Pixel Frame Studios wrote:
hmmm interesting one...  i wish you luck LOl sound sliek ittl be a blood bath

I hope it is not a trainwreck or blood bath. I hope the smarter ones who have been shooting a long time like me can clear things up and shed some light on the topic and ignore the jerks who will find their way into this thread.

I am very curious about this after hearing on the news this morning aout the vodoo doll and other cases in the past. I always thought we could use ones likeness in anyway however laws do change so I was curious is there an actual law, federal or state that states something about likeness usage or something to that affect.

Not that I would ever disrespect a model and use her image in a way she would not want it to be used, just curious to why people say the model owns his/her likeness when so many cases are shot down in courts. Really got me curious cause to me that vodoo doll was not even an image, I could see with the case of Vanessa Williams cause she agreed to be photographed in a lesbian act and one must think before being photographed however usage of a vodoo doll to me would violate some kind of likeness usage here in the USA, wouldn't it?

Pixel Frame Studios wrote:
hmmm interesting one...  i wish you luck LOl sound sliek ittl be a blood bath

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
I hope it is not a trainwreck or blood bath. I hope the smarter ones who have been shooting a long time like me can clear things up and shed some light on the topic and ignore the jerks who will find their way into this thread.

I am very curious about this after hearing on the news this morning aout the vodoo doll and other cases in the past. I always thought we could use ones likeness in anyway however laws do change so I was curious is there an actual law, federal or state that states something about likeness usage or something to that affect.

Not that I would ever disrespect a model and use her image in a way she would not want it to be used, just curious to why people say the model owns his/her likeness when so many cases are shot down in courts. Really got me curious cause to me that vodoo doll was not even an image, I could see with the case of Vanessa Williams cause she agreed to be photographed in a lesbian act and one must think before being photographed however usage of a vodoo doll to me would violate some kind of likeness usage here in the USA, wouldn't it?

The answer is quite simple – depends on the state/province, country and the terms of the release (and possibly contract).

JuxtaPhotos wrote:
Ah look who it is.... so micyl, what did ever happen to those 'prizes' for that photography contest you put on last year....

Do I know you and what photography contest? please keep on topic. You must have me confused with someone else. Feel free to PM me if you like cause I have no clue to what you are talking about, will not discuss anything here that is not on topic.

Barney D - FSP wrote:
A model does not really "own" their likeness so much as they have a right to privacy. The law is kind of ambiguous though.

A model release is just written permission to do what would otherwise be considered invasion of privacy. One point of interest though, is that it doesn't apply to magazines/newspapers/news reports but anything else it generally does.

The general rule is that if it's for a magazine/etc. it can be used without permission because it's news, but for bilboards/banner ads/report covers or anything else that isn't "news" then it's an invasion of privacy.

Hope that helps.

kind of makes sense however wouldn't the photos such as those of Vanessa Williams be considered invasion of privacy since Penthouse is not considered a news magazine?

So let me see if I am getting this, there are no laws concerning the actual usage of ones likeness yet it can fall under right to privacy laws. Am I on track?

I am not sayng I am thinking of using ones likeness in a vulgar way or anything cause I am not, I always do model releases and contracts and the model and I come to agreeable terms. I was just curious since I saw that on the news today about the vodoo doll of the president of france and wonder how things apply to the photography world as far as a model owning or not owning their likeness. Hopefully help some people with this thread also who may be a little uncertian like I am.

Creative Image wrote:
This is much more complicated than has been written here, and is covered in detail in the various posts of model releases.

well we do not have to get all complicated and so on, I think we can make it more general so myself and others can get the point and useful info. I am thinking more of how models think they own their likeness no matter what.

If anyone knows of any threads that cover  from the legal aspect feel free to link them here.

