• Mac@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Bruh I’m a nobody and even i make sure to get permission from photographers to post their photos of me. lol

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    It has always seemed very weird to me that people have absolutely no legal claim on their own faces. As long as you’re in public anyone who takes photos of you has complete ownership and control over the images. Even if the images only have value because the subject is famous, they’re treated as if their value was created solely by the photographer. There’s something innately wrong with that.

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Oh it’s photos of Ozzy taken by a professional photographer that were posted without the photographer’s permission.

    • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        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.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Kinda makes you wonder, what the fuck kinda contract did they have that Ozzy doesn’t own the photos?

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Ozzy Osbourne is still alive?! …we need an autopsy crew to just start following him around 24/7. Whatever trial-of-the-grass shit all those drugs did to his body, there’s some Witcher level mutagens going on here that we would do well to investigate when he finally does die.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      The photographer without fucking question owns the rights to the photo. It’s not about “rights to yourself,” it’s an artistic rendition of you.

      The headline is bullshit. If somebody was paid to do work professionally then there is a contract that stipulated usage and clearly Ozzy violated the contract. Vice’s headline is bait-y nonsense and primes the reader to side with Ozzy in a shamefully flagrant way.

      Ozzy as a musician should understand that when you create something it is your piece of art and you get to control how it is distributed. This shouldn’t be that complicated.

      Edit: Ozzy didn’t just post some random ass photos. He posted someone else’s professional work without compensation or permission of any kind

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    “The accounts are key components of the defendant’s popular and lucrative commercial enterprise,” Zlozower’s lawsuit states. “Defendant has over 12 million followers on [Facebook], and over 6 million followers on [Instagram], and over 5 million followers on [X] — all of which are monetized and provide significant financial benefits to the defendant.”

    Among the images are some of Ozzy standing with Zakk Wylde and hugging the late Randy Rhoads, who died in 1982.

    What an unbelievable shit-heel.