6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - shagie 4y ago
    > Models own the copyright of their likeness This isn't entirely correct. They have personal rights, publicity rights, and moral rights... but they do not have copyright. The copyright is retained by the person who took the photograph or painted the portrait. Most recently, I'll point you to https://www.rangefinderonline.com/news-features/industry-news/photographer-sues-miley-cyrus-for-copyright-infringement/ https://www.rangefinderonline.com/news-features/industry-new... > It’s happened yet again: another copyright infringement lawsuit involving a celebrity posting an image of themselves without permission from the photographer. This time it’s Miley Cyrus who is in the hot seat, for sharing an image of herself on Instagram without licensing it. I'd also suggest giving https://entertainmentlawyermiami.com/model-rights-and-photography-copyright-explained/ https://entertainmentlawyermiami.com/model-rights-and-photog... and https://www.modelsadvocate.com/basic-copyright-law.html https://www.modelsadvocate.com/basic-copyright-law.html a read
    - Maursault 4y ago
      It is, of course, absurd that we do not own our faces or likenesses. That needs to change without outlawing cameras, photographs nor photographers. Since it really is very difficult to determine who created more, the copyright should be shared evenly, and any sale of copyright and waivers should be banned. I don't think it would be all that bad if copyright was permanently owned by the original holder(s). This would eliminate speculators getting rich off someone else's sweat.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        we actually do own our likeness to a degree. at least in germany i have the right to control how images of me are published. in particular it protects me from being portrayed in a demeaning way. there are exceptions depending on the circumstances, but generally any publishing requires my permission. i believe similar rights exist in many other countries. what's missing is a right to get a share of the profits. a shared copyright could help with that.

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.
- shagie 4y ago
  > Models own the copyright of their likeness This isn't entirely correct. They have personal rights, publicity rights, and moral rights... but they do not have copyright. The copyright is retained by the person who took the photograph or painted the portrait. Most recently, I'll point you to https://www.rangefinderonline.com/news-features/industry-news/photographer-sues-miley-cyrus-for-copyright-infringement/ https://www.rangefinderonline.com/news-features/industry-new... > It’s happened yet again: another copyright infringement lawsuit involving a celebrity posting an image of themselves without permission from the photographer. This time it’s Miley Cyrus who is in the hot seat, for sharing an image of herself on Instagram without licensing it. I'd also suggest giving https://entertainmentlawyermiami.com/model-rights-and-photography-copyright-explained/ https://entertainmentlawyermiami.com/model-rights-and-photog... and https://www.modelsadvocate.com/basic-copyright-law.html https://www.modelsadvocate.com/basic-copyright-law.html a read
  - Maursault 4y ago
    It is, of course, absurd that we do not own our faces or likenesses. That needs to change without outlawing cameras, photographs nor photographers. Since it really is very difficult to determine who created more, the copyright should be shared evenly, and any sale of copyright and waivers should be banned. I don't think it would be all that bad if copyright was permanently owned by the original holder(s). This would eliminate speculators getting rich off someone else's sweat.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      we actually do own our likeness to a degree. at least in germany i have the right to control how images of me are published. in particular it protects me from being portrayed in a demeaning way. there are exceptions depending on the circumstances, but generally any publishing requires my permission. i believe similar rights exist in many other countries. what's missing is a right to get a share of the profits. a shared copyright could help with that.