Yearly Archives: 2019

What Books Will Boost Self-Confidence in My 10-Year-Old Son?

16 February 2019

From The Guardian:

Q: What books would help instil confidence in a preteen boy?
Stay-at-home mother, 33, trying to help her 10-year-old son to become calmer and more confident

A: Fiona Noble, children’s books editor at the Bookseller, writes:
The act of reading can itself create an oasis of calm in a busy world, and I believe children’s fiction can play a powerful role in building confidence and resilience. Look for stories showing characters facing and overcoming fears and persevering in tough times. SF Said’s modern classic Varjak Paw, with wonderfully menacing artwork from Dave McKean, is about a young cat on a voyage of discovery and self-acceptance in the big city, replete with martial arts and terrifying villains. Another thrilling tale of bravery is Katherine Rundell’s epic adventure The Explorer, last year’s Costa children’s book of they ear. Four children lost in the Amazon jungle face a compelling physical struggle to survive while each facing their own, more personal battles.

Nonfiction may also offer inspiration. In Stories for Boys Who Dare to Be Different, Ben Brooks looks beyond the stereotypes, at a diverse selection of male lives, from Lionel Messi to Barack Obama and Daniel Radcliffe.

Link to the rest at The Guardian

PG would add The Dangerous Book for Boys to this list.

You can get a sense for this book from the book’s first page, which describes Essential Gear for boys:


As a former boy of a certain age, PG can attest to the attractiveness of the items on this list to such a boy, not necessarily because they’re essential for specific tasks, but rather because they’re highly beneficial for the imagination of such a boy and contribute to his self-confidence.

If a boy is prepared to write down a description of a crime he might witness, even in the tamest of neighborhoods, he becomes more observant and feels a bit of mature responsibility for the safety of others. A small flashlight will keep him amused for hours and he will certainly use it to examine a map, even one he draws himself, in the dark or perform a late-evening security check of the perimeter of his home.








I Don’t like Feeling Sorry for Myself

16 February 2019

I don’t like feeling sorry for myself. That’s not who I am. And most of the time I don’t feel that way. Instead, I am grateful for having at least found you. We could have flashed by one another like two pieces of cosmic dust.

God or the universe or whatever one chooses to label the great systems of balance and order does not recognize Earth-time. To the universe, four days is no different than four billion light years. I try to keep that in mind.

But, I am, after all, a man. And all the philosophic rationalizations I can conjure up do not keep me from wanting you, every day, every moment, the merciless wail of time, of time I can never spend with you, deep within my head.

I love you, profoundly and completely. And I always will.

The last cowboy,
Robert

― Robert James Waller, The Bridges of Madison County

 

Amazon Will Pay a Whopping $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits

16 February 2019

From Fortune:

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00.

According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won’t have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row.

This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018.

To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%.

. . . .

ITEP notes that its non-existent federal tax payment is a result of the Trump Administration’s corporation-friendly tax cuts. The think tank writes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only decreased corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, but it also didn’t close “a slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits.”

Link to the rest at Fortune

PG apologizes for the annoying auto-play video with an accompanying audio track in the OP.

PG also notes that Amazon doesn’t write the federal or state tax codes and PG hasn’t seen any reports that Amazon has violated any of those laws.

As far as tax “loopholes” are concerned, one person’s loophole is another person’s reasonable provision for calculating a fair tax rate.

One of the most commonly-used deductions for individual taxpayers is the mortgage interest deduction. If an individual or couple purchased a home and borrowed money to help fund that purpose, the interest they pay on that loan is deductible from their gross income.

The rationale for this loophole is a belief by the elected representatives of the people that a great many benefits arise when citizens are able to purchase and own their homes. Community stability and the encouragement of civic virtues due to lower rates of transience within a community, encouragement for couples to have children, the benefits to those children (and future taxpayers) that arise from being able to grow up in a single home and attend neighborhood schools as compared to moving to a new location every one-two years due to rent increases on a rented residence, etc., etc., etc.

While there are counter-arguments, PG suggests the home mortgage deduction is highly-valued by a large majority of the adult population of the United States.

When dinosaurs walked the earth, PG took a couple of income tax law classes in law school and several of his classmates earned their Masters of Law in Taxation after completing regular law school.

