Apparently Palin covered all her bases and handled the transaction with Runner’s World perfectly and Newsweek and this unethical photographer just decided to ignore the written contract he had with Runner’s World. They should sue them both for all they’re worth.
Why do you assume this? If this was the case wouldn't Palin and her camp state the pics were used in violation of her contract with RW ALONG with calling them sexist?
Generally when involving a celebrity like Palin, contracts give them the right of approval on how images taken and used during the initial project are used later on. The reasons for this are obvious, one might not want their pic showing up on say, a porn video.
RW has stated the photog they commissioned to take the pics of Palin violated THEIR contract WITH HIM in that they were to be embargoed for one year (which means Newsweek could have legally bought and used for their front page after that time absent any legal considerations on Palins contract with RW).
But my confusion still remains. Why didn't Palin state up front that using the pics was a violation of her contract with RW, or even Newsweek?