Shane said: "The defense rests. Prosecution opens: yes, it is possible under the current libel laws to sue someone for an altered image or explicit artwork,"
Not so clear as you suggest. The extrapolation from an altered photograph to a piece of artwork both being covered by libel laws does not necessarily work and to my knowledge has never been put to the test in court.
Let me explain. Your example was the use of an actress's head superimposed on the nude body of another woman. This could make it look like the actress in question had posed nude, something which she may not do and felt was damaging for her to be seen to have done. Hence, if the image was published, she would have a case in a libel court.
However, if someone draws a picture of how they imagine someone to look nude, everyone knows that is really not them but an artist's impression (unless the drawing was so good it looked like a photograph), therefore the case for libel is not clear cut. I suspect from my knowledge of libel law that it would not stand up in court.
As an aside, on a minor point, you said: "Legal rights aren't at issue here. Rights of common decency are." I should point out it was you who said Sally had "every right to ask for it to be removed". I was pointing out in response to this that she didn't have legal rights.
-- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption