taking photos of cigarette adv.

[inter]

Just reading an article on pitpass ( sign of the times) and there is a statement from ferrari saying ( about photo taking);
"the use and reproduction comply with the laws governing tobacco advertising in force in each country"

I a nut shell you can not take photos and reproduce ( develop) of cars wearing tobacco signage?
Am i reading this correct?
Inter

[Nick Short]

I'd like to see that enforced! Although after the news from the US that they can sack you for smoking at home, maybe I shouldn't be laughing. But I doubt that anyone would end up in court for it, otherwise it has become a facical joke.

[ferrari fan]

Work this one out;
It is perfectly legal to grow/trade/speculate/list company on stockmarket/sell retail/collect taxes from/consume(at now restricted places) and yet advertising/display/print /reproduce of name is not in specific instances at different area's!
:confused:

[Nick Short]

Yes, get prosecuted for taking a photo of a car with tobacco signage, but not for raking in millions in tobacco tax revenue. I think I'd be bringing that up when I was in the dock!

[wayno]

Originally posted by Nick Short
Yes, get prosecuted for taking a photo of a car with tobacco signage, but not for raking in millions in tobacco tax revenue. I think I'd be bringing that up when I was in the dock!

They can jam it. I'm still taking the camera gear to Albert Park! Where does this all end? They come up with all this garbage, yet the other night when it was raining during the cricket I watched a 'Benson and Hedges' World Series Cup game from a few years ago being replayed on COMMERCIAL TELEVISION? :confused:
How does that work?!?!?!?!?

[ferrari fan]

The company forces you to watch their Logo/brand name with the clear intention of enticing you to purchase the brand product, You pay as a spectator to gain entry to the event, you take a picture of the car and all of a sudden you are commiting an offence.?
Somehow somewhere civic right has taken a nosedive.
Legal company, legal product, legal way of promoting and collecting taxes, yet the (small) consumer/enthusiast is the vilan.
and is liable to be prosecuted.

[Nick Short]

I've certainly tipped off the cops that a certain somebody in WA is encouraging the use of tobacco decals on toy cars, to corrupt the children buying them.........

[a9x]

Originally posted by Nick Short
I've certainly tipped off the cops that a certain somebody in WA is encouraging the use of tobacco decals on toy cars, to corrupt the children buying them.........

OI who you calling a child:D

[Andrew]

I don't think it is anywhere near as drsatic as you all think.
I think it is Ferrari's way of saying that when photographing their cars, as they are sponsored by a tobacco company and that tobacco sponsorship is banned in some countires, please be aware of that and comply with those countries' regulations. I think the issue is if you tried to disseminate images with tobacco sponsorship in a country that forbids it.

Now this makes it an interesting question in Australia.

We have a ban on tobacco sponsorship in sporting events, anywhere but point of sale at tobacconists, model cars (as we all well know), and on the television and print media, yet the Australian Grand Prix has been granted special dispensation to run with tobacco liveries in this country. All so that Melbourne can stage a round of the F1 World Championship.

That special dispensation I believe can cause a stack of headaches, as why would it be okay to run the cars in full tobacco liveries, with full live commercial television coverage as well as print coverage so that the offending signage is there for all to see (including the kiddies at the race and at home), yet reproducing images could potentially see you face court?

Think I'm joking? Consider the issue of the magazine 'Zoom' a while back. They featured (in a special cover article) the 1992 Bathurst-winning Skyline GT-R of Richards/Skaife restored in its full tobacco sponsored glory. Yet the tobacco signage had to be airbrushed out on, the magazine's editorial said, legal advice.

Consider too that Biante's certificates cannot display the car with tobacco advertising either. Check your box and certificate art from the 1992 Bathurst-winning GT-R and you'll see blank red and only the words 'Racing'.

I may have read it wrong, but I wish legislators could be a little more consistent in the way they apply regulations to some things and not others. It would avoid this confusion. It's a joke.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by Andrew
It's a joke.
It's not a joke. It's politics. Governments made a stack of taxes of tobacco sales, yet need to be seen to be doing something about smokers and their related illnesses/deaths. Which is why you have one set of rules for some and one set of rules for others. And since the GeePee brings in a lot of money for the state (according to Bracksie and mates)...

Ideally, there should be some sort of grandfather clause, where items that were produced/made/raced/whatever when cigarette advertising was legal should be exempt from the "no tobacco" policy. Otherwise, it would almost be illegal to sell my Great Race 4 with Brock's VK on the cover...

As I keep saying, unfortunately you can't legislate against lunacy...

[Andrew]

Originally posted by Dingo

As I keep saying, unfortunately you can't legislate against lunacy...

Hear, hear....

[Mark H-M]

Our Government has just banned smoking in pubs. Now, while I'm a non-smoker and quite enjoy the fresh air, I can't help but think that civil rights are being eroded. Why don't respective Governments ban cars,. they also kill a heap of people each year?

[Andrew]

Originally posted by Mark H-M
Our Government has just banned smoking in pubs. Now, while I'm a non-smoker and quite enjoy the fresh air, I can't help but think that civil rights are being eroded. Why don't respective Governments ban cars,. they also kill a heap of people each year?

The Tasmanian government is phasing in a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs. The first phase has started, and by 1 January 2006, all smoking will be banned in those premises.

I don't think it is an erosion of civil rights, as the employees in those places have the right to work in a smoke-free environment.

But getting back to the issue at hand, I agree with Dingo's request for a 'grandfather clause' -

Hopefully this would allow photographic reproductions of period race cars and model cars for us to enjoy. Of course, the question could then be posed by the proponents of the current system: where would you define its limits? Could tobacco companies then use that loophole to disseminate images of old racecars (for instance) as a subtle form of adverstising, but claim under a banner of "Hey, look what we have done to support motorsport." A 'retrospective' release of 'memorabilia' of Brock's M******o Torana, or Jim and Mark's W******d GT-R... And that's not even counting the debacle over the Minichamps R******s sponsored Porsches, where a hasty tampo fix had to be undertaken last year.

I think that the intention of Ferrari's press release was to simply remind punters to respect and comply with the tobacco advertising legislation in their respective countries before they think about doing something with their pictures.

[Dingo]

Originally posted by Andrew
And that's not even counting the debacle over the Minichamps R******s sponsored Porsches, where a hasty tampo fix had to be undertaken last year.
That was at the request of Philip Morris themselves...I don't know why they don't allow their brands to be put on model cars even when the law says they can, someone may be able to enlighten us...

[Andrew]

1/4Wt»i]Originally posted by Dingo [/i]
That was at the request of Philip Morris themselves...I don't know why they don't allow their brands to be put on model cars even when the law says they can, someone may be able to enlighten us... [/QUOTE]

I believe that it might have had something to do with either concerns of breaking laws in various countries and not wanting to do that, or that Minichamps had not had the requisite clearance from Philip Morris to use their logos on the cars in the first place. despite it being historically accurate.

Admin will most likely know as dealers with Minichamps, or Jager, as a keen watcher of the Minichamps Collectors GB news site.

Actually, my points are probably right off...

[Nick Short]

Andrew, don't use asterisks, otherwise you're just pandering to the fools in Canberra!

[Andrew]

Originally posted by Nick Short
Andrew, don't use asterisks, otherwise you're just pandering to the fools in Canberra!

Sorry about that Nick!
I have seen other people use the asterisk, and figured it was to somehow spare Biante any grief from anyone.
I only abbreviated the names in case it could somehow deflect back onto Biante for hosting and moderating this forum, but if there is no problem, then I am more than happy to use the proper names. :cool:

[Nick Short]

That wasn't supposed to sound as harsh as it did! (missed out the smiley face, sorry) Lots of people have shied away from using the trade names for whatever reason, but there isn't any flak Biante can cop because of it. The whole issue is a farce, and not just in Australia - if Bernie gives you a million quid you forget about banning tobacco advertising, and as people here have seen, some sports can have as much as they like, while others are treated in draconian fashion. And for classic cars to have to cover up original signage at a classic motorsport event, or images be airbrushed, is just the height of stupidity.

[Andrew]

Originally posted by Nick Short
That wasn't supposed to sound as harsh as it did! (missed out the smiley face, sorry) Lots of people have shied away from using the trade names for whatever reason, but there isn't any flak Biante can cop because of it. The whole issue is a farce, and not just in Australia - if Bernie gives you a million quid you forget about banning tobacco advertising, and as people here have seen, some sports can have as much as they like, while others are treated in draconian fashion. And for classic cars to have to cover up original signage at a classic motorsport event, or images be airbrushed, is just the height of stupidity.

No worries Nick:cool:
I double-checked with Richard and he said while Biante will not show images of the cars with tobacco advertising, there was no issue in actually writing the brands.

So now, my post should read:

"A 'retrospective' release of 'memorabilia' of Brock's Marlboro Torana, or Jim and Mark's Winfield GT-R... And that's not even counting the debacle over the Minichamps Rothmans sponsored Porsches, where a hasty tampo fix had to be undertaken last year."

