Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@yourmatenate I got that, but shouldn't the broader social picture take precedence?
Maybe someone could come up with an actual flag not done by a marketing company and it could be used by anyone. Like all other "flags".
-
@Snowy but people already identify with it...you saw the outcry when the saders changed their logo...and thats just a rugby team
My understanding was the government could declare it an official flag of Australia and that would supersede the copyright...but i cant remember where i saw that
-
this from last year
The debate over the use of the Aboriginal flag is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Indeed, it seems destined to be an ongoing issue. In the words of Laura Thompson, the owner of a business which has received a cease and desist letter: “The flag represented a struggle and a resistance movement, and now it just feels like a struggle to use it.”
A tale of two flags: who owns the right to use?
The Australian government is considering whether to compulsorily acquire the rights to use the Aboriginal flag on public policy grounds. The debate…
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Aussie Rugby:
@Snowy but people already identify with it...you saw the outcry when the saders changed their logo...and thats just a rugby team
My understanding was the government could declare it an official flag of Australia and that would supersede the copyright...but i cant remember where i saw that
Yes, but the 'saders one is, umm, unfortunate to say the least. Genitalia wasn't a good choice, although I am sure we can all identify with it.
A company can own a design, logo, etc, but not a symbol or emblem of a country, race, group of people, as a flag should be in my eyes. People will recognise other images as well in time.
They could try and change the flag. That went well here, but it's symbolism not identification I reckon.
-
@Snowy said in Aussie Rugby:
A company can own a design, logo, etc, but not a symbol or emblem of a country, race, group of people, as a flag should be in my eyes. People will recognise other images as well in time.
It's an image on a flag, though, rather than being a flag. The link I posted above had the interesting fact that the Rainbow Flag is copyright as well - but the owner chooses not to enforce it.
This is an unofficial design that now represents a movement. It's annoying, but that's life ... find a new design I guess.
also, the tino rangatiratanga flag appears to be copyrighted too
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10624124#:~:text=Ms Munn designed the Tino,surviving member of the trio. -
-
@Snowy owned so that they can stop it going on something dodgy, but i think i read one of those that received a cease and desist was a not for profit helping to cloth aboriginals in poor rural communities....
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Aussie Rugby:
@Snowy owned so that they can stop it going on something dodgy, but i think i read one of those that received a cease and desist was a not for profit helping to cloth aboriginals in poor rural communities....
Yeah. That is why they can't "own" it. A commercial entity is representing native people and preventing them from having a symbol of their own and having it displayed by their nation (in two different ways).
I might do something "dodgy" and use the NZ flag as my avatar on here. Does that mean that all of my posts are representing NZ? Admittedly that would be bad, but you can't own a symbol.
It either represents a group of people, or it is the company's. It can't be both.
-
@Snowy it can and currently does...you just cant do it without the tensions we're seeing
-
@Kiwiwomble That is what I am getting at. The company give it away, or somebody does a new one.
Personally I would say fuck you and boycott their products, but I'm a grumpy fluffybunny.
-
@Snowy i dont even know if they make many products and if they do they might just be cheap souvenirs...i think they mainly exist to own the rights..which is worse
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Aussie Rugby:
which is worse
Yes it is. Actually that is terrible, and I'm surprised that they haven't been told to bugger off, we'll do one of our own. Likely to be problematic but in another decade or two, who knows.
-
@Snowy reminds me of the opera house debacle, how theyre going to charge people to use the profile of the operahouse...long after lots of sports teams have incorporated it in their logos, wait until something is worth somethings and too hard to change before you start charging
i'm hoping the swans for example ditch it and just go back to the red V or Sash
-
@Kiwiwomble I have a mate (surprising I know) who buys domain names and basically banks them if he thinks a company is going to do well.
Some things should be accessible to others, and people shouldn't be held to ransom to use them.
Pretty basic morals and ethics.
-
@Snowy agreed
i can understand things like domain names...its always have the choice to pay or to do something creative/lazy with the website name and its also something a lot of business would sort pretty early so they might also have the choice to change their product name is early enough
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby:
The link I posted above had the interesting fact that the Rainbow Flag is copyright as well - but the owner chooses not to enforce it.
This makes sense, copyright it but don't enforce it unless you really need to.
I guess now is the time for an alternative symbol to be created and be provided free for use since the creator of the flag seems to have given the rights to this clothing company.
-
This is interesting (if poorly written). Rennie is being allowed for 2020 only to select 2 players based outside of Australia that are not eligible under the Giteau Law.
Rugby Australia announced an amendment to their selection policy for 2020 only ahead of the Test season. In addition to the 'Giteau Law' - that allows for foreign-based players who have played 60 Tests and given seven years of service to the code in Australia - RA will allow for a maximum of two players to be selected during World Rugby's international window. -
@KiwiMurph “We are being quite clear that this addition is for this year only but that we will continue to review the entire policy from time to time, as required."
So absolutely definitely only for this year, and any other year as we see fit.
Kerevi, Skelton in the frame to play for Wallabies again as Rugby Australia amends eligibility laws