Ray Holyer wrote:
You might also like to consider that different countries have different laws.

true however I live in the USA so wondering about it here more than somewhere else even though that vodoo doll is what got me thinking, look out I am thinking and curious

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
kind of makes sense however wouldn't the photos such as those of Vanessa Williams be considered invasion of privacy since Penthouse is not considered a news magazine?

You can bet that the images of Vanessa W had a model release attached to them.
I believe that she argued that she signed the release believing that the photographer had only shot silhouette images of her. (the release could conceivably be declared invalid if deception was proven)

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
From what I can tell photographers  own the rights to all images and can use them in anyway they want unless it is stated differently in a model release, contract, etc.

People confuse image copyrights with rights to use an individual's image.
What exactly do you think the model release is for???

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
I am just curious as to why people think models own their likeness, where does that come from.

Chris Macan wrote:
What exactly do you think the model release is for???

Exactly the right question.  And I have no idea how Mr. Sweeney would answer it, since a release seems to serve no purpose if the model doesn't have rights to use of her image.

In part this question arises from sloppy research by Mr. Sweeney:

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Take the case of Vanessa Williams and the Penthouse photos, she challenged it in court and lost so if a model owns the rights to her likeness then how come Penthouse could print those photos and the courts ruled for Penthouse.

Because she signed a freaking release!!!!!

Sometimes litigation is threatened even when a release exists, as was the case of Vanessa Williams.  In 1986, the former Miss America dropped a $400 million lawsuit against Penthouse magazine and two photographers – she had, years earlier, signed a model’s release for the nude pictures, which resulted in her relinquishing her crown under pressure.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jQhxvB … &ct=result

Partly it is because Mr. Sweeney looks at bottom line outcomes and does not consider the reason for the outcome.  Consider the issue of President Bush controlling his image.  Think about that one for a while.  Think hard.  Can you, perhaps, find a reason why he may not be able to have control over his image, but other people can?  If not, think harder.

And partly it is because Mr. Sweeney has never actually looked at a law that grants models rights to their images.  That in itself is astounding, given the number of posts he has made making claims about the law, and how many times he has told us of the excellence of his attorney.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
I get tired of people saying models own their likeness in an image thus we have to agree on how we use their image. I have failed to find any law stating this, what I do find is the photograpehr owns all the rights of the image and can use the image in anyway possible unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. . . .

Did I overlook some law when searching?

Please, Mr. Sweeney, read a few of these, since you are unable, apparently, to find them on your own:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/c … -3346.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind … 08#0540.08

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/il … licity+Act

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/t … 6/ch1.html

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/391-00/170.PDF

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/214-3a.htm

http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002002000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002004000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002003000

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-597. … S597Sec770

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2741

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 9-1-28.HTM
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 1-28.1.HTM

http://www.preslaw.net/prpa.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/p … 26.00.html

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE45/htm/45_03_000300.htm

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 … od+8.01-40

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.050

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0995.pdf

TXPhotog wrote:

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
I am just curious as to why people think models own their likeness, where does that come from.

Chris Macan wrote:
What exactly do you think the model release is for???

Exactly the right question.  And I have no idea how Mr. Sweeney would answer it, since a release seems to serve no purpose if the model doesn't have rights to use of her image.

In part this question arises from sloppy research by Mr. Sweeney:

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Take the case of Vanessa Williams and the Penthouse photos, she challenged it in court and lost so if a model owns the rights to her likeness then how come Penthouse could print those photos and the courts ruled for Penthouse.

Because she signed a freaking release!!!!!

Sometimes litigation is threatened even when a release exists, as was the case of Vanessa Williams.  In 1986, the former Miss America dropped a $400 million lawsuit against Penthouse magazine and two photographers – she had, years earlier, signed a model’s release for the nude pictures, which resulted in her relinquishing her crown under pressure.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jQhxvB … &ct=result

Partly it is because Mr. Sweeney looks at bottom line outcomes and does not consider the reason for the outcome.  Consider the issue of President Bush controlling his image.  Think about that one for a while.  Think hard.  Can you, perhaps, find a reason why he may not be able to have control over his image, but other people can?  If not, think harder.

