 team that had tobacco sponsorship would still carry the same livery to countries that ban tobacco advertising, but the name of their sponsor would be changed to something else.

[ratter]

Instead of flaming Jim Goose, why doesn't somebody ring Channel 7 and ask them if it is that much of a concern.


How about this scenario, different shows have different producers, even on the same channel, maybe on producer interprets the laws differently to another

or

Maybe the ruling came from V8 Supercars in relation to what can be shown with the race telecast due to their obligation with the rules, but they can not control over shows even on the same channel

[Mercury 8]

Here is a thought, Ch7 Sunrise show is produced by CH7 for CH7,Bathurst telecast and lead up is produced by V8 Supercar TV and on sold to CH 7.Maybe that is the difference?

[Poorboy_racer]

http://www.motorsportretro.com/2012/09/brock-stamp/

[SpoolMan]

Thread will close unless the standard lifts, flaming people some may find entertaining but we don't.
Pages and pages of the same thing being written, why not take the advice in post 102 and find out the facts.

[Bonn]

I think the Moffat & Bond Cobras got the same treatment with the Camel Filters - talk about gutless...
G'Day everyone, first post on this 'Pub' sub-forum.
cheers
Bonn
p.s. how good were Reynolds and Canto

[flappist]

If the law says no then they can't.

If the law is ambiguous and they do just so a small group of keyboard warriors will not get upset and then they later lose in court I wonder if the aforementioned warriors will ante up for the fine?

There is an easy way to check the law. Get an original tape and play it on your local public access TV station like Briz31 etc. or do a commentry on you local public access radio making sure you describe the cigarette advertising in detail using yourself as the authoriser and then tell us all how it went.

Or, as I read earlier, are you all "gutless"........

[MAD]

That's the thing, the law doesn't say no.
I find it terribly annoying when someone goes off thinking they are right, when they have not shown any fact other than claiming they know the laws.


For those interested the legislation can be read here.
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au...al-legislation

I think this sums it up totally;

" 11.3.1.1 Tobacco advertising permitted under the TAP Act

All tobacco advertising and sponsorship was completely banned, with limited exceptions, by the passage of the TAP Act. A tobacco advertisement may be broadcast or published if it is accidental or incidental to the matter being broadcast. Individuals who do not receive any benefit from broadcasting a tobacco advertisement are permitted to do so. For example, individuals may wear clothing that is branded with tobacco industry trademarks without breaching the Act. "

To me it seems that since the 50 year celebration of Bathurst is historical, and it the 'great race' did at one stage involve tobacco advertising, that it is impossible to avoid such instances that would show old tobacco advertising.
Being a celebration of an event that did once have tobacco sponsorship to me would be 'incidental to the matter being broadcast'

And being an individual that doesn't collect any money from a tobacco maker, that you could quite legally own a replica race car with tobacco sponsorship and not be in breach.

[Bonn]

Mads wrote:

>To me it seems that since the 50 year celebration of Bathurst is historical, and it the 'great race' did at one stage involve tobacco advertising, that it is impossible to avoid such instances that would show old tobacco advertising.
Being a celebration of an event that did once have tobacco sponsorship to me would be 'incidental to the matter being broadcast'

And being an individual that doesn't collect any money from a tobacco maker, that you could quite legally own a replica race car with tobacco sponsorship and not be in breach.

True, Mads, and although not illegal, they did make reference to the Tooheys Top Gun shoot-out, which conflicts with the big push on XXXX aka Fourex.

As for 'Hardies Heroes, asbestos advertising should be restricted :-)

[xisled]

Originally Posted by MAD

That's the thing, the law doesn't say no.
I find it terribly annoying when someone goes off thinking they are right, when they have not shown any fact other than claiming they know the laws.