The complexity and weirdness of the US tax laws cannot be overstated. There are tax attorneys in the United States who earn a good living for their entire careers by specializing in the application and avoidance of taxes imposed under a couple of provisions in the tax law that most people have never heard of and would have difficulty in understanding without extensive prior tutoring in the nearly impenetrable language and concepts and conflicting interpretations of such underlying those laws.

Each of the 50 states have their own individual tax laws and the potential number of unintended interactions between state and federal tax laws probably cannot be calculated.

Speaking only of the US tax laws, there are disagreements about how long they are. In 2015, the Tax Foundation said the Federal Tax Laws and Regulations total more than ten million words.

This figure includes the federal internal revenue code (2,412,000 words long) and federal tax regulations (7,655,000 words long). It does not include the substantial body of tax-related case law that is often vital to understanding the tax code.

The length of the federal tax code and regulations has grown steadily over the past sixty years. In 1955, the two documents were 1.4 million words in length. Since then, they have grown at a pace of about 144,500 words a year. Today, the federal tax code is roughly six times as long as it was in 1955, while federal tax regulations are about 2.5 times as long.

. . . .

Americans spend 6.1 billion hours and $233.8 billon complying with the tax code. Due to increasing tax complexity, over 90 percent of taxpayers now hire professional tax preparers or use tax preparation software.

Why is the federal tax code so complex? In part, it’s because politicians have used the tax code to administer dozens of areas of federal policy – from healthcare to energy to education. In part, it’s because defining income and determining tax liability are inherently difficult tasks. And, in part, it’s because politicians have not made any serious effort to simplify the federal tax code for at least thirty years, instead adding on new provisions on top of one another.

The federal tax laws are so lengthy that there are disputes about how long it actually is. Again, from The Tax Foundation in 2014:

Andrew Grossman, the legislation counsel for the Joint Committee on Taxation that helps write tax laws, attacked us in Slate yesterday for saying that the tax code runs 70,000 pages, countering that it’s “only” 2,600 pages.

. . . .

There’s the literal statutes that Congress has passed (Title 26 of the U.S. Code). The Government Printing Office sells it spread over two volumes, and according to them, book oneis 1,404 pages and book two is 1,248 pages, for a total of 2,652 pages. At perhaps 450 words per page, that puts the tax code at well over 1 million words. (By way of comparison, the King James Bible has 788,280 words; War and Peace runs 560,000 words; and the Harry Potter series is just over 1 million words.)

. . . .

However, a tax practitioner who relies just on the tax statutes will go to jail, because so much of federal tax law is in IRS regulations, revenue rulings, and other clarifications. Congress will set down a policy and leave it to the IRS to write all the rules to implement it. These regulations aren’t short: the National Taxpayer Advocate did a Microsoft Word word count of the tax statutes and IRS regulations in 2012, and came up with roughly 4 million words. Again at roughly 450 words per page, that comes out to around 9,000 pages. The National Taxpayer Advocate also noted that the tax code changed 4,680 times from 2001 to 2012, an average of once per day.

. . . .

But, a lawyer who relies just on cases and regulations isn’t a very good lawyer, because most court decisions are made on the basis of previously decided cases. The respected legal publisher Commerce Clearing House (CCH) puts out such a compilation, the Standard Federal Tax Reporterof 70,000 pages, with notations after each statute containing relevant cases and other information. CCH itself considers this volume to be representative of “the tax code,” since an expert needs to know all 70,000 pages to understand the tax code in full.

So, has Amazon paid its “fair share” of income taxes? PG is highly confident that Amazon has used well-qualified tax experts to prepare its tax returns and calculate its tax liabilities.

For a long time, Amazon had no taxable profits at all. Indeed, it had losses. One of the concepts contained in various parts of the federal income tax laws is a “tax loss carry-forward”. Investopedia describes this as follows:

A tax loss carryforward is a provision that allows a taxpayer to carry over a tax loss to future years to offset a profit. The tax loss carryforward can be claimed by an individual or a business in order to reduce any future tax payments.