And partly it is because Mr. Sweeney has never actually looked at a law that grants models rights to their images.  That in itself is astounding, given the number of posts he has made making claims about the law, and how many times he has told us of the excellence of his attorney.


Please, Mr. Sweeney, read a few of these, since you are unable, apparently, to find them on your own:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/c … -3346.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind … 08#0540.08

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/il … licity+Act

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/t … 6/ch1.html

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/391-00/170.PDF

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/214-3a.htm

http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002002000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002004000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002003000

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-597. … S597Sec770

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2741

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 9-1-28.HTM
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 1-28.1.HTM

http://www.preslaw.net/prpa.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/p … 26.00.html

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE45/htm/45_03_000300.htm

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 … od+8.01-40

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.050

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0995.pdf

geez Roger you didn't have to make it so personal
I appreciate the links
I did not consult my attorney cause I have no reason to, I was just curious about this and figured people would chime in with some good helpful comments.

Yes Roger I know what a model release is for however there seems to be alot of models who claim they have a right to how the images are used no matter what cause it is their likeness so I was wondering even if a model release is agreed upon do they have a legit claim under privacy laws like someone else stated. No I am not being sued if so I'd be talking to my attorney, no I do not plan on using anothers image against what is agreed upon in release. I just saw that on tv and it got me thinking and figured those here like you would know more about it.

Yeah after I read what you said about Bush, DOH cause he is a public figure. He made his life public and threw himself to the wolves.

Geez Roger give me a break I am not that bad of a guy
I was hoping you would chime in cause you research things alot deeper than most and find things we cannot. One thing or sure, you are great at researching things and I appreciate you chiming in.

TXPhotog wrote:

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
I am just curious as to why people think models own their likeness, where does that come from.

Chris Macan wrote:
What exactly do you think the model release is for???

Exactly the right question.  And I have no idea how Mr. Sweeney would answer it, since a release seems to serve no purpose if the model doesn't have rights to use of her image.

In part this question arises from sloppy research by Mr. Sweeney:

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Take the case of Vanessa Williams and the Penthouse photos, she challenged it in court and lost so if a model owns the rights to her likeness then how come Penthouse could print those photos and the courts ruled for Penthouse.

Because she signed a freaking release!!!!!

Sometimes litigation is threatened even when a release exists, as was the case of Vanessa Williams.  In 1986, the former Miss America dropped a $400 million lawsuit against Penthouse magazine and two photographers – she had, years earlier, signed a model’s release for the nude pictures, which resulted in her relinquishing her crown under pressure.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jQhxvB … &ct=result

Partly it is because Mr. Sweeney looks at bottom line outcomes and does not consider the reason for the outcome.  Consider the issue of President Bush controlling his image.  Think about that one for a while.  Think hard.  Can you, perhaps, find a reason why he may not be able to have control over his image, but other people can?  If not, think harder.

And partly it is because Mr. Sweeney has never actually looked at a law that grants models rights to their images.  That in itself is astounding, given the number of posts he has made making claims about the law, and how many times he has told us of the excellence of his attorney.


Please, Mr. Sweeney, read a few of these, since you are unable, apparently, to find them on your own:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/c … -3346.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind … 08#0540.08

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/il … licity+Act

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/t … 6/ch1.html

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/391-00/170.PDF

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/214-3a.htm

http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002002000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002004000
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/QS/law … 2002003000

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-597. … S597Sec770

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2741

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 9-1-28.HTM
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/T … 1-28.1.HTM

http://www.preslaw.net/prpa.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/txcodes/p … 26.00.html

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE45/htm/45_03_000300.htm

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 … od+8.01-40

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.050

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0995.pdf

I took the time to read your links.

so let me make sure I got this right.

