Steve wrote:

Shane said: "an image using the actor's (facial) likeness which caused the actor distress and may, if s/he didn't want to be seen as the

sort of

person who would pose for dirty pictures (or allow these to be

distributed), be

seen by him/her as career-damaging."

As I think has been pointed out, there is no use of image law in the UK.

I thought we were talking about libel law.

An I think an actor would have a hard job proving in court that the use of such

images

in a fanzine implied to the average reader of a fanzine that he had posed

nude for

them, which is what he would have to prove.

I noticed you sidestepped the distribution question, though. Even if the image wouldn't have readers thinking that Actor X posed nude for the zine, the fact that it is there in the zine and unchallenged _would_ suggest to readers that Actor X had approved or consented to their presence there. Which previous discussions have suggested is _very_ unlikely.

Look, if Sally Knyvette gets a bit upset about a few pictures of her taken on a bad hair day, what's she going to do if she finds someone selling a picture of her doing the nasty with Gareth Thomas? If an actor ever does get upset enough to bring the law into the picture, even if they do lose the case, it'll still be the end of fandom as we know it, and not in a good way.

As we are now getting wildly off topic, if you want to discuss libel law

etc

further, I suggest we go to the spin list. I've copied this message there

to start

it off.

Firstly, we're not wildly off topic-- we're talking about fans, B7 and artwork, which are acceptable topics for this lyst. Secondly, I'm not interested in libel law in general, just as it pertains to fandom. And thirdly, I'm not on the spin list. So no.

Shane

"Steady on the scan, Jenna"

Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015