According to that logic, if you sell anything second hand, you should give a cut of that to the original manufacturer of the product? Plus what you’re saying applies to all art. According to this logic, there should be no contracts and one-off jobs if it involves art. Every freelance graphic designer who designed a logo for a company has to now permanently get a stream of profits for every company they made a logo for.

Architecture is art too. Its not just for functional means. Even the paint strokes on a wall can be considered art (how meticulously its done) and something as simple as paint texture can make people continue choosing that hotel.

My guess is its for people who really love their job. Like - Creature designer at ILM or something like that.

Well I’m not talking about creating an invention. I’m talking about building a product for someone else. If an architect creates a hotel for someone (no matter how insane or swaggy its design), they don’t usually get the profits afterwards. They are paid for that construction job alone. That’s more like what happened with this movie.

So if you build a hotel and generate profit, should you funnel that profit to the people who constructed the hotel?

Why does every job have to be a lifelong commitment? According to you, they should get rid of all contract jobs and nothing should be a one-off deal?

Hmm lets see - The work was 20 days of “art directing” (i.e. telling other artists what to do). How much do you think that’s worth?

That “rig” is called a contract lol

Yeah according to her logic, if the film did really badly, she now has to pay back her wages. lmao

By that logic, she’d get nothing because art directors only tell other people to work lol

Bruh she worked a total of 20 days

In today’s upside down topsy turvy world, some judge will probably rescind the contract.

Threatening to throw someone in jail if they insult a politician IS a restriction of free speech. How else do you restrict free speech? They can’t install blocking devices inside a person’s vocal chords that prevents the speech from even occuring.

This is like saying speeding is not restricted because people can still push the pedal beyond the speed limit. Of course they can! But there are state enforced consequences for it, which means that speeding is illegal (restricted).

She’s the bully. The user who made that comment is the victim. Its one thing to call someone fat, its a totally different thing to throw them in a prison cell.

If she wants justice, just reply to that comment and call the commenter a fatass too. There problem solved!

If they want to arrest someone for calling a politician fat, They are WORSE THAN ICE! That’s not professional at all. A professional does not get deterred by random internet comments calling them fat.

And I don’t care what the laws are in Germany. They can make how many ever useless ass laws they want, doesn’t change what is morally right/wrong.

Wtf does that mean? “free speech” literally means the ability to air ideas without the threat of violence or persecution. So yes, free speech should come without any legal consequence.

Fox News is a reliable source. They’re not some fringe alternative news outlet.

People threatening to imprison members of the public just because they insulted one of their politicians. That definitely sounds like Nazi behavior to me.

The nazis engaged in propaganda and punished people who spoke ill against their politicians. This is Nazi behavior. And since we’re in modern times, they are “Neo Nazis”. Neo means “new”.

The news article paraphrases the original comment (which is probably now deleted)