Inconsistent or not, it is very clearly called a right. That there is another, conflicting right, doesn't make either of those a privilege. And if I, by default

Inconsistent or not, it is very clearly called a right. That there is another, conflicting right, doesn't make either of those a privilege. And if I, by default, have all rights to it, then it's also my right to give those up, and giving the things away -- which is an explicit decision, not determined by "can it be copied" -- then if anything it's a privilege to peruse them, since contrary to the copyright protection, nobody is entitled to me giving it up upon creation. property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things No. Copyright includes things such as me having a say wether my photo will be used to advertise rat poison or neonazis, or someone else claiming they made them etc. (if I can prove I am the author, they at least have to cease from that claim). I guess that's covered with "moral interests", not sure; but my point was simply this: that I give stuff away is a free choice. If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone no matter how they got at it to do whatever they want with it, I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point.