You dont own yourself

If you're on their property, they can take your picture in areas where you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

This is why copyright for digital things is stupid.

They created the image? I didnt know the teen girl was my mom? They didnt create me. And I posed for the picture. And then I paid for the picture itself. So I fail to see how I have no right to upload something I paid for.

It's kind like you go buy a car. It's yours to do with as you wish, but does that mean since you didnt create it you cant take pictures of it?

I understand the concept of the park taking the picture so therefore the picture belongs to the park. What I dont get is how if I pay for the picture the park still owns it? If someone paints you and you buy the painting the painting is now yours, not the artists. So if money was exchanged how can the seller still claim ownership? I paid for the pitcure so I should be able to do with it as I please.

They say buying a flash drive also buys you the rights. So what im hearing is they want to upsell from one picture to a flash drive. I feel once money is exchanged the seller is no longer the owner. But in todays digital age I guess you have to shell out even more money to truely own something? But then that opens flood gates because where does it end? First you buy a picture, then you buy a flash drive to also own the rights, is the next step paying even more money so the park no longer has any rights to your picture? Where does it end?

It's just a non stop milking of your wallet. I feel once you start a transaction and pay for something then that item you paid for should fully be yours.

You're buying the rights to use them, not own them. Same thing with music or movies, you're buying a copy for personal use, you don't actually buy the rights securing that media exclusively to yourself.

This. Same as if you pose for a family photo with a professional photographer.

Can't really agree with that. If I'm a photographer shouldn't I have copyright protection on my work? Or can someone like Coca-cola (to pick a random brand) find my picture on the Internet use it for a billion dollar ad campaign and not compensate me at all? But let's take it further. If I write a book nowadays it's all digital. It's a file on my computer, goes to my publisher as a file, they format it/edit it as a file and if I go straight for the ebook route it's digital the entire way. Do I have no copyright? Or what if I write a computer program? Do I have no copyright protection on my work? Can you take my code and sell it and not compensate me?

i suppose i should clarify my point. copyrights certainly have their place, and particularly in that last case with the ebook, a creator needs to have some protection of his property to ensure his ownership to his ideas. my real issue is how far we've allowed them to develop so that more often or not they are put in place to secure corporate cash cow's money pulls. a clear example of this occurred in 1976, in what was officially dubbed the Copyright Term Extension Act but most people just considered it the mickey mouse protection act. disney lobbied that year to push the years in which content becomes public domain to something of 100 years - to the point where the content isn't relevant in direct form to society or culture any more.

so the issue with this is this: some people consider it "mickey mouse is disney's, no one else ever should have the right to infringe." i feel that these people are fine with the idea of buying what they see and putting it up in their house somewhere. but for many others, we want more. we want the ability to cut, copy, paste and mutilate any content or product sold because we don't just want to be consumers anymore - we want to interact with our culture on all forms, including our icons and our themes.

another interesting example of how copyrights attempt to infringe the consumer's ability to interact with the media and world is with the current music state. radiohead made a lot of waves back in 2007 when they made their album available through online cost friendly prices. one radiohead fan was so supportive he took all the tracks from the cd, made a mashup version of them where he added his own effects, and put them all up on youtube. immediately capital records legally went after these tracks and threatened the fan of touching copyright material. do you know what radiohead did when they received this information? as THE MAKERS OF THE CONTENT, they still decided to release all the tracks in their individual take form so that people could take the tracks into their pc recording programs and make all new things with the original takes.they also made sure capital records relieved the fan of any legal ramifications or other complications. basically, radiohead told capital through actions that they can suck it and wouldn't allow their fans to be corporately silenced.

it's a very, very important issue to our times as we enter this digital age. there's a documentary called "RIP: remix manifesto" that really gets into all this. the cool thing about it is the movie has been made in 100s of forms, as the original copy was intended to be bootlegged and that people can add what they want to the movie and release it online, making it 'their' version. i really suggest checking it out, it's available all over the internet still.

The Disney issue is not that the character becomes Public Domain, but the cartoons themselves. Honestly, Disney screwed over those who need and use public domain resources for educational and entertainment endeavors to the point that many great works cannot enter into the public domain in the US for several decades to come, and even then they have given the government the right to pull something from PD even way after the creator is dead and gone.