Copyright dictates ownership of the images from being reproduced without written permission and also dictates that the images can be used non-commericially if there is no model release or contract signed and agreed upon otherwise, like if someone did a shoot without a model release and then posted the images in their MM port then the model has no claim to the likeness/usage law howewer even though there was no model release the photographer still cannot use them for commericial purposes with the exception of news mediums and the like.

to me model releases are so vague as how the courts will interpet them as opposed to contracts so I was thinking of doing away with model releases and just using contracts for all shoots even TF. Seems some courts can have issues with model releases compared to contracts. I know model releases dictate usage and blah blah however it seems to me that they do not carry much wieght in the courts as contracts do.

Kind of like with my real estate business, we have buyer agreements that are signed by the buyer with specifics conditions such as a model release yet they carry little wieght like an actual contract does. Seems it is easier for one to back down or argue a buyers agreement then it is a contract and I was wondering if the same is true with model releases, that they are more of an agreement not an actual contract so the weight they carry is arguable in a court of law, that judges could rule either way in the case of a dispute with a model release cause it is more of an agreement and not a binding contract.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
like if someone did a shoot without a model release and then posted the images in their MM port then the model has no claim to the likeness/usage law

Careful.  That has multiple issues.  1) Publishing on the web is considered publishing by the Director of the Copyright Office, but that is only guidance, not a legal opinion because there isn't any case law on this specific point (that I've heard of).  2) An MM portfolio could be considered commercial promotion and hence advertising if the user is running a photography business.  This is different from showing a print to people in person, which you can do without a release of almost any picture you make (except obvious exceptions like intentionally defaming the person).

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
to me model releases are so vague as how the courts will interpet them as opposed to contracts so I was thinking of doing away with model releases and just using contracts for all shoots even TF. Seems some courts can have issues with model releases compared to contracts. I know model releases dictate usage and blah blah however it seems to me that they do not carry much wieght in the courts as contracts do.

Legalisticly, a model release might be termed a contract, especially where law requires "consideration received", but don't lose sight of the fact that it is best to separate the release from the contract you make with the model for the photo session.  Licensees of the image will need to see the release but not the contract which will contain the business details between you and the model.

A release with reference to "consideration received" is an implied contract, in that the consideration given by the photographer to the model (prints/CD/money) is an action that fulfills a requirement for action by the second party (where law requres it).  However, in many cases a simple release is all that is required and it only takes one person, the model, to sign such a release.  The model is releasing their hold over their rights and granting it to another party.  Think of a Grant Deed in real estate, which only the owner has to sign to sign over property to some other entity.

I am not a lawyer.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
I took the time to read your links.

so let me make sure I got this right.

No, you didn't get it right.  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take your question to your attorney and ask him.  You know, the guy who has "never lost a case" that you told us about before.  If he's half as good as you claim about these things he can explain it to you.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Copyright dictates ownership of the images from being reproduced without written permission and also dictates that the images can be used non-commericially if there is no model release or contract signed and agreed upon otherwise,

No.  Wrong.  Copyright has nothing at all to do with the issue of using a model's likeness.  Above I gave you lots of links to relevant laws.  None of them had anything to do with copyright.  They are entirely separate concepts, from different legal sources.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
like if someone did a shoot without a model release and then posted the images in their MM port then the model has no claim to the likeness/usage law

Wrong again.  PLEASE CONSULT YOUR LAWYER.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
howewer even though there was no model release the photographer still cannot use them for commericial purposes with the exception of news mediums and the like.

An over-simplification, by quite a bit.  It is not true that news media can always use a person's picture without a release.  In some states there is no settled law on the issue of whether he can use a model's image at all.  Despite your stated desire for simplicity, it's not that simple. 

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
to me model releases are so vague as how the courts will interpet them as opposed to contracts

To you the whole concept of a model's right to control her image was "so vague" that you had to start this thread.  So it's not all that surprising that you find other things "so vague".  PLEASE CONSULT YOUR LAWYER. 

