Comment: There’s No Such Thing as a Compulsory License for a Photo
Isn’t it wrong that Andy chose to pay the licensing fees for the music but not for the photograph?
This means that photographers, unlike song writers, can forbid anyone from reusing their work, whether it is for a poster or for an album cover.
not even Miles Davis himself if he were alive
“Absolutely. If the laws and protocols for remixing photos were as clear and fair as covering music, I would’ve bought a mechanical license for the photo in a heartbeat. But the laws around visual art are frustratingly vague, and requiring someone’s permission to create art that doesn’t affect the market for the original doesn’t seem right. I didn’t think it would be a problem, especially considering the scope of my project, but I was wrong. Nobody should need a law degree to understand whether art is legal or not.”