Better?;)

[Nick Short]

Even better - not only written in full, but bold as well! How about a bigger font, and maybe in red........I'm not a smoker, and for all the talk about personal choice, I think there's something inherently evil about big corporations using the human tendency towards addiction in order to make billions for themselves. However, these models had ciggie sponsorship, and we can't pretend they didn't. I have no problem with bans on advertising, but the inconsistency is what infuriates everyone so much, plus the inability of politicians to give a straight answer when asked why they're inconsistent.

[Robert Murphy]

Originally posted by Mark H-M
Our Government has just banned smoking in pubs. Now, while I'm a non-smoker and quite enjoy the fresh air, I can't help but think that civil rights are being eroded. Why don't respective Governments ban cars,. they also kill a heap of people each year?

I tend to agree with you, although I think my right to fresh breath fresh air has been ignored by the minority of the population who do smoke for a long time now. Yet these same people are quite happy to use taxpayer funded hospitals to correct their smoking induced illnesses.
Maybe the tobbacco companies should set up and fund their own hospitals for smoking related illnesses, and then they can provide pubs within them for their clients to use.
Cars dont kill people! People driving cars kill people!

Sorry this is a little off the subject.

Rob.

[wayno]

Yes it costs the system millions to treat smokers but how much have they contributed in exorbitant taxes levvied on their poison of choice?
Whilst it's still legal I think it is unfair to discriminate.

[Robert Murphy]

Nobody is telling smokers they cant smoke, it is the fact that the other 75% of the population dont want to deal with it on a personal level.
Is it fair that non smokers cannot have a drink in public without being subjected to smoke?

Rob

[wayno]

I agree with the banning of smoking inside at public venues. It was the hospital comments I thought were off the mark.

[Robert Murphy]

Originally posted by wayno
I agree with the banning of smoking inside at public venues. It was the hospital comments I thought were off the mark.

Sorry, no harm ment.
This was supposed to be a bit tounge in cheek.
Rob

[inter]

It is amazing that this topic brings out so many emotions.
i am a bit sorry i started the thread?

inter
:(

[Andrew]

Originally posted by inter
It is amazing that this topic brings out so many emotions.
i am a bit sorry i started the thread?

inter
:(

Don't worry about it inter!
It's good for the constitution! Character building! Hardy for the soul!;)

I guess, from what I can glean from this thread:
Take all the pictures you like of tobacco sponsored cars, BUT, be careful when and where you share them according to each country's regulations.

Although it makes it an interesting issue in light of the fact that so many people share via the internet which is an international resource that crosses boundaries...

[wayno]

Well I'm going to try and get some decent photos at the GP this year and they WILL be posted on my photobucket album in their full glory. Nobody tells me what to do!

[Leigh]

Originally posted by wayno
Well I'm going to try and get some decent photos at the GP this year and they WILL be posted on my photobucket album in their full glory. Nobody tells me what to do!
Nobody is...

EVERYBODY has taken the original post completly out of context!

What country are they talking about? Definately not Australia (yet), so were not telling anybody in Australia what to do!!!

Although, if you only have General Public tickets, there are other regulations you'd be breaking...although I have always queried how enforcable they are.

Andrew, Not an issue. It is up to the POSTER to ensure that it is not a crime in the country he/she is posting in, and up to the VIEWER to ensure it is not a crime where they are sitting...

[Andrew]

Originally posted by lcfp2297
Nobody is...

EVERYBODY has taken the original post completly out of context!

What country are they talking about? Definately not Australia (yet), so were not telling anybody in Australia what to do!!!

Andrew, Not an issue. It is up to the POSTER to ensure that it is not a crime in the country he/she is posting in, and up to the VIEWER to ensure it is not a crime where they are sitting...

The thing that concerns me about the 'doesn't apply here in Australia' is what I posted above - that not even Zoom magazine could publish their magazine with the Winfield logos visible, under legal advice. I don't know exactly what sort of legal problems it could have caused, but obviously there is some sort of issue about publishing these sorts of images in Australia. I just don't know to what extent, or to what severity the regulations have been framed.

Still, I guess it was simply some sage advice from Ferrari.

I may just apply to publications in Australia, not private websites in this country (you would be safe wayno!), or imported publications.

I think I will rest from this thread now.:rolleyes:

[Gumby]

What was the outcome on the tobacco advertisment decals and future Biante model cars?

I know we were all talking about it last year. Did I miss the conclusion to this???

Thanks

[Andrew]

I believe that depsite the admirable lobbying and eloquent defence from Biante (and petitions and correspondence to local MP's), the issue was defeated, and the status quo remains...