> Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. Permission from the subject is not required under U.S. copyright law

> Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer. Permission from the subject is not required under U.S. copyright law. Unless there's some other agreement in place, it belongs to the photographer. From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html: """The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.""" Permission may matter for likeness rights, but as I mentioned earlier, that generally only applies in the context of advertising or implied endorsement. > But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk. Agreed, but it doesn't change the copyright analysis.