Using it as a distributed proof of ownership seems like a great idea, yes.

This is where I see possibilities for the Telegram coin as well:

If POW could be meaningfully connected to delivery of messages (or even streams) in addition to in-app payments that could actually be useful. (Warning, -don't know enough to judge it.)

What do you mean? I didn't see any details on how this will work on Kodak's site.

"The KODAKOne image rights management platform will create an encrypted, digital ledger of rights ownership for photographers to register both new and archive work that they can then license within the platform."

Why do you need a block chain for this? The functionality can also be created without this.

With a blockchain, they could set things up such that the ownership data is not owned or controlled by any one company. I'm not sure what Kodak would get out of setting something like that up. But there doesn't seem to be another reason they'd be using a blockchain, and they probably aren't just being stupid.

This is just another attempt to get money from eager “investors” through an ICO (according to Kodak it will be SEC regulated, I would be very surprised, it would probably be the first)

I'd agree and say you don't need it here either but compared to a number of other blockchains I'd guess it is a very reasonable idea.

Certainly they're short on details, but the basic model seems to be using a blockchain to verify transactions for digital photography.