Comments

This is pretty standard. When a network gets an "exclusive" they burn-in their logo, so it's obvious where it came from. Some channels, when fair-use retransmitting snippets also burn in their own logo, as can be seen here. You'll sometimes see sneaky retransmitters putting some kind of logo or text block over the top of the other party's logo.

The ABC still owns copyright on the image here, even if someone else owns the underlying copyright on the source material. This is the compilation copyright. A magazine doesn't necessarily own copyright on all the articles and pictures contained within, but they copyright the compilation, layout etc.

The curious thing about this image is the 60 Minutes logo perfectly placed within the picture frame at the rear of the image. Just as sneaky as covering someone elses logo as you point out.

Who gives a shit about a logo. When some of Australia's worst murders have had more rights than Mamdouh Habib, I would want to question that, and other recent lies and deciet this Government has perpertrated on us. Oh and while were at it, weopons of mass destruction have been found. Its called Depleted Uranium

I'm not disputing the over-arching issue here Shane. There's another vector of communication that's at play here and that's what I'm focusing on... Think about it... do you really think I would over-look the abuse that appears to have taken place for the sake of a logo? Ask yourself, why focus on the logo?

The logo represents ownership, ownership of this image and ownership of the content of the interview. I can't recall ever having heard news readers on the ABC specifically referring to the 60 Minutes interview with Habib as a "paid interview". When ever reference was made to the interview it was prefaced with "paid". Now, is this editorial policy to ensure the public's attention is drawn to the commercial transaction that took place, or to focus on the issue at hand? It's a subtle comment that may be a requirement of the license agreement the ABC, and any other broadcasters for that matter, would have with Channel Nine/60 Minutes. I'm not really sure, but what I am fairly certain of is the mess of other messages coming down the line. Beware the meme, brother... take a breath and consider that there are many other perspectives to be sure, and many ways to untangle the truth from and with them.

All of the above I understood what you were getting at and anticipated this reply. But when you use an image of a man on your blog page, that may be innocent, may have been knowingly tortured ... it is an issue far bigger than a logo. What I don't understand is "beware the meme...???" Sorry for my ignorance , but what does that mean in a discussion on an issue that may be blown out of proportion by all segments of the jounalistic community. Let alone the Government.
And ... "take a breath" is a bit personal when debating on an open forum. I spend sometimes to much time considering all perspectives of issues of importance. And as for the truth ... not always will it untangle itself, remember the children overboard lies .... used by the same people that are now doing their utmost to discredit anything or anyone in regards to Mamdouh Habib.
Some times a commercial transaction is the only way the truth may surface. So lets not nit pick over logos or license agreements. Again when you use an image of this importance on your page, you have to expect all views.

Believe me, I did not take the decision to put this image, which is in fact still located on the ABC server, on this site lightly, hence the reference to copyright.

I welcome all views, even those that flame the earlier comments, which one expects within an open forum.

I am interested in how these issues are communicated, how use of various editorial mechanisms, branding and the transactions those behind them engage in, and the overall attempt to lessen the impact and value of the issues at hand.

When I refer to the "meme", I am conscious of how information, and the quest for truth can take many forms, how some of those forms one has to untangle and in doing so can pitch well meaning people against each other, if only the appearance of it.

And yes, I remember the lies and the many more that have been uttered since, and the many more to come. People will come to realise this more and more when interest rates go up... maybe they are wiping the sleep from their eyes already. I damn well hope so!

Spot the logo? Here goes: state-funded broadcaster logo superimposed on bottom-right, NineMSN's '60 Minutes' logo looks like it's framed on the wall top-right (60 Minutes being a copy of an American TV format and brand), an array of product packaging on the table (hair products? was this photo taken in the TV dressing room?), then Mr Habib's shirt has some kind of clothes logo on the sleeve and front.

It is very sad to see Habib's withdrawn and allegedly tortured countenance since his return, compared with the smiling family file photo we've seen on TV news for 2-3 years.

As mentioned in previous comments, it is indeed odd to hear ABC news presenters refer to Mr Habib's "paid interview". Something very subtle but undoubtedly sinister encroaches...

Heard it again thismorning! On ABC Radio National around 8am, they referred to more details that Habib gave in an interview on commercial television lastnight. At the end of the news item, the newsreader said, in a slightly lower voice:

"It is not clear whether Habib was paid for this second interview."

Whether he is paid for an interview, or not, is irrelevant. Of course we assume that people on commercial tv are paid for sensational interviews. Why does ABC add this little detail/question onto every mention of Habib's dealing with the media? Why do they single out Mr Habib, as though it is bad to be paid for an interview?

Can you recall any other news story that posit whether the subject was paid to be interviewed or not?

The mere mention of money for an interview is obfuscation of the more serious questions.

D'uh - Just figured out where this emphasis on un/paid interviews comes from.

Freed Habib Seeks Pension (The Age)

"Although Mr Ruddock will not be able to watch the 60 Minutes interview live, a tape of the program will be waiting for him when he arrives in Canberra. The Government will examine it to check if there are grounds to seize the money under its proceeds of crime legislation.

"Prime Minister John Howard said on Friday that he did not have any advice that Mr Habib's receipt of the money from Channel Nine was illegal, but he would wait and see what was said in the interview."

This Government has a habit of discrediting anyone with the courage to go public with their concerns regarding matters they would prefer go unnoticed.

Take Andrew Barton for instance, a most credible person dragged through the muck by the Howard regime. If he was of such poor character, as the Govt claims, how is it that he was in such a position of responsibility?

I just hope the public is savvy enough these days to see through the shroud of deceit perpetuated by this secret, or perhaps not so sectret autocracy that claims democratic credentials... a Govt that would rather sign non-agression agreements with countries known for extensive human rights abuses than commit to international arrangements that would lessen the impact of global warming and contribute to the emergence of responsible, global stewardship.

(Curiously, as I write Barry Jones strolls past my window!)

Bring on the high interest rates!