3 ms·
> They are changing the deal after the fact What deal is that? The way I see it, the photographer and the band each had different ideas of "the deal". The deg
by barrkel 8y ago
> They are changing the deal after the fact
What deal is that?
The way I see it, the photographer and the band each had different ideas of "the deal". The degree to which the deal "changed" is the difference between prior conceptions of the deal and the reconciliation when the conceptions came into conflict and reached a synthesis.
The band thought they were creating something and thought they could merchandise it.
The photographer thought he was creating something and thought he could stop someone else merchandising it.
The photographer was legally right. I suspect the band is more morally right than wrong in an ideal world of copyrights - and I think copyright is a very imperfect concept - and I think they have the economic power to ensure their merchandise is legally sound in future, having learned this lesson.
- whatshisface 8y ago>The band thought they were creating something and thought they could merchandise it. If a band member had gotten down off the stage to take a photo, there would be no problem. They could also have gotten the manager to do it. Instead, they found a photographer who was under the impression that he would be afforded the rights normally granted by society, and got him to do it - without even letting him know that they intended to behave as if he did not have those rights.
- barrkel 8y agoWhat deal? You still haven't clarified your position. > the rights normally granted by society What kind of weasel words are these? What you mean to say is copyright as enshrined in law. He has not lost these rights, and I'm not advocating that he lose these rights.