Oh it's photos of Ozzy taken by a professional photographer that were posted without the photographer's permission.
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
254 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
15221 readers
2458 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.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content 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
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.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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah and if Ozzy were using them in a professional context (like for an album cover) then the professional photographer should be compensated.
But if he's he's just posting some photos of himself with his friends online, then it's a big nothing burger and the photographer should be a professional about it and consider it as fair use. Whether it fits the legal definition of fair use will need to be decided in court, but a real professional wouldn't consider it worth the time and loss of trust with other customers to pursue it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah funny how things you don't know exist actually still exist...
I don't understand what you're implying.
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.
A hired photographer, they're not a paparazzi.
Ed
load more comments
(1 replies)
You're being obtuse. You're talking about a hired photographer and arguably one of the most famous hired rock photographers of all time, he did their tour and album covers you incredible bafoon.
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.
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.
" '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...'
load more comments
(2 replies)
So who owns the rights to yourself the photographer or yourself?
“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.
"The lawsuit alleges that Zlozower and his reps reached out to Ozzy about the photos multiple times last year, but never received a response. "
Odds are Ozzy doesn't know why he just entered a room never mind why some guy is sending a notice about some photos.
I wish this cat killer and his piece of shit wife would just fuck off already
Funniest thing I ever saw on "reality" TV was the food fight the Osbournes had with their noisy neighbors in the middle of the night
view more: next ›