Yes, photos whose only value lies in the fame of the subject. I think people deserve some form of rights to images of themselves, since they created that value by doing whatever made them worth photographing. Our legal system should acknowledge that.
For me that’s exactly the larger issue - the only reason these images have any value whatsoever is that the subject is famous. And he got famous without any help from that photographer. But it’s morally okay for the photographer to profit from it and share none of it, Seems very similar to employers keeping all the profit and not sharing it with the workers who created the profit.
He doesn’t have to post these exact photos and they gave him months to rectify the situation.
The lawsuit alleges that Zlozower and his reps reached out to Ozzy about the photos multiple times last year, but never received a response. This, he says, forced him “to seek judicial intervention for defendant’s infringing activity.”
You don’t get to purposely take someone else’s professional work and post it without permission. This is fundamental stuff. And it’s not like these photos magically appeared on his phone, they were taken and used without permission. At best they were sloppy and should’ve moved to remedy the situation.
The photographer only took photos because he was famous. The photographer is getting money from someone else’s work.
But the person you are profiting from cannot use the photographs because he is profiting from your work?
I understand that legally, there is a set of laws to manage that. But ethically that is fucked up that the person you took a photo from didn’t give you permission and you profit from their notoriety, but that person cannot use the photos himself.
Oh it’s photos of Ozzy taken by a professional photographer that were posted without the photographer’s permission.
Yes, photos whose only value lies in the fame of the subject. I think people deserve some form of rights to images of themselves, since they created that value by doing whatever made them worth photographing. Our legal system should acknowledge that.
Seriously this is open and shut. The photographer is in the right. The only reason there is a debate is because it’s Ozzy Osbourne.
For me that’s exactly the larger issue - the only reason these images have any value whatsoever is that the subject is famous. And he got famous without any help from that photographer. But it’s morally okay for the photographer to profit from it and share none of it, Seems very similar to employers keeping all the profit and not sharing it with the workers who created the profit.
He doesn’t have to post these exact photos and they gave him months to rectify the situation.
You don’t get to purposely take someone else’s professional work and post it without permission. This is fundamental stuff. And it’s not like these photos magically appeared on his phone, they were taken and used without permission. At best they were sloppy and should’ve moved to remedy the situation.
This is the snake eating its tail.
The photographer only took photos because he was famous. The photographer is getting money from someone else’s work.
But the person you are profiting from cannot use the photographs because he is profiting from your work?
I understand that legally, there is a set of laws to manage that. But ethically that is fucked up that the person you took a photo from didn’t give you permission and you profit from their notoriety, but that person cannot use the photos himself.
Kinda makes you wonder, what the fuck kinda contract did they have that Ozzy doesn’t own the photos?
Whoever posted it - could’ve been an assistant who knows - may have simply scoured the internet for photos and did no due diligence. We have no clue.
Vice is very thin on details here.
Well a free market contract ofcourse.