Most releases are written as contracts (although, despite occasional protestations, they do not have to be).  Sometimes it is legally preferable NOT to have the release in the form of a contract, other times it is preferable to use a contract form.  You do not understand the distinction you are making; please do not draw (or worse, express on the forum) any more conclusions about them.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
so I was thinking of doing away with model releases and just using contracts for all shoots even TF.

I was going to ask you what you thought the difference was between a release and a contract, but I know better than to ask you.  We would just devolve into another discussion of misconceptions that really don't need to be aired on the forum.  Again, since you don't understand the difference, if any, between "a model release" and "a contract", please don't make any decisions - much less recommendations on the forum - without talking to your lawyer.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Seems some courts can have issues with model releases compared to contracts. I know model releases dictate usage and blah blah however it seems to me that they do not carry much wieght in the courts as contracts do.

I have absolutely no idea why you would think this, or say it.  And I don't want to know.

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:

I don't agree that models should write their own model releases. If a model release needs to be signed, it's the photographer's (or client's) job to make it clear to the model(s) what the purpose of the photoshoot is - and to make it also very clear in the written model release.

But I do agree that models need to be careful about what they are signing and who they are shooting with. I also agree that models should be paid for projects requiring a commercial release. Photos being provided to models in lieu of monetary compensation is a bunch of BS if you ask me.

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
As a photographer you own the copyrights.. You can sell them if you want.

Yes, but some sales will put you in legal jeopardy.

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
The problem comes with publishing.. Without the models consent the image cannot be published in any way. (Unless they are a celebrity or the images is "News worthy" in which case a whole nother set of rules aply)

False.  Perhaps some Gentle Reader can elaborate.

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
That is why you need the model release...

Well, you might or might not, depending on the circumstances, the location, and what you intend to do with the images.

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
I highly recomend to models that they write their own and make you sign it that states you can only do whatever it is you agreed upon..  ie, portfolio and self promotion.. specialy if it is a TF shoot..

Oh God!  Another one!  Good grief!  Where do these guys come from?

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
If you want to be able to do whatever the hell you want with the images, your paperwork had better say that and you had better be paying her

Better be paying her?  Who says?  Is this some New Rule that you have discovered in the depths of the cosmos?  Perhaps something written on stone tablets somewhere?  Whence cometh this "rule" you speak of?

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
This post is only going to re-enforce why models should be carefull who they shoot with...

Well, yes.  Anyone who runs around telling models that they need to provide a release of their own for the photographers to sign is definitely someone not to shoot with.  Beware White Knights bearing cautionary tales!

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
From what I can tell photographers  own the rights to all images and can use them in anyway they want unless it is stated differently in a model release, contract, etc.

Sounds good. Just go with that.

Kelly Watkins wrote:
I also agree that models should be paid for projects requiring a commercial release. Photos being provided to models in lieu of monetary compensation is a bunch of BS if you ask me.

A little thought experiment:

It's hard for models to get good, professionally useful commercial/lifestyle image.  Very few photographers know how to do them, and those that do tend not to do them for free.

So, as our experiment, let's suppose that Suzy M. goes to a commercial agency, they like her, and give her a list of approved test photographers to shoot with.  She talks to all of them.  Every one wants to charge her at least $500 for the shoot.  She doesn't have anything like that kind of money.

But one photographer - a well-known commercial and fashion shooter, who she meets in person, decides that he will pay her $500 for a day of shooting stock - which includes the sort of commercial/lifestyle images she needs for her agency, but will charge her $500 for those pictures.  That nets out to "no money changes hands" ("no monetary compensation"). 

So is this offer "a bunch of BS"?  Should Suzy turn it down and wait six months to start her modeling career while she saves up for professional pictures?  Or should she take the deal, and get her agency modeling started right away?

