Speaker 1: This is Outspoken.
Speaker 2: The podcast is not afraid to say exactly what you're thinking.
Speaker 1: Our names are Amy Kay and Sophie Torba.
Speaker 2: We're identical triplets, but we often don't have identical opinions,
Speaker 2: so sometimes things can get heated. Outspoken covers all things
Speaker 2: reality TV, influencers, entertainment, and issues facing women.
Speaker 1: That is so fetch thank you.
Speaker 2: I've got quite a spring in my step this Monday morning,
Speaker 2: because there's no better feeling than knowing it is a
Speaker 2: four day working week and it is the Easter long weekend,
Speaker 2: four days off, heaps of chocolate.
Speaker 1: This has sprung up so quickly.
Speaker 2: It's really taken me by surprise, because I think it's
Speaker 2: because they release Hot Cross Buns so early that you know,
Speaker 2: you don't have that starting point to say, oh, the
Speaker 2: Easter period has bene so they've only had Hot Cross
Speaker 2: Buns in the shop for like six months. And you're saying, but.
Speaker 1: That's what I But that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I'm saying if they release them at an appropriate time,
Speaker 2: it kind of signifies that the East defestive period is beginning. Look,
Speaker 2: I'm happy with how early they release them because they're
Speaker 2: quite a staple in my diet, and actually the thought
Speaker 2: that Easter is going to be over in a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks actually depresses me because I think they should
Speaker 2: be an all year round thing.
Speaker 1: Oh, they pretty much are.
Speaker 2: Sophy said to me the other day. She was getting
Speaker 2: depressed that hot cross bunds wouldn't be in stores, and
Speaker 2: I had to remind her that they do keep selling them,
Speaker 2: but they just take off the cross. Did you guys
Speaker 2: see that, Yes, they did that.
Speaker 1: It's not the same. I don't think it's the same.
Speaker 2: Do you know what's also interesting about this weekend coming
Speaker 2: up that for people that actually have daylight savings, like
Speaker 2: an Adelaide, it's going to be over, So it's I
Speaker 2: feel like it's that transition into winter and darkness. Do
Speaker 2: you know what I am enjoying now that it's getting
Speaker 2: a little bit cooler. I've been getting into my matching
Speaker 2: pajama set, but I just look like this massive baby.
Speaker 2: Like I came down and Brandon just burst that laughing
Speaker 2: because it's like, why they match it? Wait, what is
Speaker 2: your matching pajama sex? I don't think I've ever seen this,
Speaker 2: because when we lived together, you used to just wear
Speaker 2: some pineapple pants.
Speaker 1: With a hole in the bump.
Speaker 2: Well, they're a matching pink like we got each other
Speaker 2: the same. Yeah, they've got little teddy bears on them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're pretty cute.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm going to look even more tragic because Reyes
Speaker 2: got me an oodie for my birthday and I don't
Speaker 2: want to know. It's got mini mouse on it and
Speaker 2: it's pink. So again, I look like I'm five years old,
Speaker 2: and I just know I'm going to be living in
Speaker 2: it all winter.
Speaker 1: I reckon if I'm.
Speaker 2: Going to invest in one, I'm just going to get
Speaker 2: a plane one.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I feel like because I'll be wearing it so much
Speaker 2: that I'll get sick of whatever cartoon characters on that. Now,
Speaker 2: you don't want a plane one because then you might
Speaker 2: actually wear it out to the shops, whereas I know
Speaker 2: that I can't wear it out of the house because
Speaker 2: I look like I'm five. I kind of respect someone
Speaker 2: if they do choose to wear it at the shops.
Speaker 2: I don't know, Like that's why I'm not getting one,
Speaker 2: because I honestly would wear it to the shops with
Speaker 2: your big ug boots. Yeah, I wear my rug boots
Speaker 2: at the shops. I honestly don't give a shit. And
Speaker 2: the shops are just across the road from me as well,
Speaker 2: so I'm there all the time. It is so funny
Speaker 2: because Amy is literally at the shop so often that
Speaker 2: there's a girl working there in the self service checkout
Speaker 2: area that knows you by name.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And I was there one weekend and I was dressed
Speaker 2: in just jeans and a white top, and she mistook
Speaker 2: me for you, And she's like, no, she did, she
Speaker 2: knew it was whatever. She's like, wow, you look really
Speaker 2: nice today. What are you all dressed up for? And
Speaker 2: I was thinking, God, I must come here looking like crap.
Speaker 2: If you think I'm dressed up. I actually think after
Speaker 2: COVID that jeans at the top is very dressed up.
Speaker 2: Like that's my go to formal attire these days.
Speaker 1: I hate wearing jeans.
Speaker 2: Just back to Easter quickly. I kind of want to
Speaker 2: throw Sophie under the bus here because we were having
Speaker 2: a little chat off Mike about how East is coming up,
Speaker 2: and so said, oh, Brandon and I have just decided
Speaker 2: that we're not going to buy each other chocolate. We're
Speaker 2: just going to spend fifty dollars on each other for Easter,
Speaker 2: and I have to ask you on Mike, Sophie, have
Speaker 2: you previously spent fifty dollars on Brandon in chocolate?
Speaker 1: Like, have you bought the chocolate? That's very extravagant.
Speaker 2: I haven't, but we've decided because we're trying to be healthy,
Speaker 2: but we want to get a present. So what can
Speaker 2: you get for a present for twenty dollars? Why not
Speaker 2: just save the money? Aren't you saving for her?
Speaker 1: Festive time?
Speaker 2: It's a festive time, Okay, you're supposed to celebrates the best,
Speaker 2: if the right word to destrive, I think you can
Speaker 2: use festive. It's like a fun time you're around family members.
Speaker 2: It is funny you say that, though, so because Reese
Speaker 2: told me not to buy them anything and he didn't
Speaker 2: want any chocolate, But there wasn't a mention of fifty
Speaker 2: dollars gifts. Well, I suppose just different, aren't they. I've
Speaker 2: actually booked a tennis court at a national park here
Speaker 2: in Adelaide for our Easter Sunday, and I'm so excited
Speaker 2: because our mom's going to be there and Reese's mum
Speaker 2: is going to be there, and I feel like they'll
Speaker 2: team together and put on a pretty epic easter a
Speaker 2: hunt for us. Okay, someone did write into the podcast
Speaker 2: a listener asking whether you were concealing an engagement ring
Speaker 2: on your hand? Is this now that the are you
Speaker 2: trying to like drop little hints now that the in
Speaker 2: laws are all meeting and stuff? Oh no, No, It's
Speaker 2: quite funny that someone like spired that out, because when
Speaker 2: I saw that my hand was covered in the photo,
Speaker 2: I just couldn't unsee it, Like it just looked so weird.
Speaker 2: I don't know how I didn't even notice. But no,
Speaker 2: I'm not engaged. We're just going back to the East
Speaker 2: Egg hunt. I do want to hear if other people
Speaker 2: do this in their twenties and thirties. Do your parents
Speaker 2: still do an East Egg Hunt for you? Go to
Speaker 2: our Facebook community, which has outspoken the podcast.
Speaker 1: I feel a bit sad about doing this.
Speaker 4: Let's rather take the magic out of it, preparing the
Speaker 4: chocolates for the bunny.
Speaker 2: But I suppose that's what becoming an adult.
Speaker 1: It's all about a Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: A hotel in Brisbane, famous for its instagrammable aesthetic, has
Speaker 2: ordered a micro influencer to remove photos from her visit
Speaker 2: despite paying to stay at the Calisle Hotel. Britt Daisy
Speaker 2: was told she had to remove happy snaps taken at
Speaker 2: the hotel because it contradicted their commercial photography policy. Brit
Speaker 2: joins us on the show to tell us what exactly happened.
Speaker 5: So essentially, this hotel in Brisbane called the Kalis, my
Speaker 5: friends and I we kind of like double in a
Speaker 5: bit of micro influencing, and we saw this hotel all
Speaker 5: over Instagram because a lot of bloggers have stayed there,
Speaker 5: and that's how we found out about it, because it's
Speaker 5: just an Instagram as dream like, so ascetic, so beautiful.
Speaker 3: So we paid to have like a little holiday there.
Speaker 5: But I guess when we booked it, one of the incentives,
Speaker 5: because it's quite expensive, one of our incentives was that
Speaker 5: we will get a lot of content creation done there
Speaker 5: because it's just it's super asthetic, so it's like perfect
Speaker 5: content creation space.
Speaker 3: So we booked it and we.
Speaker 5: Went and when we checked in, we obviously had to
Speaker 5: sign I guess a like forms upon check in, but
Speaker 5: I've experience was a bit chaotic, so Guilty didn't really
Speaker 5: read the forms, just signed it and we went there
Speaker 5: and took heaps and heaps of Instagram stories and of course,
Speaker 5: like I would just tag the Kalal in all my
Speaker 5: stories and post because we were having such a nice
Speaker 5: time at the hotel, like it was such a pleasurable
Speaker 5: experience and everything was so beautiful that I guess you
Speaker 5: when you as a micro influencer or as a blogger,
Speaker 5: when you love something, you.
Speaker 3: Post about it because.
Speaker 5: It's getting the name out there and you're usually it's
Speaker 5: like a symbiotic transaction, like you're somewhere beautiful, you tag
Speaker 5: them and people see it. And I had heaps and
Speaker 5: heaps of friends and like even just my followers replying
Speaker 5: to my stories being like this hotel is amazing, like
Speaker 5: I want to stay there, and I was like, yes,
Speaker 5: so it's honestly so amazing, Like I couldn't speak higher
Speaker 5: out of it. So we took a bunch of photos
Speaker 5: and then obviously uploaded them on our feed, and then
Speaker 5: when we got back, I got a message from the
Speaker 5: Calile themselves, and the general gist was that as guests
Speaker 5: are not permitted to have any cross promotions in their
Speaker 5: photos of the Calisle, so you're not allowed to tag
Speaker 5: any brands, and the photos that I had on my feed,
Speaker 5: like none of them were sponsored or paid posts. It
Speaker 5: was just like stuff that I had been gifted and
Speaker 5: clothing that I was wearing of brands that I work with,
Speaker 5: so obviously I tagged them. And I was also tagging
Speaker 5: the Kalisal because that's where I was, and I thought
Speaker 5: like that would.
Speaker 3: Be a good thing for them.
Speaker 5: And then they yeah, so they they messaged me, and
Speaker 5: they also messaged my two friends who stayed with me,
Speaker 5: who were also doing the same thing, and they basically said,
Speaker 5: you have to take down the photos. And I read
Speaker 5: it and I was like, wow, that's unlike anything I've
Speaker 5: ever heard before, because usually it's hotels being like, oh
Speaker 5: can you tag us, or like a restaurant usually if
Speaker 5: you take a photo there, they will ask you to
Speaker 5: tag them because like they want that exposure.
Speaker 3: But they didn't.
Speaker 5: So, yeah, they told us to take it down, so
Speaker 5: I assumed they just meant take off any tags that
Speaker 5: stated that I was at the Kalisal, So I untagged
Speaker 5: them from all my photos and I took away the
Speaker 5: GEO tag and I thought it would be fine, and
Speaker 5: then they emailed again, DMed me again and were like, oh,
Speaker 5: you still haven't like removed the promotional messages like and
Speaker 5: then they re explained to their policy that you're not
Speaker 5: allowed any promotional messages on photos taken in their premises.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I had to, they said, I had.
Speaker 5: They wanted me to remove the photos, but I didn't
Speaker 5: want to, and so we basically compromised by I just
Speaker 5: took off the promotional messages that were in my caption
Speaker 5: and I removed all the tags, and yeah, one of
Speaker 5: the photos was at like literally in front of one
Speaker 5: of their elevators, so you absolutely could not tell I
Speaker 5: was even at the Kala Hotel. And they still wanted
Speaker 5: that taken down because I had just like i'd written
Speaker 5: a caption saying like so stoked, I didn't spill anything
Speaker 5: on my all light outfit, and then I just had
Speaker 5: pants by glasses, and they wanted the pants by Glasses
Speaker 5: removed because that was, in their eyes.
Speaker 3: Promotional messaging.
Speaker 5: And I explained to them like, no, I wasn't even
Speaker 5: that wasn't even a collub like I literally am telling
Speaker 5: my followers where my pants were from and.
Speaker 3: You can't even tell where I am.
Speaker 5: And then they kind of came back being like, yes,
Speaker 5: it still breaches our policy. So basically, when I got
Speaker 5: that message and when my friends got it as well.
Speaker 5: I went to one of my influencer friends who has
Speaker 5: like a lot more followers in me. She's quite well known,
Speaker 5: she's got about three hundred K, and she was actually
Speaker 5: staying at the Calaal around the same time as I was,
Speaker 5: and I noticed she had a lot of photos on
Speaker 5: her grid tagging other brands in the Kalaal premises.
Speaker 3: So I messaged her and I said, oh, did you
Speaker 3: get this as well? What do you think? And she
Speaker 3: was like shocked by the whole thing.
Speaker 5: She was like, dude, it's so crazy, She's like, but
Speaker 5: that's why I never tagged them in any of my
Speaker 5: stories or posts, because I knew that if I tagged them,
Speaker 5: they'd be able to kind of like track that I'd
Speaker 5: been there and they might see that I have those
Speaker 5: photos up. And she's like, I had heard from other
Speaker 5: bloggers that they don't like it when you upload brand
Speaker 5: images taken in their premises. So that's why she didn't
Speaker 5: do it. And they haven't messaged her obviously, because it
Speaker 5: hasn't been on their radar that she stayed there and
Speaker 5: took photos because she never once tagged them. But it's
Speaker 5: just crazy because that's creating an environment where bloggers are
Speaker 5: going to go there and not ever tag them because
Speaker 5: they don't want to be tracked down. And obviously one
Speaker 5: of the biggest incentives to stay there is because it's
Speaker 5: so ascetic and it's so perfect for content creation. And
Speaker 5: I guess if you're paying money to stay somewhere, you
Speaker 5: want to get the most you can out of it,
Speaker 5: and if that means not tagging them at all, you
Speaker 5: will do that. So then you can still take some
Speaker 5: photos and upload them and then you can't be told
Speaker 5: to remove them. Even like Shiny Grimman uploaded a photo
Speaker 5: on her unfilleded account today or yesterday. I think it
Speaker 5: was saying that she got in trouble for taking the
Speaker 5: photo and I could tell that it was taken in
Speaker 5: the Calile. She obviously didn't tag it or anything, but
Speaker 5: you could tell so. And she's huge. She's got over
Speaker 5: a million followers, so in my eyes, her tagging that
Speaker 5: she was at the Cali would bring huge attraction to
Speaker 5: the hotel. So it's clearly not just micro influences that
Speaker 5: they don't want posting at the hotel. It's also these
Speaker 5: massive ones which could bring them so much business. So
Speaker 5: it's crazy. I just was a bit surprised about the
Speaker 5: their ability to dictate what photos you put up publicly
Speaker 5: if you're a paying patron, like you're not in any
Speaker 5: sort of agreement with them. I guess you sign on
Speaker 5: arrival apparently. I mean that's my bart. I didn't see
Speaker 5: that part, which I'm guessing a lot of influencers don't
Speaker 5: because it seems that there's been a few who have
Speaker 5: had this same problem. But it's a bit I guess
Speaker 5: it takes away a bit of your agency and like
Speaker 5: it's not a private power property if people are paying
Speaker 5: to stay there, So that's where the bit of the
Speaker 5: tension is.
Speaker 3: I think. Well, I think, obviously, because.
Speaker 5: It is so beautiful, a lot of brands and influencers
Speaker 5: would want to shoot there. And I do one hundred
Speaker 5: percent understand if you know you're launching a brand and
Speaker 5: you've gone there and you've taken your photo shoot that
Speaker 5: you're then going to sell your products from, that would
Speaker 5: of course, like you would need their permission and you
Speaker 5: probably need to pay them like your location fees.
Speaker 3: But I think the reason why like that. I spoke
Speaker 3: to my.
Speaker 5: PhD supervisor about it because I thought it was just
Speaker 5: so crazy because my whole PhD is about like visibility
Speaker 5: and exposure being a currency in the social media landscape,
Speaker 5: and that is how this hotel pretty much got its
Speaker 5: reputation because everyone saw it all over Instagram and influencers
Speaker 5: were taking beautiful photos there and that got its name
Speaker 5: out there. So my supervisor was assuming that maybe they
Speaker 5: were in a legal issue at one point which made
Speaker 5: them just want to not be associated with any other
Speaker 5: brands just to safeguard themselves or another I guess potential
Speaker 5: reason would be they want control over all brands that
Speaker 5: are going to be associated with their hotels.
Speaker 3: So I mean, there's not.
Speaker 5: Many harmful brands out there that you can really think
Speaker 5: of that like taint the reputation of the hotel, and
Speaker 5: I think most consumers are quite the consumers are quite
Speaker 5: conscious these days, and I'm sure like seeing an influencer
Speaker 5: promoting a brand in a hotel with just the location
Speaker 5: setting tagged, wouldn't not many people would associate the brand
Speaker 5: and then the location as well. But they don't even like,
Speaker 5: they don't even care if the location isn't tagged. It's
Speaker 5: more that if it's on their premises at all and
Speaker 5: you can see any part of their interior exterior in
Speaker 5: the photo, then they don't want any promotional messaging. And
Speaker 5: it doesn't matter if like the Calole name is in
Speaker 5: there or whatnot, Like as long as you're on their
Speaker 5: premises and the photo is showcasing any part of their premises,
Speaker 5: then they just don't want any promotional messaging in the
Speaker 5: caption or on the photo. I've spoken to a few
Speaker 5: other micro influencers and it kind of left a bit
Speaker 5: of a bad taste in our mouth. Like we had
Speaker 5: such a favorable stay at the hotel and we loved
Speaker 5: it so much and we couldn't speak high I like
Speaker 5: hire of it, and now we're a bit like, I
Speaker 5: don't know if I'd stay there again, because you know,
Speaker 5: if you're staying somewhere so beautiful and you have that
Speaker 5: like content creation mindset, of course you're going to want
Speaker 5: to take photos there. And I mean, you can one
Speaker 5: hundred percent go there and not tag any other brands
Speaker 5: and upload photos and that's fine.
Speaker 3: But I guess one.
Speaker 5: Of the justifications for spending the money to stay there
Speaker 5: is because you can also, you know, take beautiful content
Speaker 5: for the brand that you work with, And I guess
Speaker 5: that kind of it kind of takes that away, and
Speaker 5: now a lot of influencers are talking poorly of the
Speaker 5: hotel because it's just unlike anything that we've ever experienced
Speaker 5: with any other business. So I think from a PR perspective,
Speaker 5: it's going to discourage influencers from staying there, and that's
Speaker 5: how they got famous. And they've also sent bloggers there
Speaker 5: and obviously paid bloggers to stay there, and that content's
Speaker 5: been fine because obviously they've only been promoting the hotel,
Speaker 5: but it's kind of like you can't use I mean
Speaker 5: you can, but it's a bit of mixed messaging when
Speaker 5: you're paying bloggers to stay there and promote it and
Speaker 5: then telling other bloggers who have paid to stay there
Speaker 5: that they can't upload photos unless you're only tagging the
Speaker 5: Kalis because we've paid to stay there and we don't
Speaker 5: have any deal with or we're not doing any work
Speaker 5: with the Kalis. So it's kind of I guess a
Speaker 5: bit of dissonance between whether they want influencer marketing or
Speaker 5: they don't, Like they clearly value influencer marketing if they're
Speaker 5: getting influencers to stay there for them, but then they
Speaker 5: only want those chosen influencers to be posting about them,
Speaker 5: so that in itself is a bit confusing.
Speaker 2: Now that it's just the three of us, I feel
Speaker 2: like there's a lot to unpack because I'm in two
Speaker 2: minds about this hotel's policy.
Speaker 1: What did you guys think about it?
Speaker 3: Really?
Speaker 2: I'm surprised you're in two minds about it because when
Speaker 2: I first heard this story, I could not believe it
Speaker 2: because from a pr perspective, if you're a hotel like this,
Speaker 2: you want influencers tagging you in content. And I feel
Speaker 2: like it's a little bit hypocritical of the hotel because
Speaker 2: they are known as an influencer hotel, and originally it
Speaker 2: is influencers who have made this hotel, and it seems
Speaker 2: a little bit odd that they're now telling people, actually, no,
Speaker 2: do not tag us.
Speaker 1: In your content.
Speaker 2: But do you think that they're at a stage now
Speaker 2: where they don't actually need influencers to promote them. They're
Speaker 2: big enough as it is. I feel like they perhaps
Speaker 2: are at a stage where they want to be exclusive
Speaker 2: and choose the influencers and brands that they choose to
Speaker 2: work with. I don't think that's true at all, because,
Speaker 2: as Britt mentioned in the interview, the likes of Shane
Speaker 2: Grimman were told not to take photos at the Carlosle Hotel. Well,
Speaker 2: it's really interesting when you think about the commercial aspect
Speaker 2: of this. So the hotel doesn't earn any of the
Speaker 2: money that the influencer is actually earning of taking a
Speaker 2: photo in their very esthetic hotel. So I feel like
Speaker 2: if you're a paying guest, then that kind of is
Speaker 2: the narrative. However, if you're rocking up to the hotel
Speaker 2: and using it as a backdrop to take brand photos,
Speaker 2: I don't think people are just randomly rocking up to
Speaker 2: the hotel and taking photos. I think they're staying as guests,
Speaker 2: or they're going to the restaurant at the hotel.
Speaker 1: No, I think people are. It happens a lot.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've seen influencers vlogging about how they take
Speaker 2: their photos, and they go and stand out the front
Speaker 2: of like random rich people's houses and pretend that it's
Speaker 2: their house.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's so funny.
Speaker 2: I have to butt in because I was on trip
Speaker 2: Advisor just checking out information about the hotel, and the
Speaker 2: first review that popped up was that said overrun with influencers.
Speaker 2: If you want to feel like you're at a cheap
Speaker 2: hotel on the Gold Coast.
Speaker 1: This is for you.
Speaker 2: Don't forget your boat shoes and white linen shirts. Boys
Speaker 2: and girls. You must be sure to pack your most
Speaker 2: instagrammable outfits. The hotel is beautifully designed, but a real
Speaker 2: miss on the guests. If you'd like to not be
Speaker 2: able to swim in your hotel, Paul, this is for
Speaker 2: you and the pool stuff aren't interested in finding somewhere
Speaker 2: for you better to stay in the sanctuary of your room.
Speaker 2: If you ask me, the thing is the photos in
Speaker 2: question that posted you couldn't even tell that they were
Speaker 2: at the hotel. I mean one of the photos, as
Speaker 2: she said, was in front of a lift and the
Speaker 2: other was in front of a white wall. But she's
Speaker 2: tagged the hotel and they've gone take it down.
Speaker 1: I feel like we need.
Speaker 2: To take a look at what the Calai Hotel's rules
Speaker 2: actually are about photography.
Speaker 1: So on their website they have a Frequently.
Speaker 2: Asked Questions section and there is an area called photo,
Speaker 2: video and commercial use. So they say, while we passionately
Speaker 2: support creative initiatives, any activity, including photography and videography of
Speaker 2: a commercial or promotional nature, is not permitted anywhere within
Speaker 2: the hotel without the prior written approval of hotel management,
Speaker 2: and in the case of photography slash videography without an
Speaker 2: authorized location acknowledgment. Hotel management has the right to counsel
Speaker 2: accommodations and require the immediate seation of any activity taking
Speaker 2: place in breach of this condition. Unauthorized imagery or video
Speaker 2: must not be published on any media and must be
Speaker 2: immediately removed from the public domain upon request from hotel management.
Speaker 2: Hotel rooms are to be used solely for guest accommodation
Speaker 2: and enjoyment. Hotel rooms are not to be used as
Speaker 2: locations for commercial activity, including pop up shows, trunk shows, etc.
Speaker 2: I take it from these terms and conditions that they
Speaker 2: have been royally screwed over by some influencers in the
Speaker 2: past who have taken advantage of the rooms.
Speaker 1: You might be right.
Speaker 2: So it also might be a case of that they've
Speaker 2: seen so many influencers come in and use the hotel
Speaker 2: as a backdrop and make a lot of money from
Speaker 2: it that they're now trying to control how the money
Speaker 2: is made and sort of take their own cut. Yeahtual,
Speaker 2: I mean the thing is I get that obviously they
Speaker 2: would like to be paid a location fee. However, in
Speaker 2: the case of this influencer brit who spoke to us,
Speaker 2: she has a micro following, she has ten thousand followers,
Speaker 2: and the photos that she was putting up, she wasn't
Speaker 2: actually paid for the clothing. She was gifted the clothing. However,
Speaker 2: as a micro influencer, you've got to start out somewhere,
Speaker 2: so she was trying to take photos that other bigger
Speaker 2: influences would take of clothing and tap the clothing in it.
Speaker 2: I feel like, where do you draw on the line
Speaker 2: in terms of what the commercial gain is. So if
Speaker 2: I'm be gifted a share I can't take a photo
Speaker 2: in the hotel room. Well, they classify in their terms
Speaker 2: and conditions that it's also stuff that's of a promotional nature,
Speaker 2: so I'm assuming that they count gifted items involved in that.
Speaker 2: I personally don't agree with that. I think that if
Speaker 2: you have been gifted something, or you're a fashion blogger
Speaker 2: trying to create your feed, you should be allowed to
Speaker 2: just post up a photo of yourself at the hotel
Speaker 2: that you've paid to stay out.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, they have said that you can post photos of
Speaker 2: a personal nature, but as you said, not created for promotion.
Speaker 2: So I think that this is where the line is
Speaker 2: really blurred, because again, a micro influencer isn't necessarily gaining
Speaker 2: a lot from posting that photo. That it's sort of
Speaker 2: they're curating their image. And as Britt did mention, she
Speaker 2: actually got a lot of comments from her followers being like,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, where did you stay? I really want
Speaker 2: to stay there? So the feedback otion, Yeah, the feedback
Speaker 2: was really positive. Well, the weird thing is that influencers
Speaker 2: themselves are sometimes the product that they are pushed. If
Speaker 2: you're a micro influencer, you're going to be taking photos
Speaker 2: of yourself in glamorous places.
Speaker 1: Like this hotel. So where do we draw the line?
Speaker 2: Are you allowed to promote yourself as.
Speaker 1: The product and the photo?
Speaker 2: Though? Because they don't have an issue with people taking
Speaker 2: photos of themselves there, they have an issue with people
Speaker 2: trying to connect different brands that they're not associated with
Speaker 2: their brand.
Speaker 1: That's what the problem is.
Speaker 2: The thing is the hotel said to brit that if
Speaker 2: she untagged the image like the brands in the photo,
Speaker 2: she could keep the photos up. So it seems that
Speaker 2: the hotel is okay if you're a guest and you
Speaker 2: take a photo. However, they don't want you taking photos
Speaker 2: of particular products in the hotel and then tagging them.
Speaker 1: I feel like it.
Speaker 2: Could be because they do have a pop up retail
Speaker 2: space where they do host some of the region's most
Speaker 2: promising upcoming fashion designers.
Speaker 1: So I feel like if you take a look.
Speaker 2: At influencers, majority of them are promoting fast fashion brands.
Speaker 2: So maybe because they do have this pop up retail
Speaker 2: space that is why they need permission to be allowed
Speaker 2: to But what is it. What do you mean pop
Speaker 2: up retail they have in the hotel. They have an
Speaker 2: area where people can buy clothes. I assume yeah, so
Speaker 2: they don't want an influencer coming in and a pretty
Speaker 2: little thing outfit and tagging, you know, pretty little thing
Speaker 2: in their hotel because they're wanting to champion their own
Speaker 2: brand that they've got in the hotel. It's actually pretty
Speaker 2: interesting because the wife of one of the co owners
Speaker 2: of the hotel, she actually has her own swimwear brand
Speaker 2: as well. So I wonder if it is so.
