Legal issue

just my unqualified opinion..

you mean like a scan, or a photocopy.. for personal NFP use/reference.
i guess that is maybe ok :-/? .. or do you mean a photo you can then claim as your
own intellectual property? this i would strongly doubt.

although..taking a picture of someone reading a newspaper with JFK or MLK on the
front page ..that's a debate that could be interesting to follow. who owns that?
the person shown is not defamed, and let's say you are not depriving them of
revenue...

 

Because someone shows up in a magazine does not mean you can take their picture and use it however you want.

Brad Pitt shows up in magazines regularly and you can take just about any picture of him and use them because he is a celebrity. Just don't sneak in to his bathroom and take a picture of him in the shower. You may make more money from the picture than you would spend on the lawsuit and damages but I doubt it.

Model X also shows up in magazines but unless model X is a super famous model, I wouldn't take model X's picture and publish it with no compensation to the model. After all, it is the way models make a living.

That was my answer to what I think is a badly asked question.

My serious answer: No.

Any image (photo or otherwise) in a magazine, newspaper, ad, etc, etc, is copyrighted. And to use it you would have to pay a usage fee.

There is only one way to use such an image for free: in a collage.

I cannot tell you what today's collages rules are (it's been too long) but they were based on the percentage of the original image used. Past a certain percentage (and it was not very big), it was not a collage.

You have two options: research today's collage rules very carefully or don't use someone else's image.

 

Actually, from what I remember, this is not debatable in the USA (where I live and mostly photograph.) Same rule applies as in the collage equation.

 

so you want a picture of michael jacksons death in the newspaper, and in the same shot, the album cover for thriller...

what's the application?

 

that makes sense to me.