Let us further assume that she takes the deal, and in the next two months books agency work worth $5,000 based on the comp card made from her pictures.  Was signing a commercial (stock) release really "a bunch of BS"?  She is way ahead of where she would be because she took the "no monetary compensation" deal.

/thought experiment

Blanket statements of what "must" or "should" happen when people decide to bargain among themselves are necessarily overbroad, if not flat wrong.   It's between them, and the circumstances can be wildly variant, causing wildly variant good outcomes from the bargaining.

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
XTPhotog..  You are just a dick

I'm not even going to argue with you, but you are a dick.

You are wise not to argue.  Your advice sucks, and name-calling doesn't make it suck less.

TXPhotog wrote:

You are wise not to argue.  Your advice sucks, and name-calling doesn't make it suck less.

With almost 18k posts I would say you spend alot of time TALKING..  So keep talking,  I'm going to go get some work done

Essence Digital Imaging wrote:
With almost 18k posts I would say you spend alot of time TALKING..  So keep talking,  I'm going to go get some work done

Ah, the post count argument.  The consistent refuge of people who are losing an argument, are out of ideas, and even name-calling hasn't worked.  It's the classic loser's gambit.  Too bad you had to use it so soon in the conversation.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Excuse me for butting in, but ... I wonder if the OP knows the definition of the word "Likeness?"

Given that this thread seems to be about revisiting each and every point ever brought up in all 500 release threads in the last six months, that's an excellent question.  So, how about it?

ei Total Productions wrote:
Excuse me for butting in, but ... I wonder if the OP knows the definition of the word "Likeness?"

LOL..I was thinking that as well..

here ya go..

LIKENESS:
1.  The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.
2. An imitative appearance; a semblance.
3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image.
Synonyms: likeness, similarity, similitude, resemblance, analogy, affinity
These nouns denote agreement or conformity. Likeness implies close agreement: It was your uncanny likeness to my brother that made me stare at you.
Similarity and similitude suggest agreement only in some respects or to some degree: They were drawn to each other by similarity of interests. "A striking similitude between the brother and sister now first arrested my attention" Edgar Allan Poe.
Resemblance refers to similarity in external or superficial details: "The child . . . bore a remarkable resemblance to her grandfather" Lytton Strachey.
Analogy is similarity, as of properties or functions, between things that are otherwise not comparable: The operation of a computer presents an interesting analogy to the working of the human brain.
Affinity is likeness deriving from kinship or from the possession of shared properties or sympathies: Being an orphan, she felt an affinity with other parentless children.

TXPhotog wrote:

Given that this thread seems to be about revisiting each and every point ever brought up in all 500 release threads in the last six months, that's an excellent question.  So, how about it?

Alas, my model just walked in 45 minutes late and I have to shoot.  But it would be fun to explain this to him.  Thanks for passing me the football.  I should have kept my mouth closed.  Now I will have to post something cogent after I shoot.

MindyMichelle wrote:
LOL..I was thinking that as well..

here ya go..

LIKENESS:
1.  The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.
2. An imitative appearance; a semblance.
3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image.
Synonyms: likeness, similarity, similitude, resemblance, analogy, affinity
These nouns denote agreement or conformity. Likeness implies close agreement: It was your uncanny likeness to my brother that made me stare at you.
Similarity and similitude suggest agreement only in some respects or to some degree: They were drawn to each other by similarity of interests. "A striking similitude between the brother and sister now first arrested my attention" Edgar Allan Poe.
Resemblance refers to similarity in external or superficial details: "The child . . . bore a remarkable resemblance to her grandfather" Lytton Strachey.
Analogy is similarity, as of properties or functions, between things that are otherwise not comparable: The operation of a computer presents an interesting analogy to the working of the human brain.
Affinity is likeness deriving from kinship or from the possession of shared properties or sympathies: Being an orphan, she felt an affinity with other parentless children.

Nice try, but no cigar.  This is a classic case of where the word, as used in the law and interpreted by the courts, is quite different from the dictionary definition.

Next?