4 ms·

What about the model? Presumably Prince gave permission to be photographed (if he was in Goldsmith's studio), and it is always assumed public figures (and anyon

What about the model? Presumably Prince gave permission to be photographed (if he was in Goldsmith's studio), and it is always assumed public figures (and anyone) can be photographed in public without permission. But if the work generates significant revenue, how come the model is never entitled to fair compensation? If I was famous, or it seemed inevitable I would be, is there no way to use my natural rights to my likeness and sound of my voice to protect my investment (or privacy)? And of models that do generate significant revenue from their likeness, shouldn't their parents (and grandparents, and estates of great grandparents, etc. ad infinitum) be permitted to sue for a portion of the profits? What about the living subjects of songs? The point is it is hypocritical to screw the model or human inspiration of the art, or owner of an animal or plant or object that is the inspiration, for the benefit of the art and whomever happens to own it. If you paint me and the painting sells for millions, or write a journalistic piece about me and millions of copies are sold, I want a piece of that, and I think I'm entitled to it, but more so, I want to use my copyrights to my likeness and name as legal deterrent to protect my privacy and prevent bad (or good) press. Don't look at me, because you're necessarily reproducing my likeness upside-down twice in both your eyes and in your brain, and if you do look at me, you owe me fair compensation, because once seen I cannot be unseen. And stop reading my comment, because it belongs to me. Don't even think about quoting me without permission under threat of litigation.

em-bee 4y ago
it works that way in film, doesn't it? actors get compensated for their contribution, not just directors and camera-operators, so models in a photo or painting should be compensated just as well.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Professional models typically are paid. (And top fashion models can get paid very well.) But that actress probably wants to be on that Vanity Fair cover shoot. And people who are famous in general for things other than modeling also generally want to get their photo taken by well-known photographers. People do have rights to their images being used in marketing and advertising materials. I can't take a photo of you on the street and put it in an ad without your permission. But, no, you don't generally have rights related to me taking your photo in public and making a poster of it or otherwise publishing it. (In the US.)
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > Professional models typically are paid. (And top fashion models can get paid very well.) There's not many signed and professional fashion models, about 3600 in the US, 112K globally. The top 10% earning models average over half a million a year, and a tiny handful make millions. In general, fashion models make about $70-$100/hour, but few, if any, can work full-time hours. But that isn't what I meant. The most expensive photograph in the world is currently "Le Violon d'Ingres," created by Man Ray in 1924. It was sold in May 2022 by Christie's of New York for $12.4M. It is very likely that the model, Alice Prin, wasn't compensated since she was in a relationship with Man Ray and living with him when it and many other portraits of her were created. Whomever Prin's living descendants or relatives are, as executors of her estate, should have a right to sue the Man Ray Trust or whomever sold the photograph or Christie's, and likely all of them, for a portion of that sale. Does anyone the think the Associated Press gave Phan Thi Kim Phuc (Napalm Girl) any compensation for the amount of revenue and profit generated by the photograph, "The Terror of War?" At some high level, actors are no longer just paid a base amount, but are entitled to percentages of total profits of ticket sales and even sometimes a percentage of the post-release video market. That seems fair. I've never heard of a model getting a percentage of the revenue of a photographic piece. Programmers and software engineers, by and large, are in the same situation as fashion models. They sell their time and, without compensation, give away any copyright to their work. I, for one, think they should get a piece of the total profit.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Now taking step further. Should tool makers get part of the profit made by those tools? And if we apply that to programmers. Should the person who assembled or packed the computer developer did his work on get part of the revenue developer makes by using this machine? Or with phones from revenue generated by made phone calls?
      - Maursault 4y ago
        > Should tool makers get part of the profit made by those tools? If they invented the tool, they can have a patent. Individuals are not tools, and I don't see how the tool acquires copyright. Models own the copyright of their likeness, and technically, coders own the copyright to their code, right up until they give it away for wages already compensating their time, using the same coin to pay for two different things of value. Granted, a lot of portions of code are copied, but any novel code written should be copyrightable. If there was any money to be made in distributing a recorded phone call, then the participants should be compensated out of the total profits.
stereolambda 4y ago
It's a little hard to tell if and how much you are being sarcastic. I don't see how people could expect payouts for just existing. You are already getting plenty of (often unseen) services and benefits from society, and you presumably pay back taxes to more or less get even. Fame already brings many benefits and opportunities by itself. Some people are famous against their will and I am sympathetic to that issue, but this is a wholly different discussion. There is an argument that you might work to look a certain way (clothes, makeup etc.) for some professional reason, but then do it on a private property if you want to stop people from photographing you. Otherwise you're just grabbing public space for yourself unilaterally. Note that I made a similar critique of modern copyright in a recent thread, so I'm not really advocating for privileging artists over the objects of art.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > I don't see how people could expect payouts for just existing. I don't see how people could expect lifetime payouts when other people copy a photograph, but everybody has blind spots in their ability to empathize and understand other people's positions.

