I get the reasoning behind the photographer having the rights to photos, but it just doesn’t sit right that the human subject of those photos has no rights at all.
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.
laughs in GDPR
It’s even worse in the case of cosplayers.
Bruh I’m a nobody and even i make sure to get permission from photographers to post their photos of me. lol
There is a difference between you going to a photographer asking him to take photos of you and a paparazzi taking a photo of you in a public setting.
Weird how you came up with the scenario yourself when i didn’t mention it.
That’s the current scenario though.
Photographer is using Ozzy’s fame to cash in on the photo, it’s not like there was an arrangement here.
Yeah funny how things you don’t know exist actually still exist…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes and he has a podcast too. That’s how I found out that the entire Osborne family are Trump supporters. Fuck Ozzy.
Huh… honestly didn’t know anything about Ozzy other than he’s a drug cocktail and his voice is squeaky (always mildly annoyed when Black Sabbath comes on). That’s disappointing. Yeah, fuck Ozzy.
Not witcher but Neanderthal .
I mean, Black Sabbath is doing a huge show soon.
TIL Ozzy is a witcher.
" ‘sleeping like this will add 10 years to your life. I learned that from Ozzy Osbourne. Perhaps it is the reason that he cannot be harmed by natural weapons…’
Keith Richards and Steve Tyler have joined the chat.
Keith Richards is 81 and Willie Nelson is 91, in case anyone was wondering.
it’s nit just the drugs. He’s also got Parkinsons and some other neurological desease, can’t recall which ottomh
Invincible!
Doctors confirm: Parkinson’s is now being treated for Ozzy Osbourne.
So who owns the rights to yourself the photographer or yourself?
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
Photography isn’t art you just press a button to capture the souls of whoever you point the devil box at.
Man you had me seething in the first half lol
“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.
I wish this cat killer and his piece of shit wife would just fuck off already
They’re also Trump supporters. Fuck Ozzy
Yeah not a popular thing to say despite this kind of shit because he’s a cute old man now.
