3 ms·

As the sibling said, that's not generally how photography licensing works (the photographer usually retains the rights to the photo and licenses it for specific

As the sibling said, that's not generally how photography licensing works (the photographer usually retains the rights to the photo and licenses it for specific use). But, that also wouldn't stop a celebrity (or their agent) from taking a nice selfie, or picking a family candid, or whatever other photo looks better than whatever is posted currently. Or just paying a slightly larger sum to the photographer to transfer rights or release under CC or whatever. I'm surprised it isn't a priority - I assume most celebs have a media team already (at least celebs I'm likely to have heard of) but some still have really awful Wiki portraits.

Freak_NL 2y ago
> As the sibling said, that's not generally how photography licensing works (the photographer usually retains the rights to the photo and licenses it for specific use). Obviously they would have to pay the photographer for the photo as well as the usage rights. Clever photographers would know about this, and simply offer to release the photo under CC-BY. With a big enough celebrity that attribution is not bad too have plastered all over the internet either (and they still got paid for the work).