Speaker 1: Is that they don't want any competition.
Speaker 2: I am really interested to see moving forward, how this
Speaker 2: hotel's relationship with influencers develops, because they have had a
Speaker 2: history of having big brand launchers at the hotel, as
Speaker 2: well as hosting certain influences on staycations. It does seem
Speaker 2: dangerous to kind of make enemies with micro influencers because
Speaker 2: you really don't know when those influencers are going to
Speaker 2: take off, and then you actually want them at taking
Speaker 2: photos at your hotel. It's pretty funny because I feel
Speaker 2: like in Adelaide hotels would be dying for any sort
Speaker 2: of micro influencers to post about them, So that's why
Speaker 2: it is all a little bit ironic. I do feel
Speaker 2: for Britain her friends because I don't feel like they
Speaker 2: were trying to do anything wrong. I mean, they obviously
Speaker 2: didn't read the terms and conditions, but who does read
Speaker 2: those things when they sign into a hotel. They probably
Speaker 2: thought they were doing the hotel a favor by posting
Speaker 2: about them. It's also great look for the hotel because
Speaker 2: if I receive something like that, I.
Speaker 1: Would be so offended.
Speaker 2: Well, Britt did say that they were extremely lovely at
Speaker 2: the hotel, and she kind of wanted to bring it
Speaker 2: up more as a talking point because to me, it
Speaker 2: is such an interesting conversation and I do wonder if
Speaker 2: other hotels or other venues, like you know, brunch spots,
Speaker 2: are they going to start implementing similar rules because the
Speaker 2: social media space is just really flourishing and developing, So
Speaker 2: it might be something that we see in the future.
Speaker 2: And as you touched on earlier, Amy, I feel like
Speaker 2: influencers have really become a brand themselves and they do
Speaker 2: show what they stand for or don't stand for. So
Speaker 2: it is interesting now that some places are saying, hey.
Speaker 1: We don't even want to be tagged by you.
Speaker 4: Who wants to stand there and eat cold lengsil soup.
Speaker 4: It tastes like sick. It tastes that I'm sicking it
Speaker 4: up after an eye out, That's what it's. Wouldn't even
Speaker 4: give my dog that that ship mate, that's ship on
Speaker 4: a plate.
Speaker 2: Now, before we get into the next door, we need
Speaker 2: to preface that we will be getting into some toilet tour.
Speaker 2: We promise it's not as graphic as last week when
Speaker 2: we were talking about Green Pooth. If anyone's eating their breakfast,
Speaker 2: maybe pause and finis full.
Speaker 1: It's honestly not that bad.
Speaker 2: So Martha from Married at First site has shot that
Speaker 2: was genuine. So she has shared a video of herself
Speaker 2: yelling at her partner Michael for his bad aim when
Speaker 2: it came to him pissing in the toilets.
Speaker 1: Oh gosh.
Speaker 2: I all I could think was how does he put
Speaker 2: up with her?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 1: Can you imagine being yelled at on the when you're
Speaker 1: taking a piss.
Speaker 2: It made me think, though, that that is what a
Speaker 2: relationship is like two years a long term.
Speaker 1: Lets let's play the click.
Speaker 2: Can you please just sit down and piss?
Speaker 1: Please?
Speaker 6: Why just do it?
Speaker 1: A lot of guys do it.
Speaker 2: Ah, I've just jipped everything in there and it's splashing.
Speaker 2: I can from here on the foot tower, move to
Speaker 2: the foot tower. This actually really reminded me of my
Speaker 2: own relationship. Like even last night, I had hopped into
Speaker 2: bed and Brandon had the door in our on Sweet
Speaker 2: slightly open, and you know what, you can just hear
Speaker 2: the last little drops of we coming out, and I
Speaker 2: was like, could you close the door? Yeah, that's bad
Speaker 2: because it makes you unique to go. Yeah, but she's
Speaker 2: not asking him to close the door. She's telling him
Speaker 2: that he has to sit down to piss. I mean
Speaker 2: that's a bit emasculating.
Speaker 1: Did you know that.
Speaker 2: I don't know if we've spoken about this, but some
Speaker 2: people actually stand up to wipe their bem.
Speaker 1: Ye, yes, we've discussed.
Speaker 2: We've discussed, discussed. There's either people that stand up or
Speaker 2: they you know, you know, do the normal thing reach around. Well,
Speaker 2: before we get into any more disgusting conversation, I just
Speaker 2: want to say that Michael did actually see the funny
Speaker 2: side of it all, and he shared his own reel
Speaker 2: to Instagram, which was entire how my girlfriend thinks I
Speaker 2: take a piss And the clip showed him standing.
Speaker 1: A meter away, so he had a.
Speaker 2: Tape measure to make sure he was a meter away,
Speaker 2: and then he put a blindfold on and then it
Speaker 2: was like inferring that he was about to piss. I
Speaker 2: find it funny that Martha would prefer him to sit
Speaker 2: down when he pisss because she doesn't want.
Speaker 1: To get like the floor dirty.
Speaker 2: Like for me, if I came in and saw my
Speaker 2: boyfriend sitting down taking a piss, I'd be like, what
Speaker 2: the fuck? Was a very masculating, isn't it to see
Speaker 2: a man sitting Oh? I think I don't see why
Speaker 2: what the problem is? I mean, if they want to
Speaker 2: sit down, but he doesn't want to sit down, he
Speaker 2: stand up. No, But I was literally having this conversation
Speaker 2: the other day with Dale, and I was saying, it's
Speaker 2: actually pretty good being a girl, because this is okay,
Speaker 2: I need to preface this. We were camping and Dale
Speaker 2: bought me this like fold out toilet seat that's basically
Speaker 2: a toilet seat on some legs, so I can sit
Speaker 2: and go to the.
Speaker 1: Toilet like a pody. I suppose, I know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I said to him, Oh, are you going
Speaker 2: to use it? And he's like, I hope I don't
Speaker 2: have to. And I said, do you know what, it's
Speaker 2: actually quite good being a girl, having getting to sit
Speaker 2: down because I go to the toilet a lot when
Speaker 2: you though to stand. That was the only time I
Speaker 2: said that it's not.
Speaker 1: Great being a girl.
Speaker 2: I don't know, it seems pretty easy, like you could
Speaker 2: just walk in, like when you've done like a really
Speaker 2: hard workout. There's nothing worse than having to go to
Speaker 2: like I go to the toilet so many times during
Speaker 2: the day to do wee and getting down and having
Speaker 2: to get back up. And also you mean like when
Speaker 2: you've done legs day or something like, yeah, on the
Speaker 2: toilet that's hard. Could I just say though? It was
Speaker 2: so funny in our community we put up a post
Speaker 2: about the green Peol incident involving the rainbow cake, and
Speaker 2: one of our lovely members of the community wrote that
Speaker 2: they loved that we were normalizing women talking about Pooh,
Speaker 2: and I thought that is hilarious, Like, thank you so
Speaker 2: much to whoever wrote that kinde comment.
Speaker 1: But we're just being but we're just being vulgar.
Speaker 2: And they're like, I love that you're actually normalizing it.
Speaker 1: We are kind of our they were.
Speaker 2: I actually also had to love one of the reviews
Speaker 2: we got sent, so they gave us a one star
Speaker 2: and they said, toilet humor, this is truly disgusting. Who
Speaker 2: wants to listen to toilet Talk if you disagree? I mean,
Speaker 2: this is just me literally asking for you to leave
Speaker 2: and ize comment, but please leave about to say this
Speaker 2: isn't gonna become a regular segment either, like this is
Speaker 2: that might've been someone else that was put a false
Speaker 2: eating their cereal.
Speaker 1: Maybe I can understand why.
Speaker 2: Moving on to Molly May from Love Island UK, and
Speaker 2: she recently revealed on her Instagram story that she had
Speaker 2: her composite bonds removed from her teeth and they're basically like,
Speaker 2: are they kind of like a poor man's veneers. Well
Speaker 2: they're not a poor man's veneers, but they don't grind
Speaker 2: your teeth down to actually put the veneers on. It's
Speaker 2: sort of like they I mean, I'm not an expert
Speaker 2: on it, but I think they kind of like, let's
Speaker 2: get bringing our mum, who's a gender with therapist. I
Speaker 2: think we shut this stuff on that kind of makes
Speaker 2: your teeth look bigger.
Speaker 1: I suppose.
Speaker 2: Like is that it did shock me when I first
Speaker 2: saw it, because I was like, wow, they do look different.
Speaker 2: But I think it's just when you see anything. Because
Speaker 2: she's also documented herself getting her lips feel it dissolved,
Speaker 2: and at first you're like, wow, she looks different, but
Speaker 2: then you just get used to it. It's a good
Speaker 2: different though. I'm so excited to see girls going back
Speaker 2: to their natural state. It kind of reminds me of
Speaker 2: that old show Snog Marry Avoid, where they'd have someone
Speaker 2: in there and they're like, oh, we're going to remove
Speaker 2: all of your fakery, and then they look.
Speaker 1: So much better.
