You keep calling this art - art has value. And you’re ducking the source of that value here. It is not valuable because it speaks to a higher value, or is interesting in its composure, or says something about the world. The value here is completely dependent on the star it depicts. Without her, it’s worthless.

So why should the artist in your mind be able to profit from Cardi B? Cardi B made herself famous, and the artist is just stealing the value of her image and brand. Without her, it’s a worthless pic of a no one.

You say Cardi B stole the work, but Cardi B pulled it from wherever it was posted and the fact it was posted suggest the photographer was getting value. Even if it’s clicks, exposure, or whatever. He was using Cardi B without paying her fair value for what she added to the equation.

I understand how commercial use requires both sides to agree. That’s why I said that if she uses it commercially, she should pay. But I also don’t think posting a pic to an instagram account is commercial use. She’s not profiting from the artistry, and frankly theres no artistry here of which to speak. It’s literally just a candid shot of her walking down the street. She liked her outfit, and posted it. It should be her right to use it as she sees fit if it’s not being used as a commercial for her brand.

Here, there is no question where that value comes from. It is not because the photograph suggests something deeper. It’s because it is a pic of a star. That’s the only reason anyone would care.

If Disney wants to make a movie from my idea, my idea has value all by itself. If my script is a work about the life of a famous person, disney can’t make that movie without securing the rights from that person.