Quote Quoting jk
View Post
Actually it makes it precisely about the kids right of publicity. In California one has the right to control their image when it is being used for publicity purposes. In this issue the photographer has usurped the girls rights and has used her image for his purposes of publicity without the girls permission.
I don't buy it. While it may be the letter of the law I just don't see it happening. I've got to believe the law was intended to not allow the use of one's image, name, etc. without permission to not sell to others not the person in question.

I get advertising all the time that has my name printed on it like t-shirts and coffee mugs. There are also hundreds of companies out there that take photos at things like little league cames and then try to sell them to parents by showing them the pics.