Yes I would.RIP JMJ.
Hmmm...can I ask why? No doubt it's the guy's right to sue, but I can't figure what purpose it would serve.
I guess for me the purpose it would serve would be to protect my work. I would not sue for money, I would sue for the image to be removed from wherever the public has access to it. Either that, or demand that my name and the original work is credited alongside the reproduced one. Call it pride, call it territorial, call it fairness and respect. I'm not sure, but that's just how I feel about it if I put myself in the professional photographer's shoes.
Can't say any of that is wrong, but I think a better business strategy for a professional photographer would be to take more photos rather than trying to wring the last cent out of a photo he took 30 years ago.Add to this irony of the photo's subject and the photographer. Run DMC, hip-hop pioneers, made music by sampling and remixing other people's stuff, often without attribution or compensation.Glen E. Friedman made his name taking pics of DIY punk-rockers, early hip-hop artists, and outlaw skateboarders. And this is the guy that's suing?
I agree w/all of your points. I just looked at it a bit more simply. If I were a professional photographer or artist of any sort, I would expect some sort of acknowledgement or to be asked for permission if my work was used or reproduced in any way. Regardless of all that other stuff. I just think that's fair.
Post a Comment