Some of these copyright cases are crazy:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ozzy-osbourne-sued-using-own-114512218.html
"Ozzy Osbourne has been hit by an unlikely copyright infringement, having allegedly posted unlicensed photos of… himself. Billboard has reported that the Prince of Darkness is in hot water for publishing photographs of his own likeness on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter (X), without obtaining permission, according to a legal representative.."
Crazy! How can you need permission to post yourself? I don't understand.
It would appear from the article the photographer wasn't properly compensated for use (commercial or not, but certainly commercial in this context) of the photo in question. There are at least two controlling "rights" in this situation: photographer (aka artist) right and right to use likeness. The latter is likely owned by Ozzy, but the actual photographic image is owned by the photographer who retains licensing rights to the image.Crazy! How can you need permission to post yourself? I don't understand.
I recall John Fogerty getting popped copyright infringement for using parts of "Run through the Jungle" in "The old man is down the road". Both of which were written and performed by him. If I recall right they lost the case and it was ruled John Fogerty was allowed to use his own creations in any way he wanted.
It would appear from the article the photographer wasn't properly compensated for use (commercial or not, but certainly commercial in this context) of the photo in question. There are at least two controlling "rights" in this situation: photographer (aka artist) right and right to use likeness. The latter is likely owned by Ozzy, but the actual photographic image is owned by the photographer who retains licensing rights to the image.Crazy! How can you need permission to post yourself? I don't understand.
Heres the Wiki story on the past Fogerty case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy,_Inc.
"Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case ...Fantasy sued Fogerty for copyright infringement, claiming that "The Old Man Down the Road" was essentially the music to "Run Through the Jungle" with new words. The case was litigated through a jury trial, and the jury found in Fogerty's favor, rejecting the claim of infringement..."
It would appear from the article the photographer wasn't properly compensated for use (commercial or not, but certainly commercial in this context) of the photo in question...Crazy! How can you need permission to post yourself? I don't understand.
Now that I think of it.. I recall some old court case involving the use of Olan Mills Photography family portraits (it seems it was Olan Mills).. Forget what the details were, but there was a limit to what degree they could use or display their own family portrait. It seems to me if you pay a photographer to take your family portrait then you should be able to utilize that photo anyway you see fit. But that's evidently not the case.
It would appear from the article the photographer wasn't properly compensated for use (commercial or not, but certainly commercial in this context) of the photo in question...Crazy! How can you need permission to post yourself? I don't understand.
Now that I think of it.. I recall some old court case involving the use of Olan Mills Photography family portraits (it seems it was Olan Mills).. Forget what the details were, but there was a limit to what degree they could use or display their own family portrait. It seems to me if you pay a photographer to take your family portrait then you should be able to utilize that photo anyway you see fit. But that's evidently not the case.
Yes the fine print of the photo contract usually delineates what "rights" are "licensed" to the recipient of the work. In the age of social media, this obviously needed to morph accordingly to make things work in the new paradigm. I now sell my photos to individuals for "non commercial" use and just let them post away since that's really the primary use of photos these days. I keep the "commercial" rights for use with press and other commercial entities with the instruction to direct such inquires to me.
To make matters even more interesting, where the photo creator seeks redress in the courts matters as each federal district (US) interprets the copyright laws a bit differently. I don't know if anyone notices this fact, but many creators in the music, drama, art, photo world maintain an office in New York City so they can file suits in the federal courts there as these courts are very well versed in artistic copyright matters.
@richpowers Yes, it was a tune too close to what was previously created, but the copyright was not owned by Fogerty himself. He went into court with a keyboard and explained his process, and the jury agreed.
There's a good article about it at https://www.loudersound.com/features/that-time-john-fogerty-was-sued-for-plagiarising-john-fogerty
That time John Fogerty was sued for plagiarising John Fogerty
"..Essentially they claimed that Fogerty had ripped himself off and they sued him for plagiarising himself... all the way to a jury trial in 1988. In one of rock’s most bizarre moments of the 80s, John Fogerty sat in the witness box with a guitar on his lap and explained to the jurors what must have seemed obvious to the entire courtroom – of course the two songs are going to sound the same, considering that they were written and performed by the same artist in that artist’s signature swampy style. .. And, to complete the happy ending, Fogerty announced in 2023 that he'd retained the rights to Creedence Clearwater Revival's global catalogue after a 50-year legal battle.."