• LandedGentry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    13 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
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 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.

      • LandedGentry
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          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.

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

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

      • LandedGentry
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        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.