Daltron
11-02-2014, 05:39 AM
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2014/02/10/1226822/745683-7be1178e-91fe-11e3-9662-9a1903baed4f.jpg
I read this in the media today regarding recently released Schapelle Corby:
THE Seven Network is believed to have secured an exclusive interview with convicted drug trafficker Schapelle Corby, who earlier today was freed on parole from Bali’s Kerobokan prison.
Rivals suggested the network had paid as much as $2 million for the interview, although sources last week said an interview with Corby would not be worth more than about $1m.
Seven has not confirmed it has secured the interview. Corby’s sister Mercedes, who is believed to be orchestrating the media deal, had previously told media outlets she would not sign a deal until her sister was free.
Media lawyers have told The Australian that under Australian laws, while Corby could give an inteview, she would not be allowed to profit by being paid for it under proceeds of crime legislation.
However the money could be directed to members of her family.
When Corby’s 2006 autobiography My Story was published, publisher Pan Macmillan reportedly paid $280,000 into the bank account of Corby’s Indonesian brother-in-law.
Any deal with the Seven Network would be expected to include a magazine component: parent company Seven West Media also owns Pacific Magazines, which is likely to be keen to run the story in its weekly title New Idea.
New Idea has just published an exclusive interview with Mercedes previewing Corby’s release, part of a reported $100,000 contract with the magazine for a series of cover stories.
When a criminal has served their sentence and is back to the status legally before they committed crime x should they then be able to accept payments to tell their story? Is this wrong? I mean the money is being directed to other family members but I think we all know at the end of the day the person actually telling in the interview is probably going to get a share of the payment behind closed doors.
What are your thoughts?
I read this in the media today regarding recently released Schapelle Corby:
THE Seven Network is believed to have secured an exclusive interview with convicted drug trafficker Schapelle Corby, who earlier today was freed on parole from Bali’s Kerobokan prison.
Rivals suggested the network had paid as much as $2 million for the interview, although sources last week said an interview with Corby would not be worth more than about $1m.
Seven has not confirmed it has secured the interview. Corby’s sister Mercedes, who is believed to be orchestrating the media deal, had previously told media outlets she would not sign a deal until her sister was free.
Media lawyers have told The Australian that under Australian laws, while Corby could give an inteview, she would not be allowed to profit by being paid for it under proceeds of crime legislation.
However the money could be directed to members of her family.
When Corby’s 2006 autobiography My Story was published, publisher Pan Macmillan reportedly paid $280,000 into the bank account of Corby’s Indonesian brother-in-law.
Any deal with the Seven Network would be expected to include a magazine component: parent company Seven West Media also owns Pacific Magazines, which is likely to be keen to run the story in its weekly title New Idea.
New Idea has just published an exclusive interview with Mercedes previewing Corby’s release, part of a reported $100,000 contract with the magazine for a series of cover stories.
When a criminal has served their sentence and is back to the status legally before they committed crime x should they then be able to accept payments to tell their story? Is this wrong? I mean the money is being directed to other family members but I think we all know at the end of the day the person actually telling in the interview is probably going to get a share of the payment behind closed doors.
What are your thoughts?