> ... and DAVID-M is COMPLETELY WRONG if the photograph is of
> a person, because the photographer nees a model release to
> publish it, and until the photographer has that s/he or
> his/her employer owns little..

As a photographer, I can't help but comment, and it's Friday so I'm going to
cut myself some slack :-).

In photography, artistic or commercial images of someone cannot be published
without first obtaining a signed release for you to use their image for that
purpose.   (Exceptions are made for public or newsworthy figures or certain
other journalistic uses although these are sometimes successfully
contested.)

The same applies if you paint or computer-model a real person.

A brief example of a model release is as follows (though I'm not a lawyer
and can't vouch that this will keep you from getting sued, especially in
California):

"I hereby give photographer Ronald Raymond Lussier, his
 legal representatives and assigns, the right and permission
 to publish, without charge, photographs of me, _____________________
 taken at ________________________.  These pictures may be used
 in publications, audio-visual presentations, promotional
 literature, advertising, calendars, on in any other manner."

Also regarding photo copyrights, refer to
http://www.ASMP.org/pubs/copyrightguide.html

Coyote

--                      /\_/\      ____
Ron 'Coyote' Lussier   (     )     \ _/__            Andromedia, Inc.
coyote@andromedia.com   \   /       \X  /             818 Mission St.
1.415.365.6467           \_/          \/      San Francisco, CA 94103