Amazon operated at a loss for the first several years of its existence and very thin profits for a lengthy period of time thereafter. To the best of PG’s knowledge, Amazon received no material payments from the US government to help it survive during those years.

Absent the benefits of loss carryforwards during the first years of lean profits, it’s possible that Jeff Bezos would have given up on the possibility that Amazon was ever going to be worth the very hard work he was putting into the company and closed it down so he could spend time working in another more financially-rewarding business.

Amazon currently reports it has 613,300 employees. PG suspects Amazon pays far better wages than McDonald’s does and each of those employees pays individual federal income taxes. From the standpoint of federal government tax revenues, is it a good thing for a company to employ over half a million people who each pay taxes? Would the country be better off if Amazon paid some corporate income taxes, but only employed 50,000 people?

PG will also note that, for its US employees, the company pays a huge amount of money into Social Security and Medicare as its employer’s share of those taxes, which are based upon the wages of its employees.

In 1977

16 February 2019

In 1977, facing first-time parenthood and an absolute lack of enthusiasm for anything like “career,” I found myself dusting off my twelve-year-old’s interest in science fiction. Simultaneously, weird noises were being heard from New York and London. I took Punk to be the detonation of some slow-fused projectile buried deep in society’s flank a decade earlier, and I took it to be, somehow, a sign. And I began, then, to write.

And have been, ever since.

~ William Gibson

Spam Report

15 February 2019

While checking the Akismet spam filter to respond to one of the commenters on another thread, PG discovered a statistical summary of the last twelve months of TPV from a ham/spam perspective. He thought some visitors might find it interesting. (Click on the graph for a larger version)

PG really enjoys reading 99% of the comments that appear on TPV, but he had no idea there were almost 11 thousand comments he didn’t see because Akismet zapped them. That’s 36% of the total comments that were submitted to the blog.

Since PG opened up Excel to calculate that 36% spam percentage, he played with the numbers a little bit more.

Absent the spam filter, PG isn’t certain how long it would have taken him to clean up the spam by manually deleting spam comments.

However, Excel at hand, if each spam comment took him an average of 15 seconds to identify and delete, that would total almost 45 hours in addition to the time he already spends on TPV that he would have to devote to keeping the conversational space tidied up.

If it took 30 seconds per spam post, that’s almost 90 hours. 60 seconds per spam would total about one month of 8-hour Monday-Friday work days.

PG’s calculations only assume time spent on the 10,744 spam comments that Akismet caught during the last twelve months. However, in order to identify the chaff or mostly-chaff comments, PG would also have to at least briefly examine the wheat comments before determining he wouldn’t need to delete them.

The total number of wheat and chaff comments would have been almost 30,000. Presumably, without Akismet cleaning the chaff, spammers might well have been incented to drop more comments into TPV, thereby consuming more human filtering time.

PG needs to figure out a way to make a donation to Akismet.

I Sometimes Have the Feeling You’ve Been Here a Long Time

15 February 2019

I sometimes have the feeling you’ve been here a long time, more than one lifetime, and that you’ve dwelt in private places none of the rest of us has even dreamed about.

― Robert James Waller, The Bridges of Madison County

In World War II, every American tank became a rolling town on tracks

15 February 2019

From The Wall Street Journal:

Small-unit combat has held a special place in literature since the time of Herodotus. From Spartans at Thermopylae to the First Marines at Fallujah, “band of brothers” tales provide a voyeuristic glimpse into war’s charnel house and a testament to the sublime and profane within the embattled men on the spear’s tip.

At one end of the literary spectrum lie the front-line stories, real and imagined, that leave lasting images of epic heroism. Paul Bäumer huddling in a shell hole with a dying Frenchman. Audie Murphy on a burning tank destroyer, throwing back a German regiment. Hal Moore’s troopers fending off Vietnamese waves in Ia Drang Valley.

At the other end lie tales of the everyman warrior, the Tom Hanks character yanked from the terrarium of civilian life and thrust into a transient world of blood, fire and shrapnel. Books like Alex Kershaw’s “The Liberator” and Laura Hillenbrand’s monumental “Unbroken” celebrate human resilience and the latent power of the individual rarely tapped in peacetime. These stories are driven by characters who are relatable and yet possess some quality the rest of us don’t—at least, not as long as we remain ensconced in the comforting confines of civil society.