Speaker 2: I mean, to be fair, I think Molly may looked
Speaker 2: really good before, but she looks even better in a
Speaker 2: natural state.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 2: I also love that she's got rid of her really
Speaker 2: long hair extensions and she's got this cool sort of
Speaker 2: lob going on. Have you noticed in the UK, though,
Speaker 2: because I've heard that the lob has actually been created
Speaker 2: with clipping hair extensions. But I feel like this is
Speaker 2: something maybe our UK, any UK listeners can let us know.
Speaker 2: A lot of YouTubers seem to sleep with those clip in.
Speaker 1: Hair extensions in their hair. I can't add anything worse.
Speaker 2: It actually makes me feel physically sick to my stomach
Speaker 2: because I had days where I'd wear them for about
Speaker 2: eight hours at a time and by the end of
Speaker 2: the day it was like taking a bra if you know,
Speaker 2: that feeling was unclipping your hair extension. That's why those
Speaker 2: those halo hair extensions are so good. But you do
Speaker 2: still after worrying them for a long time, it's the best,
Speaker 2: like when you rip it off. I was gonna say,
Speaker 2: I saw Anastata King's North in a vlog talking about
Speaker 2: how she was going to leave her click in this
Speaker 2: sentence in when she went to bed. I just yeah,
Speaker 2: as you said, it made me feel sick. Well. Back
Speaker 2: to Molly May and I really like the fact that
Speaker 2: she has urged her young followers not to follow in
Speaker 2: her footsteps in regards to cosmetic enhancements, because she said
Speaker 2: she wished that she had waited to well so her
Speaker 2: face would actually mature, which I think is really good advice.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously people are open to make their own decisions,
Speaker 2: but it seems like a lot of her decisions were
Speaker 2: motivated by the fact that she was appearing on Love Island,
Speaker 2: because she actually got the composite bonds done two days
Speaker 2: before appearing on the show, and I think a lot
Speaker 2: of the lip filler she also got was a result
Speaker 2: of the fact she was going to be on TV.
Speaker 2: Do you blame her though, because Love Island is probably
Speaker 2: the biggest show in the UK at the moment and
Speaker 2: they are absolutely torn to shreds by viewers. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: don't blame her, but I am glad that she has
Speaker 2: embraced her natural self and feeling confident enough to go
Speaker 2: back to what she was like before Love Island, because
Speaker 2: it would be pretty scary. You know, she's amassed all
Speaker 2: these millions of followers and so many people know her
Speaker 2: looking a certain way, so it would be really weird,
Speaker 2: unveiling like your natural teeth.
Speaker 3: Again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I found it really interesting because she spoke about
Speaker 2: One of the main motivating factors for her transformation was
Speaker 2: the fact that she wanted to look younger and she
Speaker 2: is only about I think she's twenty one.
Speaker 1: That freaks me out.
Speaker 2: And she her and her partner Tommy, they look so
Speaker 2: much older than twenty one. And she said that when
Speaker 2: you're younger, you always want to look older, but then
Speaker 2: when you get older. I mean, she's twenty one. Still,
Speaker 2: she's still young, but you want to look younger. Yeah,
Speaker 2: exactly right. It was really interesting because I think when
Speaker 2: we were twenty one, we looked about fifteen, and I
Speaker 2: know the feeling of really wanting to look younger. Now
Speaker 2: being older or older. Now we're thirty two and being
Speaker 2: asked if we're twenty three. In cookie, it's a real
Speaker 2: full circle experience. You're not her sister, you're not her friend,
Speaker 2: You're a liar, and I'm going.
Speaker 6: To walk away from these lives because she's gonna sit
Speaker 6: here and keep hying you.
Speaker 2: You're the biggest poser in this town.
Speaker 4: You know what You're going to burn stop.
Speaker 1: It yet again.
Speaker 2: Celeb's spellcheck has dominated our news feeds and our online
Speaker 2: discussions this week, even though she's on a hiatus Ozzie
Speaker 2: Influencer Opinions got everyone talking about her again. So Ruby
Speaker 2: Tuesday Matthews, who well recall from Oystergate. She sent in
Speaker 2: a message to Ossie Influencer Opinions and she was kind
Speaker 2: of having a bit of a goal at her for
Speaker 2: posting her and said, can you please not post me anymore?
Speaker 2: And at the end of the message, she wrote, I
Speaker 2: would seriously recommend assessing your content that you post moving forward.
Speaker 2: I would hate for you to be in Celeb's Spellcheck's boat.
Speaker 2: I love this little mansion here because I feel like
Speaker 2: everyone is dying for any sort of information about what
Speaker 2: is happening with Celeb' Spellcheck that they thought maybe this
Speaker 2: is a little bone we've all been through. Yeah, like
Speaker 2: maybe she is getting sued. I mean she has come
Speaker 2: out and said no, that is not the case. She's
Speaker 2: not being sued, But we don't know what's in the works.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of influencers that are very angry about
Speaker 2: what Celeb's Spellcheck's been doing, and I feel like we
Speaker 2: kind of touched upon it last week. But there has
Speaker 2: been a lot of discussion around the video that Celeb's
Speaker 2: Spellcheck posted of Lorena from the Bachelor, and the more
Speaker 2: I've thought about it and the more I've listened to
Speaker 2: different like you know, It's life on Cut was talking
Speaker 2: about it, which I found pretty interesting because they are
Speaker 2: both influencers and kind of seem like everyday people, and
Speaker 2: I found their take on it really interesting. So Britt
Speaker 2: was really of the opinion that they crossed the line
Speaker 2: majorly when they posted a video of Lorena allegedly snorting
Speaker 2: what looked like a white substance, and they said across
Speaker 2: the line because this was something that Lorena had not posted,
Speaker 2: This was something that was sent to the page by
Speaker 2: someone that was at the party. It was kind of
Speaker 2: a got ya moment. Well, I just say, though, we
Speaker 2: don't know that for sure. I mean, we're all jumping
Speaker 2: to conclusions because initially when I saw it, I thought, Wow,
Speaker 2: somebody's insta story that or someone sent it as a snapchat,
Speaker 2: so we don't know if it was actually yeah, But regardless,
Speaker 2: Lorena didn't publish it, and celeb Spellcheck's amo is usually
Speaker 2: that she will reshare something that an influencer has posted
Speaker 2: themselves and you know, make fun of it or bring
Speaker 2: pull someone into account. So it was interesting to look
Speaker 2: at it with that point of view, because I feel
Speaker 2: like that type of content is something that could get
Speaker 2: celebs Spellcheck in trouble. And it is interesting that that
Speaker 2: was posted and then this hiatus has been taken. It's
Speaker 2: such a shame because I feel like she was being
Speaker 2: quite good at moderating the comments and keeping the content fun.
Speaker 2: I mean, apart from the influencer encounts like those were
Speaker 2: so much fun to look at, but I do feel
Speaker 2: like they were verging some of them. I think it's
Speaker 2: the drug taking reference. Isn't that there were a few
Speaker 2: that referenced drug taking, And I think that's where if
Speaker 2: you are listening sole Spellcheck, you've got to just not
Speaker 2: include that stuff. But the thing is with Lorena Celeb'spelcheck
Speaker 2: didn't actually accuse her of snorting cocaine, but that is
Speaker 2: the inference that people have got from the video being shared.
Speaker 2: Which is why we wanted to have John Laxon, who
Speaker 2: is a Sydney media lawyer on for Laxon and lex
Speaker 2: so we can pick his brain about what you can
Speaker 2: and can't post. And a lot of influencers are chucking
Speaker 2: around the word defamation, and I think it's really important
Speaker 2: that we know what defamation is and whether Celeb's Spellcheck
Speaker 2: and other pages like Ossie Influencer Opinions are actually liable. Also,
Speaker 2: are you liable for commenting on this type of information
Speaker 2: because we don't want to get like, no one wants
Speaker 2: to get in trouble for this type of thing. I
Speaker 2: also think it's interesting to talk to John about even
Speaker 2: if something is defamatory or classified as defamation, can you
Speaker 2: actually be taken to court over it? Because most cases
Speaker 2: don't actually go to court. Most things get settled outside
Speaker 2: of court. So I feel like there's a lot of
Speaker 2: people who are scared thinking I'm going to be taken
Speaker 2: to court for all my money.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's listen to what John's got to say.
Speaker 1: Amy's personal lawyer.
Speaker 6: You get into Harvard Law wit like it's hard.
Speaker 2: So firstly, John, welcome to Outspoken. We are so excited
Speaker 2: to have you on. We've given you a bit of
Speaker 2: a pump up in our previous episode we said you're
Speaker 2: our favorite lawyer going around town.
Speaker 6: Thank you, very very gracious of you.
Speaker 2: Sophi keeps calling you my personal lawyer, and we must
Speaker 2: say that obviously we have Well, you've represented me in
Speaker 2: the past, but you're not my personal lawyer. Unfortunately.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm very honored to have been your lawyer. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So we should probably get into it.
Speaker 2: We've got you on the show to speak about Instagram
Speaker 2: page celeb spellcheck. So a number of influencers who have
Speaker 2: featured on this page have accused it of being defamatory. Now,
Speaker 2: can you firstly explain what exactly is defamation?
