Media regulations...

[stclair]

Any bush lawyers out there can give me a quick 'for dummies' around media requirements for digitally altered images...
Can't find any confirmation that these have been altered, and I I were the tigers for instance, I would find it damaging to my brand seeing club captain in a competitors jersey plastered over back pages of an alleged 'news'paper...

 

[Bulldog_4_Life]

Nah it fine, they did the right thing by cropping the KIA logo off Woods because that would've led to trouble and even though its obvious that forans jersey has the KIA logo as well its not clear.

 

[Haza]

Nah it fine, they did the right thing by cropping the KIA logo off Woods because that would've led to trouble and even though its obvious that forans jersey has the KIA logo as well its not clear.

That's because the pic of woods was one taken with the jaycar sponsorship on it

 

[Bulldog_4_Life]

That's because the pic of woods was one taken with the jaycar sponsorship on it

Really wow I didn't realise, im still under a dose anesthetic from this morning which doesn't help ahahah.

 

[Wahesh]

As long as they mention that it's a digitally altered image, they're allowed to do it. They've been doing it for years.

 

[stclair]

As long as they mention that it's a digitally altered image, they're allowed to do it. They've been doing it for years.

That's what I'm saying W, there is nothing to say digitally altered, and wasn't again two days later when woods was again on back page in.dogs jersey...
The fucking media doing their best big brother impersonation writing history before it happens, and changing it after it does...
Saw a ridiculous doco a week or so back on history channel about the US election informing us Trump was favourite, and Clinton was just a plucky little family lady who almost won the unwinnable...
#1984...