For those interested the legislation can be read here.
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au...al-legislation

I think this sums it up totally;

To me it seems that since the 50 year celebration of Bathurst is historical, and it the 'great race' did at one stage involve tobacco advertising, that it is impossible to avoid such instances that would show old tobacco advertising.
Being a celebration of an event that did once have tobacco sponsorship to me would be 'incidental to the matter being broadcast'

And being an individual that doesn't collect any money from a tobacco maker, that you could quite legally own a replica race car with tobacco sponsorship and not be in breach.

Maybe looking at the law, channel 7 sport broadcasted Bathurst years ago, 7 sport would have been getting money from advertising smokes during the adds.

This would explain why sunrise can show this and 7 sport cannot. Sunrise has never advertised smoking during the add breaks, but 7 sport had done for many years before the laws came in.

This may not be correct, just a theory I have.

[SSD-85]

I completely understand 2011G6E's point, I think its quite well established by now what Tobacco is.
Seeing slogans/ads in historical footage wouldnt make little difference to viewers these days. Especially compared to what is rammed down our throats with how bad tobacco apparently is.

As far as the exact nature of this topic goes (blurred images on a car), Ch7 is only covering own bums from the wrath of Govco.

When it happens on a medium thats legally for private viewing (ie: a DVD), then Id expect people to have a problem with it.

[austyphoon]

Not sure if this has been brought up but is everyone forgetting that the racing is produced by V8 supercars television and on sells the footage to CH7.

So it's more than likely that CH7 has no say in what is shown at all. It could also explain why sunrise showed the sponsors during their segments because THAT is produced by 7.

Am I wrong?

[Mercury 8]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

Not sure if this has been brought up but is everyone forgetting that the racing is produced by V8 supercars television and on sells the footage to CH7.

So it's more than likely that CH7 has no say in what is shown at all. It could also explain why sunrise showed the sponsors during their segments because THAT is produced by 7.

Am I wrong?

LOL. I have mentioned it a couple of times but no one seems to want to take it on board.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by austyphoon

Not sure if this has been brought up but is everyone forgetting that the racing is produced by V8 supercars television and on sells the footage to CH7.

So it's more than likely that CH7 has no say in what is shown at all. It could also explain why sunrise showed the sponsors during their segments because THAT is produced by 7.

Am I wrong?

How do you explain the Channel 10 logos blurred out then? The main one was on the podium background in the 'historical' footage.

[aualright]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Jim Goose,


Please accept my most sincere apology if my post was in any way rude or offensive towards you. Clearly it must have been for it to motivate you to use “STUPID” in your reply.

Secondly, I have a keen interest in advertising and the law,and my experience has been >>>> The law is subject to interpretation in court. My interpretation of the LINK posted by JDP80 was in reference to the word “advertising”, a word that is arguably the focal point of the law.

Thirdly, my assumption of Channel Seven was based on the fact that the Seven Network’s channel (7mate) broadcast “American Pickers” and that show has featured collectable tobacco advertisingin the past, un-blurred.

Plus I am sure the dvd version that you buy would not be censored. So the end of the world is not quite here.

****

[Grunter]

I need a smoke after reading all this!

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Grunter

I need a smoke after reading all this!

Had 2 .... just in case the first one didn't work.

Should have a look at what they do with replays in the USA. Everything including T shirts, bill boards or anything that has any reference to a brand is blurred at a drop of a hat that concerns any sort of advertising that is not sponsoring that particular show. Must take them ages with the blurr pen. ..... the law is unclear though and is just being followed, just in case.

Originally Posted by MAD

Quote:
" 11.3.1.1 Tobacco advertising permitted under the TAP Act

All tobacco advertising and sponsorship was completely banned, with limited exceptions, by the passage of the TAP Act. A tobacco advertisement may be broadcast or published if it is accidental or incidental to the matter being broadcast. Individuals who do not receive any benefit from broadcasting a tobacco advertisement are permitted to do so. For example, individuals may wear clothing that is branded with tobacco industry trademarks without breaching the Act. "

Really ...... does say they could have let it be?

[buggerlugs]

Well I was really careful at the mountain. If any of the classics came over the hill with cigarette signs, I shut my eyes until they were gone.....