Bluesea writes:

100? I'll go 10. To me, she looks like she's in her late 30's or early to
mid-40's.

She either had a bad case of acne after puberty, or she survived
smallpox.

I was speculating on the situation, not on the need to respect others's
privacy w/ or w/o attorneys. War situations, in particular, make people
forgetful of otherwise ordinary things and I don't know under what pressures
McCully was working at the time.

I doubt that would help in court, especially after profiting from the
photo for twenty years.

You have me at a disadvantage since I know very little about publishing
photos of people in other countries, much less refugee camps. I would have
thought that it depended on the laws of the subject's residence since it's
the subject's privacy that's at stake. She had no idea that her face is
famous. How was her privacy violated when no one knew who she was or where
she was?

The law doesn't address that point. Additionally, it's not a privacy
issue in this case. The issue is using someone's image for commercial
purposes without a release.

In the U.S. (but not necessarily in other countries), you can use
someone's image for editorial or informational purposes without a
release. However, NG went _far_ beyond that in this case, using this
girl's image over and over to promote the magazine. That made it
commercial use, and commercial use requires a release.

In theory, this woman could sue in the U.S. on this basis. National
Geographic probably gambled (successfully) that she would not.

The website didn't say she's being paid, just that she's being taken care
of.

She is receiving "valuable compensation," in other words.

They did provide medical treatment for the ill members of her family as
soon as they could. She didn't want anything for herself, just her family.

Where she lives, what she wants is irrelevant, as only her husband has
the authority to decide that.

Besides, McCully and the NG have been looking for her
all these years.

He had her in front of him when he took the picture.

Where would NG have sent the checks in the meantime?

NG should not have used the photo commercially until it found her.

From our perspective, yes. From her perspective, maybe not. We need to
remember that not everyone is materialistic.

So it's okay to do without a release if you believe the model is not
materialistic?

We should also consider how strongly people's religions can mold their lives
and remember that she's a Muslim who apparently doesn't have a problem with
purdah.

Still, a release is required for commercial use.

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