. . . .

“Spearhead” centers on a tank crew, in this case a half-dozen men packed into a Sherman dubbed “Eagle” that blasts its way across Belgium and central Germany. The crew rolls into action in September 1944, near the Belgian city of Mons, and winds up in April 1945 in Paderborn, Germany, bookending its journey with one-on-one tank duels.

The story’s everyman is Clarence Smoyer, a 21-year-old gun loader assigned to the Third Armored Division’s Easy Company. The mild-mannered Pennsylvanian seems destined to become a name, rank and serial number on a soon-forgotten casualty list, but Mr. Smoyer (whom Mr. Makos interviewed extensively for the book) discovers an unusual gift: He is a crack shot with a tank cannon. Promoted to gunner, though never formally trained as one, he also has a knack for unorthodox gun tactics when his crew faces steep odds.

In any tank tale, the steel shell becomes a rolling village in microcosm. “Spearhead” follows this well-worn path by introducing the reader to Eagle’s residents: its commander, Paul Faircloth, a half-Cherokee with a fatal devotion to duty; William “Woody” McVey, an Irish-American Michigander with an irreverent sense of humor; Bob Earley, a pipe-smoking Minnesotan whose chattering teeth are the crew’s barometer of how dangerous each mission will be; Homer “Smokey” Davis, a dour-faced Kentuckian who fancies himself a fast-draw pistolero; and “Johnny Boy” DeRiggi, an Italian-American from Scranton, Pa., whose jocularity dissipates as much of their tank platoon is wiped out near the town of Blatzheim, west of Cologne.

In the confines of an upgraded tank—a state-of-the-art Pershing—Clarence Smoyer and his fellow crewmen kill to live as enemy fire claims one platoon comrade after another. Faircloth, the crew’s father figure, falls to a German mortar blast. “The explosion lifted him from his feet and flung him askew through the smoke,” Mr. Makos writes. “Clarence’s legs became weak at the sight and he collapsed into the turret.”

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal


Instagram Celebrity faces another Copyright Infringement Claim after posting picture of herself on Instagram

15 February 2019

From The IPKat:

Social media is a real spanner in the IP works, since it’s all about sharing content that IP is in the business of restricting. Social media platforms were crowned a haven for counterfeited goods by the UK IPO report Share and Share Alike, and they can also cause havoc for copyright holders as their content is shared without permission, not to mention the dubious terms and conditions! Recently GiGi Hadid has found herself in the hot seat for sharing images on Instagram, and not for the first time. Here’s the latest:

GiGi Hadid (Jelena Noura Hadid) is an American fashion model, named International Model of the Year by British Fashion Council.  She has modeled for Versace, Chanel, Elie Saab, Fendi, Marc Jacobs, Anna Sui, Miu Miu, Balmain, Diane Von Furstenberg, Tommy Hilfiger, Fenty, Puma, Isabel Marant, and Giambattista Valli and has appeared on the covers of magazines such as Vogue.

Hadid manages her own Instagram account, which has over 44 million followers worldwide. On 12 October 2018, she posted a picture of herself to her Instagram account. The copyright holder of the image in question, which was captured on October 11, 2018 in New York City is Xclusive (a photo agency that represents over 40 photographers worldwide).

Xclusive have now brought a civil complaint against Hadid in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking a trial by jury and damages for copyright infringement.

. . . .

In the claim Xclusive argue that Hadid’s Instagram account includes at least fifty (50) examples of uncredited photographs of Hadid in public, at press events, or on the runway, posted by Hadid without license or permission from the copyright holder. The claim states that Xclusive believes these acts of infringement are willful and intentional, in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of copyright holders.

. . . .

A similar situation occurred when Khloe Kardashian posted a photo of herself on her Instagram, also owned by Xposure Photos in 2017. Xposure filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, stating that posted the photograph along with the caption ‘going for a meal at David Grutman’s Miami restaurant, Komodo’ in September 2014, without a licence from the copyright holder. The Photograph was taken by Manual Munoz and licensed for limited use to The Daily Mail, which published it on 13th September 2016 together with a copyright notice and watermark. The following day the photo was posted on Kardashian’s Instagram account, with the watermark removed. Similarly, according to a March 2018 mediation report, the case was “completely settled.”

