- Mar 10, 2014
- 10,230
- 11,898
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd, Celtic, Tanunda
I see this as an issue between the Bonds and the AFL (maybe also the SANFL plus telecast partners, printed media, etc).Hang on a minute.
The Bond brothers were not even asked if their picture could appear on the trophy - they were TOLD it would appear just a few days before the medal and shield were unveiled. They did not agree or authorise to their image being used in advertising and promotion for every showdown game held since. And no compensation of course - they are just expected to be honoured to have the privilege.
Like it or not, the AFL is a billion dollar national professional sporting competition where TV rights are worth $650m a year and where just about anyone even remotely associated with the game has their hand in the AFL commercial coffers. So how is the way the Bond Brothers treated just or fair?
And how does these two indigenous former players daring to exercise their legal right to a formal agreement and payment for past and ongoing use of their image rights 'not reflect well' on them?
Taylor Walker threatened to sue a shop for using his name on one of their hamburgers FFS.
Both the Crows and Port have agreed to meet with the Bond Brothers to discuss the issue as part of a mediation process btw.
The brothers have stated that they and their families were both honoured and humbled by the use of the photo and their images on the trophy, and that both have copies hanging on the walls of their homes. So it really is just a money issue - fair enough too.
Not sure why the clubs have even been brought into this case? In any event, both clubs are happy to mediate on it, and will most likely request the AFL pay whatever sum mediation determines is fair and reasonable, so they are probably the go-betweens to broker a deal.
Doubt if it ever gets to Court - unless the AFL plays hard ball on this. As someone posted, the AFL has all commercial rights to pics, etc to use in whatever way they choose anyway.
Just a pity a simple request for consent wasn't thought of (or ignored) in the first instance. Then there wouldn't be an issue.