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.
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.
Kinda makes you wonder, what the fuck kinda contract did they have that Ozzy doesn’t own the photos?
Well a free market contract ofcourse.