These previous cases didn’t deter Hadid from continuing to post photos of herself on her social media platforms. She even posted this argument about the situation on her Instagram: “Yesterday I heard from my management that I am being ‘legally pursued’ for my last (now deleted) Instagram post…sue me for a photo I FOUND ON TWITTER (with no photographer name on the image) for a photo he has already been paid for…”

She goes on to say:

 To all the fan accounts being taken down and being sued themselves…to the photographers… demanding money from young fans…is just wrong.

This raises the broader issues of the confusion and tension of copyright uses on social media, celebrities right to control their image as well as the classic tensions between paparazzi and privacy. Whilst the US recognises some personality rights, consent is not required for the “use of a name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign”. Some might consider it a fair trade-off for living the life of a celebrity. In the social media and influencer age, it is more common and lucrative than ever to be using one’s own image for remuneration.

Link to the rest at TheIPKat

As the OP indicates, there is a tension between what might formerly have been called “free publicity” for a celebrity and the money a celebrity (or other dedicated self-promoter) can earn directly from their own social media account.

If you search Google for How to Make Money on Instagram, you will discover that there are many ways to do so.

Here’s a summary:

1. Become an influencer and make money from sponsored posts.

With your influencer status, you can propose to brands to help to promote them in your posts. An influencer is someone who has built a reputation by doing and sharing things online. They have a good following and they are able to convince their audiences about trends because of the level of trust they have built with their online presence.

. . . .

2. Become an affiliate and make money selling other people’s products.

You can sell other people’s products and receive a cut. Many brands sell their products through affiliate programs. There are many people that make money from Instagram this way.

. . . .

3. Sell poster photos and other virtual products.

Instagram is all about visual content. Photogenic products would sell well on Instagram. You can sell poster photos, paintings, drawings, animations, videos, and other image or video-based virtual products. On each post, refer readers to visit the link in your bio. This is another popular way that people make money from Instagram.

. . . .

4. Sell your own physical products.

You can sell any physical product that you produce yourself or purchase from suppliers. This conventional ecommerce retailing usually requires stocking some inventory, meaning you’d need to spend some startup capital to stock some products.

. . . .

5. Sell dropshipped products.

Dropshipping is a business model which you can use to run your store without ever holding any inventory. Once you’ve made a sale your supplier will ship your products from their warehouse, straight to your customer’s doorstep. You’ll never need to worry about storing, packaging, or shipping your products.

Link to the rest at Oberlo

PG is entirely unfamiliar with GiGi Hadid, but notes that some public personalities are known for their talents in other fields, often in the performing arts, while other public personalities are known because they are famous for being known (see almost anyone named Kardashian, for example).

How much can you earn from Instagram?

This question was posted on Quora and the responses from answers receiving the most upvotes include the following:

The best social media influencers can earn up to tens of thousands for a single sponsored post. For an instanceif an influence has a few million followers it is most likely that they earn up to 10K per a post. If the following is something under a million, the estimated numbers are between $500-$1500 per a sponsored post.

. . . .

The market rate has settled at approximately $10 per CPM (cost per thousand impressions). The standard assumption is that only 10% of followers see any given post. That means that if you have 50K followers, you will have 5K impressions (50K x 10%) – or be paid $1 per 1,000 followers – and make a total of $50 per post. However, these rates are more for raw numbers of followers. Popular influencers with online communities that put their name and reputation behind something can charge a premium for it.

I have experienced a wide range, but as mentioned above, the average influencer with a blog and/or any sort of loyal following makes 10x this amount per post. Basically, they get the same ~$10 CPM, but without the 10% adjustment. You can expect to make $500 for a post if you have 50K followers. You can easily make $10,000 if you have 1 million followers.

. . . .

Gabrielle Epstein, 21, said she earns more from posting a selfie than she would working four days as a regular model. The 21-year old has almost 800,000 followers on the social media site, and cannily mixes her feed with fun-loving pics of her everyday life alongside product placements.Each post can generate up to 25,000 likes, with companies keen to piggy back on Gabrielle’s popularity by getting her to endorse their product.