Speaker 6: Well, simply, defamation is a taught and a tort is
Speaker 6: a civil wrong. So with defamation, it's a civil wrong
Speaker 6: that involves conduct that harms another person's reputation. So the
Speaker 6: law recognizes that individuals have the right not to have
Speaker 6: their reputation unjustly Sully, I can use that quaint expression,
Speaker 6: and so law provides a mechanism to seek remedies where
Speaker 6: that occurs through the payment of compensation. But it's not
Speaker 6: just about whether a person feels that've been defamed or
Speaker 6: whether the other person intended to defame them. The test
Speaker 6: is what the ordinary and reasonable person would think. So
Speaker 6: what defamation laws seek to do is to balance the
Speaker 6: competing rights, the tensions between the rights of members of
Speaker 6: the public to protect their reputation, the rights to exercise
Speaker 6: freedom of speech and to access accurate and true information.
Speaker 6: So the course obviously recognize the importance of freedom of speech,
Speaker 6: although you've probably been surprised to learn that that right
Speaker 6: isn't expressly legislated in Australian law, unlike in the US Constitution.
Speaker 6: And then there are a variety of defenses available to
Speaker 6: a defamation clim The most widely known one is the
Speaker 6: defense of truth or justification as it's sometimes called. You know,
Speaker 6: there are several others also, public interest reporting in the
Speaker 6: public interest and efectiveness of the current defamation provisions are
Speaker 6: currently under question. There's a debate about that. A new
Speaker 6: South Wales has already legislated a new public interest defense
Speaker 6: but yet to come into force. Now whether that's a
Speaker 6: good thing or not, well, there's a debate about that
Speaker 6: going on at the mind. That's a long way of
Speaker 6: answering what defamation is.
Speaker 2: In regards to this page, celeb spell check, they've been
Speaker 2: known to share spelling errors that influencers have put up,
Speaker 2: but the content has gone much further in recent weeks
Speaker 2: and people have seen posts such as different influencers or
Speaker 2: reality stars looking as if they're allegedly snorting a white substance.
Speaker 2: If they're sharing something like that that is a video
Speaker 2: that has been put out there or that they have received.
Speaker 2: One would assume that, wow, we can see what's going on.
Speaker 2: Maybe that page could use the truth defense. But is
Speaker 2: that something that they could use or is it a
Speaker 2: bit more difficult than just saying we've got a video
Speaker 2: of this person doing this this act.
Speaker 6: Well, it's a bit more difficult. I mean, it's a
Speaker 6: fine line, and you know, it's a question on which
Speaker 6: rigual minds can differ. I mean, it would be hard
Speaker 6: to make the suggestion that an image that seems to
Speaker 6: show someone snorting lines of cocaine was a harmless joke.
Speaker 6: The person who posts the image knows is going to
Speaker 6: be consequences, especially if the person the influencer is unaware
Speaker 6: that they're being recorded at the time, so you know,
Speaker 6: they're on denis And depending on the circumstances, there might
Speaker 6: be defenses to posting that like truth. But I'll say
Speaker 6: more on that later. But there are difficulties in establishing truth.
Speaker 6: So whether something's harmless fun or not, it typically comes
Speaker 6: back to the question of what the ordinary and reasonable
Speaker 6: person would think, because that's the test under the defamation
Speaker 6: and that depends on the context of the publication. So
Speaker 6: you might remember it came up as an issue a
Speaker 6: few years ago in the Chris Kenny ABC litigation where
Speaker 6: the Chaser group they made a video depicting Chris Kenny
Speaker 6: being intimate with the dog. The ABC argued that it
Speaker 6: was clearly satirical no reasonable person could I think it
Speaker 6: was suggested that what was the subject of the humorous
Speaker 6: video was actually mister Kenny being intimate with a dog,
Speaker 6: and there was an initial hearing with the parties in
Speaker 6: which the court accepted that argument, but it left open
Speaker 6: the claim that the ABC was suggesting that mister Kenny
Speaker 6: was as bad as someone who might have sex with
Speaker 6: the dog. Now that case it ultimately settled, so we'll
Speaker 6: never know what a court would have found at the
Speaker 6: ottimate hearing. Most and you know, most of these matters
Speaker 6: do settle.
Speaker 2: Yeah, now you touched on some of the reforms that
Speaker 2: are happening at the moment with the defamation laws in Australia.
Speaker 2: What is it that we can aspect from the new laws.
Speaker 2: I know it's a bit of a slow process when
Speaker 2: laws come into place.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Well, to answer your last question, for I think
Speaker 6: the law is always evolving whether it's in the form
Speaker 6: of new legislation, proposal legislation, or because judges continue to
Speaker 6: interpret the law and appliant to new situations like social media.
Speaker 6: So you know, I think it's arguable whether or not
Speaker 6: the law who's caught up with the social media age
Speaker 6: a large well. The large media organizations often cry that
Speaker 6: defamation law is no longer sit for purpose because obviously
Speaker 6: they don't like paying out large sums of money when
Speaker 6: they are on the wrong end of it. They're obviously
Speaker 6: going to say that they're the defendant and they want
Speaker 6: it to be as difficult as possible for people to
Speaker 6: see them. But they will a lot of power, and
Speaker 6: social media is obviously the mentally powerful and it can
Speaker 6: be harmful. So untrue things that are published online obviously
Speaker 6: have the potential to ruin people's lives, and that's why
Speaker 6: they can sue when they are faded, and most people
Speaker 6: would think, well, they should be able to So there
Speaker 6: needs to be a level of responsibility on the part
Speaker 6: of large media organizations and social media platforms. And I
Speaker 6: can tell you from experience with trying to get an
Speaker 6: outcome from a social media platform, doing so inevitably results
Speaker 6: in the facebooks and the Instagrams and the Googles telling
Speaker 6: you to talk to the hand. So the changes that
Speaker 6: have recently been introduced by the Defamation Amendment Act, they
Speaker 6: aren't specifically related to the social media age to my mind.
Speaker 6: They're actually primarily more about making life easier for large
Speaker 6: media companies to defend deformation actions. So two of the
Speaker 6: key changes to the Defamation Act, they've introduced a threshold
Speaker 6: question of serious harm in the new section ten A
Speaker 6: and so serious harm is going to be an element
Speaker 6: in a deformation case. And there's also a new public
Speaker 6: interest defense. Both of those that have been borrowed from
Speaker 6: the UK Deformation Act to a certain degree. But the
Speaker 6: problem is, you know, what constitutes serious harm isn't defined.
Speaker 6: So it's clear the objective of the Serious Harm Amendment
Speaker 6: is to remove from the court system for the trivial,
Speaker 6: you know, the backyard type, non mass media disputes, neighborhood
Speaker 6: disputes involving name calling or spats on social media, where
Speaker 6: there's limited actual effect on somebody's reputation. So the proposal,
Speaker 6: the idea behind it is that this can be determined
Speaker 6: early on in the proceedings, or a threshold question to
Speaker 6: weed out trivial cases. But the problem with adding, however
Speaker 6: well intentioned, it is, it's still conceived because firstly, those
Speaker 6: types of trivial cases were more the exception than the rule.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's an awfully expensive thing to do, as
Speaker 6: anyone who's been involved in litigation knows, to commence defamation proceedings,
Speaker 6: so most people don't do it. You just don't do
Speaker 6: it over something that's inconsequential. You suck it up. And secondly,
Speaker 6: the threshold question really has the potential just to delay things,
Speaker 6: to close it up, and to increase costs by requiring
Speaker 6: this additional preliminary hearing at the beginning of the process,
Speaker 6: increasing costs, you know, delays for the amount of on calls
Speaker 6: and so defendants Media company, it would be lovingness because
Speaker 6: it's an opportunity to make a plaintiff spend some cash
Speaker 6: on getting over the first bar the threshold question as
Speaker 6: to whether or not the defamation constitutes serious harm. There's
Speaker 6: also a new proposed public interest defense under Section twenty
Speaker 6: nine A, and as the name suggests, that's intended to
Speaker 6: make reporting in the public interests easier. Now that's not
Speaker 6: just material. It's interesting to the public it's more going
Speaker 6: to involve, for example, reporting which reveals corruption in public office,
Speaker 6: things of that nature. So the amended is intended to
Speaker 6: address an alleged gap that emerged in the current legislation,
Speaker 6: and that being section thirty of the Defamation Act, which
Speaker 6: has the defensive qualified privilege, And so it should make
Speaker 6: it easier for media organizations to defend such reporting. And
Speaker 6: it requires that the defendant established that the issue was
Speaker 6: of public interest, and that the defendant reasonably believe that
Speaker 6: it was in the public interest. But you see the
Speaker 6: extent to which a matter published is of public interest
Speaker 6: and whether it's reasonable in the circumstances. So therefore, publish
Speaker 6: something about a person, it already comes within the existing
Speaker 6: defense of qualified privilege in section thirty of the existing
Speaker 6: Defamation and large media organizations, despite the fact that they're
Speaker 6: crying now and they're agitating to change, they've actually successfully
Speaker 6: argued section thirty defenses. So why do we need to change.
Speaker 6: You know, I'm not Convitweeden, Why would you want to
Speaker 6: justify greater protections for journalism that's not substantially true and
Speaker 6: not reasonable to publish in the first place. Because of
Speaker 6: it is then the defender will always have the defense
Speaker 6: of truth. If a journalist does have a reasonable belief
Speaker 6: that publishing a matter is in the public interest, then
Speaker 6: the you and your listeners as the objective reasonable person.
