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.
The degree of monetary value comes from the person in the picture, but the photographs have value on their own. Maybe not much, but it’s there.
Whether or not anyone likes the capitalist system that’s behind needing to decide who can profit off of a photograph to what degree, the subject of a photo is only partly responsible for the photo.
Taking a picture of a is indeed different from that of a , but you can see that a human being in the picture doesn’t automatically change the value of it as art.
Portraiture, live photography of events, those are skills. It absolutely is not as simple as pushing a button. Even now, with digital cameras that can make some of the adjustments on the fly, a photographer getting a good image is more than luck.
That’s why, when doing portraits and event photography, there’s contracts in place. It is entirely possible to hire a photographer and have ownership of the images. It’s expensive, but it’s possible. You or me? We ain’t taking pictures of Ozzy and having them be worth much of anything at all to anyone else, including Ozzy. Our images would only be monetarily valuable because he’s in them, and maybe not even then. A selfie at a back stage event? You aren’t making shit off of that
A professional photographer, taking high quality images of famous people absolutely brings value to the end photo. There’s a reason why rich, famous people will hire them and negotiate contracts with them, and it isn’t because they’re too lazy to handle a camera, or don’t have flunkies willing to do the work.
Again, if we wanna debate the merits of capitalism and it’s impact on the arts, that’s a fascinating subject. But this lawsuit, within the current legal paradigm, is perfectly valid. The photographer has rights to the images, Ozzy doesn’t. If Ozzy had wanted those rights, it is possible (in general) to do so, either at the time or afterwards.
Maybe you haven’t run across it, but there’s actually a lot of people into portraiture as art. They’ll gladly pony up thousands, or more for what they consider great art photos of people that aren’t famous at all. Even Anne Geddes (the photographer of the baby bee image) has fans of her stuff willing to pay tidy sums, and her stuff is essentially fluff with little complexity. Well executed fluff, but still. You get into the serious portraiture photogs and you’re talking sometimes hundreds of thousands for prints, though it’s kinda rare to go that high afaik.
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.
That’s not necessarily true though.
The degree of monetary value comes from the person in the picture, but the photographs have value on their own. Maybe not much, but it’s there.
Whether or not anyone likes the capitalist system that’s behind needing to decide who can profit off of a photograph to what degree, the subject of a photo is only partly responsible for the photo.
Taking a picture of a
is indeed different from that of a 
, but you can see that a human being in the picture doesn’t automatically change the value of it as art.
Portraiture, live photography of events, those are skills. It absolutely is not as simple as pushing a button. Even now, with digital cameras that can make some of the adjustments on the fly, a photographer getting a good image is more than luck.
That’s why, when doing portraits and event photography, there’s contracts in place. It is entirely possible to hire a photographer and have ownership of the images. It’s expensive, but it’s possible. You or me? We ain’t taking pictures of Ozzy and having them be worth much of anything at all to anyone else, including Ozzy. Our images would only be monetarily valuable because he’s in them, and maybe not even then. A selfie at a back stage event? You aren’t making shit off of that
A professional photographer, taking high quality images of famous people absolutely brings value to the end photo. There’s a reason why rich, famous people will hire them and negotiate contracts with them, and it isn’t because they’re too lazy to handle a camera, or don’t have flunkies willing to do the work.
Again, if we wanna debate the merits of capitalism and it’s impact on the arts, that’s a fascinating subject. But this lawsuit, within the current legal paradigm, is perfectly valid. The photographer has rights to the images, Ozzy doesn’t. If Ozzy had wanted those rights, it is possible (in general) to do so, either at the time or afterwards.
Maybe you haven’t run across it, but there’s actually a lot of people into portraiture as art. They’ll gladly pony up thousands, or more for what they consider great art photos of people that aren’t famous at all. Even Anne Geddes (the photographer of the baby bee image) has fans of her stuff willing to pay tidy sums, and her stuff is essentially fluff with little complexity. Well executed fluff, but still. You get into the serious portraiture photogs and you’re talking sometimes hundreds of thousands for prints, though it’s kinda rare to go that high afaik.
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.
That is a ridiculously dishonest way of framing the issue.
How is it dishonest? If Ozzy wasn’t famous, that wouldn’t be an issue.
You’re right, it wouldn’t be an issue. Because that is a fundamental part of the issue. It’s why it’s an issue.
Still not explaining why you are saying this is a dishonest framing?
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.