http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100709/health/health_car_f1_villeneuve_museum
S-T-U-P-I-D!..... And I live in the center of the PC crowd! Surely, there's not a prosecutor in Canada who will do anything but laugh? Cheers, Ian
That "STUPID" rule could exclude public display of photos of almost every sporting event. Does that meen that a walk around the historics bheind the pits, they have to cover all the tobacco advertising?
If said pits are open to the public, yes! As Dave said, unbelievable! Particularly in Gilles home town! Cheers, Ian
As alluded to IDIOTIC - ABSURD - UNBELIEVABLE Even by their representation of the law,"...The report filed by inspectors indicates that while the photos are permitted to be displayed within the confines of the museum, they become illegal when they are on display in public...." Is the museum display... NOT IN PUBLIC? "...Tobacco advertising has been banned in Canada since 1988. In 2003, those rules were extended to the sponsorship of cultural or sporting events..." Were the photos displayed, sponsoring the Montreal GP??? Absolute HORSESHOT!! Just my opinion, Bill
If the photo was directly advertised by Marlboro then yes a fine is valid. If the photo was placed as an art piece and no direct advertising from Marlboro, then I agree 100% that this is absurd, rediculous, moronic, irritating, etc.... It probably cost them more than $2000 tax dollars to hand down the fine.
Since this was a non-competition car, only for display, nothing more to do with Marlboro, it seems a rather odd such a law would be enforced. I can imagine the inspectors being confused and not knowing whether to follow logic or the anal interpretation of the law. But that is when you call up your supervisor and let them make the decision. Does this mean an Andy Warhol type painting would be fined if it were of a Ferrari or a Penske car correctly depicting Marlboro logos? Can I be fined for mentioning the word "Marlboro"?
If this situation merits a fine how can someone then publish historic F1, MotoGP, boat pictures with tobacco livery on magazines, books, newspapers or any other publication available to the public? Where do they draw the line?
It wasn't a car being displayed - the fine was imposed for photos of GV it seems: "The photos were among a number of items on display that showed the Quebec driver with a prominently displayed Marlboro logo emblazoned on his uniform." Anyway, I'm no fan of tobacco products, but this is utterly ridiculous. >8^) ER
I can't see this case lasting two minutes in court!. Any judge worth his salt should instantly point out that the tobacco ban laws are only applicable from their inception dates and cannot be applied retrospectively, especially to images from the period. If the courts decide to side with the Quebec Health Department however, it opens a whole can of worms concerning prosecutions of anybody who used tobacco sponsorship in Canada at any time, even though it was legal at the time it was done. Follow this tobacco ban law through to the nth degree and you have to ban all historic footage of motor racing and other sports with tobacco sponsorships as well as banning any films/TV programmes that include people smoking, as it could be deemed to be promoting smoking!. I believe the Quebec Health Department have completely mis-interpreted the laws and a decent judge should severely chastise them for bringing this nonsense to court in the first place.
So what? The offending pictures were being displayed recently. The fine is not being imposed for something that occurred before the law was enacted. The image itself is not illegal or being fined, it's the recent display of the image which is at issue. It's actually quite an interesting question. Are historical images advertising?
Yes we did have to cover or remove tobaco signage. Our Shadow had no Tabatip signage last 4-5 years when north of the border
I don't think that it was required by law and I don't know if it was the owner's choice but our local collection has edited theirs. Image Unavailable, Please Login
