"If the artist objects the photographer can't use that photo. It's also the same with other objects. For example photos of the effiel tower at night isn't allowed here, because thats what the owners of the tower have said."

* *

So*,* if you have a tattoo, you can't publish a photograph of yourself if the 'artist' objects? Not saying it isn't so, but I'd like to see how long the 'artist' would remain in business. I would also like to see the court ultimately uphold such a ruling. Similarly, I would like to see the tower folks staru suing tourists for putting their photos online.

As they say, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich and you can get a lawyer to come up with any patently absurd clause you want. What is ultimately deemed legal or illegal boils down to money and little to do with reason or morality Whoevr has the best lawyers, the most well funded lobby, the most powerful pols in their pocket - they usually win. If you don't have large amounts of money and the willingness to spend it then just tuck your head in and go for the safest course.

 

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken