this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
216 points (89.1% liked)
Not The Onion
13562 readers
2102 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
edit: since people keep giving me legal arguments, speculating that Ozzy probably had a contract with this photographer, etc., let me clarify that if there was a contract then this is strictly a contract dispute, and I'm not arguing any side of that. I'm strictly talking about the fact that we have no rights to our own faces - no matter how much we may have done to make ourselves worth photographing. Anybody with a camera is free to tap that value by pressing a button. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with that.
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.
How is it dishonest? If Ozzy wasn't famous, that wouldn't be an issue.
Still not explaining why you are saying this is a dishonest framing?