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.
And yet they hired that photographer specifically because not every photographer is the same. The value is in both the photography and the subject and ps our legal system does. This sounds like a contract dispute.
Unless you make a different contract, a photographer has all rights to all photos they take of anyone, whether they were hired or not. I’m not talking about Ozzie’s problem, I’m talking about how the law works in general.
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.
And yet they hired that photographer specifically because not every photographer is the same. The value is in both the photography and the subject and ps our legal system does. This sounds like a contract dispute.
Unless you make a different contract, a photographer has all rights to all photos they take of anyone, whether they were hired or not. I’m not talking about Ozzie’s problem, I’m talking about how the law works in general.