permission to run a photo of a famous person?

My magazine is planning to run a picture of a guy posing with a big Hollywood star. However, we're waiting on approval from the star's publicist, for some reason.

It makes no sense to me. I don't know why we need approval to run a picture of a public figure.

This is a corporate magazine, by the way, so I suppose technically it's marketing material. Maybe that's why.

 

probably depends in what way to got the photo.

 

ONLY WAY I SEE 'permission' being necessary is if the pic is being used as some sort of advertisement for the mag or any product. if it's just art to go with a story, like a piece on the person the celeb is pictured with, no 'permission' is required, far as i know. sounds bizarre...

 

Corporate mag is the key there. I'd imagine the famous person would have a pretty good tort if his/her image was on Jonso Corp.'s publication without permission. It's like being on a Wheaties box.

 

I've since found out that this picture was taken by the movie studio, not the private individual, so the studio owns the shot.

 

so..... NEVER MIND.

yes?

 

Yeah, makes sense now. I had assumed someone took the picture for this guy on his personal camera and it belonged to him. Apparently not.