Geoegress: Not that I agree with him, but I think Web Hunter's problem is with your signature, not your comments.

Otherwise: Why any artist would be surprised that the corporate hogs would have "protected" reproductions of photographs is beyond me. Keep in mind that if you "use" a photo in FaceShop you are not using the actual photo, you are using a reproduction of the photo in a medium that is fundamentally different than the original (analog photo, digital repro). In other words, your repro is as much an original as the protected photo. Yours is a capture of the photo, the photo is a capture of some scene. This is copyright gone rabid, and it needs to be put down, just like a rabid dog.

To answer the obviously frivolous questions above, yes, once the corporate lawyers get to it, you will need to pay a royalty to the corporate gluttons running the Indonesian sweatshops where the sweater was made if you want to photograph someone wearing it. After all, the human is just a person. The sweater is anti-intellectual property. Its instance may be longer to the "person," but its eternally marketable essense belongs to the corporation (not, please note, to the other, ancillary human who designed it, unless he had the wisdom to incorporate and has better lawyers than Monsanto). Welcome to the world of modern art.

But hey, it's R'osity's ball, and their bat, and their bases, and their chalk, and their field. And their buy-in to the greedy corporatization of art. So live with it.

M