• deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • SpaceCowboy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think the subject does have some rights though. I’m not a fancy law talking guy, but I’m pretty sure you can sue someone for using your likeness without permission. But it’s a bit dependent on the circumstances, a famous person can’t sue a paparazzi for taking their photo in a public place, but I think they can when there’s an expectation of privacy. You see people’s face blurred on TV shows unless they sign a waiver. If been walking around where they’re shooting a movie they put up signs letting you know that’s happening and warning that you might potentially be in the background of a shot.

      It’s just there’s more laws protecting the the people using the camera since big companies will use any loopholes to screw them out of money.

      Though in this case I think the photographer is being an asshole. If Ozzy was using the photos for an album cover which he’d make a lot of money from, then the photographer deserves to get paid. But if he’s just posting some old photos of himself with his friends, then the photographer needs to chill.