> Should tool makers get part of the profit made by those tools?
If they invented the tool, they can have a patent.
Individuals are not tools, and I don't see how the tool acquires copyright. Models own the copyright of their likeness, and technically, coders own the copyright to their code, right up until they give it away for wages already compensating their time, using the same coin to pay for two different things of value. Granted, a lot of portions of code are copied, but any novel code written should be copyrightable.
If there was any money to be made in distributing a recorded phone call, then the participants should be compensated out of the total profits.
They have personal rights, publicity rights, and moral rights... but they do not have copyright. The copyright is retained by the person who took the photograph or painted the portrait.
> It’s happened yet again: another copyright infringement lawsuit involving a celebrity posting an image of themselves without permission from the photographer. This time it’s Miley Cyrus who is in the hot seat, for sharing an image of herself on Instagram without licensing it.
It is, of course, absurd that we do not own our faces or likenesses. That needs to change without outlawing cameras, photographs nor photographers. Since it really is very difficult to determine who created more, the copyright should be shared evenly, and any sale of copyright and waivers should be banned. I don't think it would be all that bad if copyright was permanently owned by the original holder(s). This would eliminate speculators getting rich off someone else's sweat.
we actually do own our likeness to a degree. at least in germany i have the right to control how images of me are published. in particular it protects me from being portrayed in a demeaning way. there are exceptions depending on the circumstances, but generally any publishing requires my permission. i believe similar rights exist in many other countries.
what's missing is a right to get a share of the profits. a shared copyright could help with that.
If they invented the tool, they can have a patent.
Individuals are not tools, and I don't see how the tool acquires copyright. Models own the copyright of their likeness, and technically, coders own the copyright to their code, right up until they give it away for wages already compensating their time, using the same coin to pay for two different things of value. Granted, a lot of portions of code are copied, but any novel code written should be copyrightable.
If there was any money to be made in distributing a recorded phone call, then the participants should be compensated out of the total profits.