. . . .

I know plenty of influencers who hit 100K followers and then quit their jobs.

We’re looking at conflicting legal interests here.

A photographer is making creative work in which he/she has an interest protected by copyright law in the same general manner as the author of a novel or short story or the artist who creates a painting. The individual who creates the work is, generally speaking, the owner of the work. The creator has the exclusive right to control the use of the work, enter into agreements that permit others to use the work, etc.

On the other hand, there is a difference between taking a photo of a sunset at the beach and taking a photo of an identifiable person. The sunset has no legal rights, but a person may.

From Wikimedia Commons:

When dealing with photographs of people, we are required to consider the legal rights of the subject and the ethics of publishing the photo in addition to the concerns of the photographer and owner of the image. These former issues are quite distinct from the copyright status of the image and may restrict or impose obligations on those taking, uploading or reusing a photograph. A Creative Commons licence or public domain status, for example, means that the photographer (or other owner) has waived or lost certain rights and that their permission to use the image is not required. However, the photographer is not able to remove any rights belonging to the subject of the photograph.

The subject’s consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it. In many countries (especially English-speaking ones) the subject’s consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place. However, the term “publishing” should not be construed to include commercial use, as consent is usually required in these situations. Moreover, the country specific consent requirements vary. Many factors can determine whether and what degree of consent is required.

. . . .

There are two forms of personality rights that govern the taking, hosting and use of photographs where the subject is a living person: the right of publicity and the right of privacy. Care should also be taken not to defame the subject.

. . . .

The right of publicity is the right to control the commercial use of one’s likeness. The most obvious example of this is in advertising (and it applies whether or not the advertisement itself is for commercial purposes). This right concerns the subject of the photograph and is distinct from the photographer’s copyright license which may impose its own terms or grant freedoms regarding commercial reuse.

. . . .

The right of privacy is the right to be left alone and not to be made the subject of public scrutiny without consent. The right to privacy is enshrined in several international laws though the details with regard to photographs vary from country to country. Images must not unreasonably intrude into the subject’s private or family life.

The law on privacy concerning photographs can be crudely divided into whether the photograph was taken in a private or public place. A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy while a public place is somewhere where the subject has no such expectation – the terms are unrelated to whether the land is privately or publicly owned. For example, a tent on a beach is a private place on public land and a concert is a public place on private property. A place may be publicly accessible but still retain an expectation of privacy concerning photography, for example a hospital ward during visiting hours. Whether the place is private or not may also depend on the situation at the time: for example that same hospital ward would have been a public place during a tour before it opens.

Link to the rest at Wikimedia Commons

In a number of countries, consent is needed for just taking a photograph of one or more identifiable people, not to mention publishing it and/or using it commercially even if the person is in a public place. Here’s a country-specific list of consent requirements from Wikimedia Commons. PG notes that, in the United States, some individual states have state-specific laws that apply to photographers. See, for example, Texas Penal Code § 21.15. Invasive Visual Recording.

In the United States, most of the laws relating to taking photos of others without the express consent of the subject of the photos were established long before the existence of Instagram and cell phone cameras.

In the days when quality photos were made by professional photographers with Graflex cameras and movie stars were mostly happy when their pictures appeared in magazines or newspapers because it was good for ticket sales, the balancing of interests between the photographer creating a photo and the subject of that photo was less complex than it is today.

Back to the OP, it is unlikely that GiGi Hadid gave her express consent for the photographer to create the original photo and she certainly did not provide explicit consent for Xclusive, the photo agency, to have the exclusive right to license her image in the photo to others.

Absent Ms. Hadid’s 44 million Instagram followers, a photo of her would be much less valuable as content for The Daily Mail, so the likelihood of either the photographer or the photo agency receiving as much of a license fee would be much lower.

Indeed, Ms. Hadid almost certainly earns a larger income from Instagram, based upon her personality (and valuable personality rights licenses) than she does from being a fashion model, so preventing her from using the photo deprives her of the type of material that generates most of her income without her express consent. Under the arguments made by Xclusive, only the photographer is entitled to reap any income from Ms. Hadid’s image.

 

 

Next Page »