em-bee 4y ago

it works that way in film, doesn't it? actors get compensated for their contribution, not just directors and camera-operators, so models in a photo or painting should be compensated just as well.

ghaff 4y ago
Professional models typically are paid. (And top fashion models can get paid very well.) But that actress probably wants to be on that Vanity Fair cover shoot. And people who are famous in general for things other than modeling also generally want to get their photo taken by well-known photographers. People do have rights to their images being used in marketing and advertising materials. I can't take a photo of you on the street and put it in an ad without your permission. But, no, you don't generally have rights related to me taking your photo in public and making a poster of it or otherwise publishing it. (In the US.)
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Professional models typically are paid. (And top fashion models can get paid very well.) There's not many signed and professional fashion models, about 3600 in the US, 112K globally. The top 10% earning models average over half a million a year, and a tiny handful make millions. In general, fashion models make about $70-$100/hour, but few, if any, can work full-time hours. But that isn't what I meant. The most expensive photograph in the world is currently "Le Violon d'Ingres," created by Man Ray in 1924. It was sold in May 2022 by Christie's of New York for $12.4M. It is very likely that the model, Alice Prin, wasn't compensated since she was in a relationship with Man Ray and living with him when it and many other portraits of her were created. Whomever Prin's living descendants or relatives are, as executors of her estate, should have a right to sue the Man Ray Trust or whomever sold the photograph or Christie's, and likely all of them, for a portion of that sale. Does anyone the think the Associated Press gave Phan Thi Kim Phuc (Napalm Girl) any compensation for the amount of revenue and profit generated by the photograph, "The Terror of War?" At some high level, actors are no longer just paid a base amount, but are entitled to percentages of total profits of ticket sales and even sometimes a percentage of the post-release video market. That seems fair. I've never heard of a model getting a percentage of the revenue of a photographic piece. Programmers and software engineers, by and large, are in the same situation as fashion models. They sell their time and, without compensation, give away any copyright to their work. I, for one, think they should get a piece of the total profit.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Now taking step further. Should tool makers get part of the profit made by those tools? And if we apply that to programmers. Should the person who assembled or packed the computer developer did his work on get part of the revenue developer makes by using this machine? Or with phones from revenue generated by made phone calls?
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > Should tool makers get part of the profit made by those tools? If they invented the tool, they can have a patent. Individuals are not tools, and I don't see how the tool acquires copyright. Models own the copyright of their likeness, and technically, coders own the copyright to their code, right up until they give it away for wages already compensating their time, using the same coin to pay for two different things of value. Granted, a lot of portions of code are copied, but any novel code written should be copyrightable. If there was any money to be made in distributing a recorded phone call, then the participants should be compensated out of the total profits.

stereolambda 4y ago

It's a little hard to tell if and how much you are being sarcastic. I don't see how people could expect payouts for just existing. You are already getting plenty of (often unseen) services and benefits from society, and you presumably pay back taxes to more or less get even. Fame already brings many benefits and opportunities by itself. Some people are famous against their will and I am sympathetic to that issue, but this is a wholly different discussion. There is an argument that you might work to look a certain way (clothes, makeup etc.) for some professional reason, but then do it on a private property if you want to stop people from photographing you. Otherwise you're just grabbing public space for yourself unilaterally. Note that I made a similar critique of modern copyright in a recent thread, so I'm not really advocating for privileging artists over the objects of art.

pessimizer 4y ago
> I don't see how people could expect payouts for just existing. I don't see how people could expect lifetime payouts when other people copy a photograph, but everybody has blind spots in their ability to empathize and understand other people's positions.