Bluesea writes:

We're talking about the same Afghan girl,
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl, right?

Yes. The one who looks 100 years older than she really is today.

In which case, "No." According to NG, it was taken in
the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan.

My mistake. So, did they get a signed release when they took the photo?

Pro'lly because she was a refugee and not precisely situated to find out and
press her case?

So there is no need to respect the rights of someone without lawyers?

Then again, do the requirements about releases apply to
people there as much as they do to people in the U.S.
or Europe?

In the U.S., you obey U.S. laws. The publication occurred in the U.S.,
not in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

When the question of renumeration was raised, NG said she's
being taken care of now.

Twenty years later? I don't think that would go over very well in most
courtrooms. Besides, if she is being paid now, that's a tacit admission
that a release was required all along.

Yes, with good reason. As many times as I've seen it,
it still moves me.

It's a great photo. Too bad the model has been living in dirt for two
decades while National Geographic profited from it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.