Speaker 6: They might also think that the conduct and public the
Speaker 6: matter was reasonable, and the case will fail. And another
Speaker 6: weakness with the proposed amendment the new section twenty nine
Speaker 6: er is that the public interest defense can't be defeated
Speaker 6: where the publication is malicious, whereas under the section thirty
Speaker 6: defense that qualified privilege it can. So I see that
Speaker 6: as a problem as well. Hope that wasn't too long
Speaker 6: with no.
Speaker 2: That was so interesting? Could even what you were mentioning
Speaker 2: in terms of just how expensive it all is, because
Speaker 2: we've seen celebrities like Rebel Wilson and Jeffrey Rush awarded
Speaker 2: massive payouts recently after suing media outlets. Do you think
Speaker 2: this is going to be something where we are seeing
Speaker 2: influencers take action against online publications because they do have
Speaker 2: the money or is it Yeah, We'll just interject because
Speaker 2: what you were talking about before is obviously there's large
Speaker 2: media companies with a lot of money to defend these claims.
Speaker 2: But in this situation with this online platform celub spellcheck.
Speaker 2: They have the lesser power here because it's just one
Speaker 2: individu or who doesn't have much money coming up against
Speaker 2: a number of wealthy influencers who potentially do have the money.
Speaker 1: To take her to court. So, Yeah, as you're.
Speaker 2: Saying, Amy, do you think John, that this is a
Speaker 2: sign of things to come that influencers will be successfully
Speaker 2: suing outlets or Instagram accounts like this?
Speaker 6: Well, potentially not necessarily. What the proposed model amendments seek
Speaker 6: to replaces the current statutory cap of four hundred and
Speaker 6: twenty one thousand dollars, intend to replace it with the
Speaker 6: scale of general damages so that only aggravated damages can
Speaker 6: be awarded over the scale, and aggravated damages are a
Speaker 6: form of additional compensation additional damages which are only awarded
Speaker 6: where the defendant's conduct lacks bonifides whether it's otherwise improper
Speaker 6: or unreasonable, and the plaintiff has suffered as a consequence.
Speaker 6: But the key not to lose sight of here is
Speaker 6: that the awards for damages in the Bower and Rebel,
Speaker 6: Wilson case and the Rush cases, though it is substantially
Speaker 6: because most of it with subtangible economical lots in the
Speaker 6: form of worked that those two actors missed out on.
Speaker 6: You know, it's no secret they're internationally famous and they
Speaker 6: earn huge amounts of money when they get gigs on films,
Speaker 6: So missing out on a role can mean losses and
Speaker 6: the minions. So for me, organization or anyone who's going
Speaker 6: to defame them obviously need to think carefully before they do.
Speaker 6: And as a general anyway, whether it's right or not,
Speaker 6: in most areas of law, or the more you earn
Speaker 6: if you're wronged, the more you're going to get in damages.
Speaker 6: So if I, either Rebel Wilson or Jeffrey Rush had
Speaker 6: sipt over in the supermarket, for example, and had me
Speaker 6: not at work due to the negligence on the part
Speaker 6: of the supermarket, it had suit for damages. They would
Speaker 6: have received substantial amounts for that as well. So the
Speaker 6: economic loss component will always be relative to the income.
Speaker 6: Now you might think that that's not necessarily fair, but
Speaker 6: that's just the way the system is, and let's not
Speaker 6: forget that. In Grebel Wilson's case, she was originally awarded
Speaker 6: for a half million dollars that was reduced on a
Speaker 6: peal of six hundred thousand dollars, so in the context
Speaker 6: of what they earn in their every day life. Ordinarily
Speaker 6: what was awarded was not necessarily disproportionate, but was actually
Speaker 6: pretty consistent with the common law. And despite those massive awards,
Speaker 6: it's pretty hard to feel too much sympathy for large
Speaker 6: media organizations, which, let's face it, they would deduct their
Speaker 6: defamation expenses as across of doing business unlike you were.
Speaker 6: Right obviously, so, and that just reinforces that what I
Speaker 6: said before about mitigation. It's extremely expensive. You generally have
Speaker 6: to have very deep pockets to sue a large media organization.
Speaker 6: So if you've got wealthy people suing for defamation and
Speaker 6: showing that they've suffered significant economic loss, then yes, we
Speaker 6: could continue to see large awards of damaging. So aside
Speaker 6: from what you get for economical loss, you can also
Speaker 6: get what's called general damages for things like her and humiliation.
Speaker 6: But that's got a cap on it. So, as I
Speaker 6: said before, currently it's four hundred and twenty one thousand dollars.
Speaker 6: Under the new provision, it's going to go down to
Speaker 6: two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Now, some might think
Speaker 6: that that what you can be awarded in a defamation case.
Speaker 6: Humiliation is actually well and truly with up areas of
Speaker 6: the law now as you know, I mean, I ad
Speaker 6: for a number of women against their former employers in
Speaker 6: things such as sexual arrassment matters, and even in circumstances
Speaker 6: where you know women have been subjected to serious, even
Speaker 6: criminal offenses of the sexual nature. In a civil claim
Speaker 6: of sexual harassment, you're doing really well. It's a court
Speaker 6: awards you anything in the region of even one hundred
Speaker 6: and fifty thousand. So that's an interesting question too, the
Speaker 6: weighing up whether it's appropriate that someone can get hundreds
Speaker 6: of thousands of dollars for being accused of being a
Speaker 6: liar in a defamation case, whereas somebody who's subjected to
Speaker 6: a serious sexual harassment claim which their employers liable, only
Speaker 6: gets a fraction of that when they win. I'm not
Speaker 6: saying one should come down, I'm saying the other should
Speaker 6: go out.
Speaker 2: In these cases, people are obviously having to pay people
Speaker 2: like yourself to represent them.
Speaker 1: Are these costs included?
Speaker 2: Are they having to then output money to you that's
Speaker 2: taken off what they would have got from the court.
Speaker 6: Typically, when if you succeed, you're awarded cost that's never
Speaker 6: one hundred percent of your cost. Well, it can be
Speaker 6: in certain limited circumstances, but yeah, you actually have to
Speaker 6: unless the lawyers prepared to run a matter on spec
Speaker 6: then the client has to pay for expensive lawyers, counsel,
Speaker 6: often senior counsel, as well as their own solicitors to
Speaker 6: run the case and get them out of the court.
Speaker 6: So that's enormously See do you.
Speaker 2: Think pages like celeb, spellcheck and other anonymous accounts because
Speaker 2: they are anonymous, does it make them harder to prosecute?
Speaker 6: It does? I mean the very first question that you've
Speaker 6: identified is what is the identity of the account holder?
Speaker 6: That's working that out even a simple task, So that
Speaker 6: of itself makes them harder to prosecute. And then you've
Speaker 6: got to work out whether in fact you've been defined
Speaker 6: obviously always, but then a further threshold issue is are
Speaker 6: you suing somebody who's actually got assets? You know, the
Speaker 6: old proverbial all you end up suing the proverbial man
Speaker 6: of straw if I can use that quite old, you know,
Speaker 6: And so assuming that you've identified the person, then you
Speaker 6: need to be absolutely sure that you've been defined and
Speaker 6: that what they've published is defamatory and untrue and not
Speaker 6: just a pharto if you're doing something that you actually did,
Speaker 6: because then the truth defense will arise quite clearly. So
Speaker 6: you know, if a publisher is going to be able
Speaker 6: to rely easily, going to be able to rely on
Speaker 6: the truth defense, then a person would be crazy to sue.
Speaker 6: In decimation, you only need to ask certain people form
Speaker 6: of polish. In Craig Thompson, you might have all about
Speaker 6: that photos are probably less likely to be sued over,
Speaker 6: more likely to arise where anonymous allegations against individuals are published.
Speaker 6: It's more difficult to prove an allegation than it is
Speaker 6: to prove a photo, because a photo typically speaks for
Speaker 6: itself unless it's adopted photo, as was the case in
Speaker 6: the Paul En handsOn matter many years ago. And as
Speaker 6: I said before, you know, a further issue is what
Speaker 6: if the person operating you account has no assets? What
Speaker 6: if it's a teenager out of their bedroom. There's no
Speaker 6: point seeing somebody's got no assets because you're not going
Speaker 6: to be able to get anything out of it when
Speaker 6: you do so, unless you're a person with so much
Speaker 6: money that you can sue for the principle of it,
Speaker 6: and there's not many of those. It's really something that
Speaker 6: a person contemplating suing and declamation needs to consider along
Speaker 6: and hard before doing so.
Speaker 2: So it sounds like these influencers don't really have much
Speaker 2: of a case against celeb spellcheck when you put all
Speaker 2: of those things into context like that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, I mean, the platforms aren't ever going to
Speaker 6: volunteer who's behind it, so you know, you need to
Speaker 6: use court procedures to compel the platforms to tell you not,
Speaker 6: such as preliminary discovery. That's only recently started happening in
Speaker 6: the last few years, and it's really difficult. When you're
Speaker 6: up against massive multinational platforms like Google or Facebook, they'll
Speaker 6: typically resist any such application. So then you've got an
Speaker 6: initial fight with a judge, and an initial expensive fight
Speaker 6: before a judge, a really expensive fight where again you
Speaker 6: need to lawyer up, get your solicitor and your council,
Speaker 6: and sometimes seeing your council, and then at the end
Speaker 6: of it it turns out to be somebody with no assets,
Speaker 6: then there's no point going any further. But you've already
Speaker 6: as a client, you've dropped a large amount of money
Speaker 6: just to get just to ascertain somebody's identity.
Speaker 2: Just lastly, I feel like this is a good question
Speaker 2: for people listening that might be engaging with pages like this,
Speaker 2: because often people jump on social media and they'll comment
Speaker 2: under scandalous posts and think that maybe what they write
Speaker 2: doesn't have any consequences. What would you say to people
Speaker 2: who are commenting on posts put up by pages like
Speaker 2: celeb spell.
Speaker 6: Check, Well, it does have consequences. That's the current state
Speaker 6: of the law. That might change because the matter I'm
Speaker 6: talking about is currently on appeal at High Court. But
Speaker 6: you might remember remember Dylan Voler, the ABC report about
Speaker 6: the Northern Tertiary Youth detention centers on a four corners probe.
Speaker 6: So there's the case of Voiler against Nationwide News. It
Speaker 6: was in the New Southwale Supreme Court and in that
Speaker 6: case Justice Rothman found that Nationwide News Australian news channel
Speaker 6: on setbax me year, they could be held responsible in
Speaker 6: defamation for comments to links that were posted on their
Speaker 6: Facebook pages. So the pages attracted lots of defamatory comments
Speaker 6: by people trolling mister Bollom, but that was sufficient to
Speaker 6: establish the publication element needed to prove defamation. So by
Speaker 6: allowing comments, by inviting people to like or to comment
Speaker 6: on posts, the court found that each organization participated and
Speaker 6: was instrumental in bringing about publication of defamatory matter, and
Speaker 6: so they were liable. It didn't matter that they themselves
Speaker 6: hadn't written the trolling comments. They were liable for having
Speaker 6: the the sites from the first place. So I went
Speaker 6: on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of
Speaker 6: Appeal agreed with the first instance judge, and that was
Speaker 6: on the basis that the media companies knew that by
Speaker 6: having publicly viewable Facebook pages, an outcome of having an
Speaker 6: operating page was that any third party comment would also
Speaker 6: be published to any Facebook user and they're responsible for it.
Speaker 6: So once again the media organizations are screening about that.
Speaker 6: It's on appeal to the High Court, and that appeal
Speaker 6: hasn't been heard as yet, so once it is, that'll
Speaker 6: sort out that issue once and for all.
Speaker 2: We sort of touched on the changing legislation, and there's
Speaker 2: been a lot of news around the fact that there's
Speaker 2: new proposed online trolling laws which the government will use
Speaker 2: to well, they've said they want to use it to
Speaker 2: unmasked trolls. Do you think this is actually going to work,
Speaker 2: because from what you've said, it's very hard to track
Speaker 2: down these people, and it seems quite pointless to take
Speaker 2: someone to court for sending a trolling comment. I mean,
Speaker 2: is it, well, someone who doesn't have money as well. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it just seems a bit baseless.
Speaker 6: Well, there's a bill, it's called the Online Safety Bill.
Speaker 6: It's currently before the Senate, and that bill establishes rules
Speaker 6: around what constitutes cyberbullying for harassment, and it establishes an
Speaker 6: e Safety Commissioner, and the e Safety Commissioner can issue
Speaker 6: removal notices the social media services like Facebook, Insta and
Speaker 6: messaging services and also users of the services like your men.
Speaker 6: So a failure to comply with a notice by removing
Speaker 6: offending comment could result in a fine. So that's not
Speaker 6: the case at the moment, but that's what's proposed under
Speaker 6: the bill. And the bill allows the Commissioner to order
Speaker 6: internet services social media services bike Instagram to also provide
Speaker 6: the entity, say, the identity of the end user if
Speaker 6: that identity is relevant to the operation of the act.
Speaker 6: So that change may very well affect the owners of
Speaker 6: accounts like Celet's spell check. If things are posted on
Speaker 6: their accounts which are menacing, harassing, or offensive under the
Speaker 6: wording of a proposed bill, or that are otherwise i'most
Speaker 6: under the act because the account owners could then potentially
Speaker 6: be identified and find by the Safety Commissioner. And so obviously,
Speaker 6: if that happens, that's that cats alide on what I
Speaker 6: previously said about the difficulty of bringing a preliminary discovery
Speaker 6: applicassion to actually find out who it is that you're
Speaker 6: certain that might all be revealed for free by the
Speaker 6: taking conditioner, but it's not. It hasn't passed us yet,
Speaker 6: so let's wait and see whether it does.
Speaker 2: Says that some of the fines for social media companies
Speaker 2: are up to half a million dollars in the case
Speaker 2: if they're suing, as you say, someone who might be
Speaker 2: sitting in their home a teenager. What happens in the
Speaker 2: case of those sort of fines, They just take them
Speaker 2: for all their worth and then that's it. Well, they
Speaker 2: would be asked to pay the fine. I assume they'd Okay, sorry,
Speaker 2: I'm answering the question for you, John, but might be incorrect.
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, yeah, I think that's right. I mean,
Speaker 6: just because there is the potential for well, I mean
Speaker 6: it's fine for corporations, social media companies and up to
Speaker 6: five hundred and fifty five thous but individuals of one
Speaker 6: hundred and eleven thousand dollars. So I mean there's the
Speaker 6: potential for an individual who like you know, as yea,
Speaker 6: as we all know it could be but even know efforts,
Speaker 6: they could be fine whether they get find that amount
Speaker 6: or whether in fact they are fined, and so whether
Speaker 6: a fine and that amount is imposed, that'll be a
Speaker 6: matter for the judge. And if somebody presented the court
Speaker 6: and said, well, we just we don't have the money
Speaker 6: and we're acting in you know, we thought we were
Speaker 6: acting in the public interest and there was no malice,
Speaker 6: and et cetera, et cetera. Well, who knows the same
Speaker 6: sorts of matters that you could raise in mitigation that
Speaker 6: you wouldn't any in any other sort of criminal manner.
Speaker 6: For example, it's still a plant.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, John, You've be an absolute legend. I
Speaker 2: think everyone is going to absolutely love this episode, So
Speaker 2: thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 6: Oh, thank you, Amy and Sophie. I really enjoyed it
Speaker 6: such fun. Hope it helped.
Speaker 3: It is useful that.
Speaker 2: Was so interesting and I think it will be helpful
Speaker 2: for a lot of people moving forward having this discussion.
Speaker 2: We also wanted to say a big thank you to
Speaker 2: John Laxon from lax and Lex Lawyers for joining us
Speaker 2: on the show. He is an absolute legend and I've
Speaker 2: got to say and personal experience, I would highly recommend
Speaker 2: John to anybody out there who is looking for a
Speaker 2: media lawyer because he does go above and beyond. This
Speaker 2: is future Sophie here now. As of Sunday afternoon, Celebs
Speaker 2: Spelchick is back up and running, and for the past
Speaker 2: few days she has been teasing us on her Insta
Speaker 2: stories with a few cryptic posts.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: On Saturday, she posted a photo of Hill's Star or
Speaker 2: Drina Partridge and captioned it or Drina crying in a
Speaker 2: Halloween costume. She also posted a photo of Sophia Richie
Speaker 2: with a new boyfriend that literally looks exactly like Victorian
Speaker 2: premier Dan Andrews.
Speaker 1: In her bio.
Speaker 2: She also changed her emoji to a pen and pencil,
Speaker 2: with some thinking that maybe it means she's either going
Speaker 2: to be writing more gossip stuff or that she is
Speaker 2: going to be having her very own column in a newspaper,
Speaker 2: and on Sunday afternoon, she posted a photo of Hillstar
Speaker 2: Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag and it shows Heidi holding
Speaker 2: a book which says you can profit from a monetary crisis.
Speaker 2: Many believe this is a cryptic way of saying she
Speaker 2: will now be making money from the account, which personally
Speaker 2: I'm all for. The majority of posts have now been unarchived.
Speaker 2: The most noticeable which are missing are the photo of
Speaker 2: ex Bachelor contestant Lorena allegedly snorting what appeared to be
Speaker 2: a white substance, and also the post she did about
Speaker 2: beck Judd when she allegedly dropped pajamas off at a
Speaker 2: local charity store that she was supposed to be promoting online.
Speaker 2: All I can say is I'm so excited to see
Speaker 2: what comes next. Well, I think that's all we've got
Speaker 2: time for today. We do hope you guys did enjoy
Speaker 2: our different episode. You have to let us know if
Speaker 2: you enjoyed having some small interviews.
Speaker 1: In there today.
Speaker 2: I feel like we should all be a little bit
Speaker 2: smarter from today's episode as well going into our mondays.
Speaker 1: I do feel smarter, And.
Speaker 2: If you do have time, we'd love if you could
Speaker 2: leave us a five star review because this does take
Speaker 2: up quite a.
Speaker 1: Bit of our time.
Speaker 2: And make sure you tell your friends about the podcast
Speaker 2: because it's actually really interesting. Because when people join our community,
Speaker 2: we get them to tell us how they've heard about
Speaker 2: the podcast, and we had an excellent one this week.
Speaker 2: Someone said that our cousin is dating their cousin and
Speaker 2: I really enjoyed that connection.
Speaker 1: That's how small Adelaide is.
Speaker 2: Could you also share about it on your Instagram stories?
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe we should be spreading the.
Speaker 1: Word of what defamation actually is. You sound so desperate
Speaker 1: in the book. I am being desperate. Please share it