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.
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.
It’s even worse in the case of cosplayers.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
