What legal precedents exist for controlling re-publication of decades‑old modeling photos?

1. Copyright ownership often controls reproduction, not likeness use

Courts start with copyright: the photographer (or whoever holds the copyright) generally controls reproduction and public display of the photograph regardless of how old the image is, until copyright expires and the work enters the public domain ^[4]. That ownership gives strong exclusive rights against unauthorized copying or public display under the Copyright Act, and historic cases in photography underscore that copyright, not personality concerns, is the baseline legal lever to stop republication ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Model releases and contracts are the clearest private‑law limit

When a model signed a release or license, that contract typically defines what republication is permitted; commercial uses are commonly carved out and require explicit consent, while editorial uses are often allowed without a release ^{[5] [6]}. Practically, commercial licensing regimes and stock agencies insist on releases precisely because a release is the simplest, enforceable control a model can have over later uses of decades‑old images ^{[6] [1]}.

3. Rights of publicity and privacy can block commercial repurposing

Independent of copyright, models (especially in U.S. states that recognize robust publicity rights) can sue to stop commercial exploitation of their likeness — advertising, endorsements, or uses presented as promotional — even if the photograph is old and the photographer owns the image ^{[1] [7]}. These personality rights vary widely by state and country and typically do not prevent editorial or newsworthy uses, which is why many disputes turn on labeling the use “editorial” versus “commercial” ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Fair use and “transformative” defenses have been narrowed by recent precedents

Defendants relying on fair use to republish or transform old photos face a more constrained landscape after courts emphasized that “transformative” character is not dispositive and must be weighed with other factors; high‑profile disputes over photographic appropriation illustrate limits on claiming free reuse simply by altering or repurposing the image ^[3]. The Ninth Circuit’s technical “server test” on online display (Perfect 10) and circuit splits over embedding also demonstrate that republication via the web can raise specialized copyright display issues ^[3].

5. Age of the photo matters only if copyright has expired or contract limits remain

Decades‑old status only matters legally when the photograph has moved into the public domain — at which point the original copyright holder loses statutory control — or when contractual releases still govern permitted uses; absent those, moral or reputational arguments have limited legal bite in many jurisdictions ^{[4] [2]}. Reporting and legal guides stress that public‑domain status, publication history, and when and what releases were signed are decisive facts that courts will examine ^{[4] [1]}.

6. Practical implications and jurisdictional uncertainty

Because model‑release law, rights of publicity, and copyright durations differ across jurisdictions, the practical precedent is fragmentation: photographers often retain copyright control unless the work is public domain, while models retain publicity rights against commercial reuse and releases can contractually limit uses — but outcomes turn on local law and specific contracts, and courts have not produced a single, uniform rule that gives models blanket control over decades‑old images ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Sources consulted emphasize that litigation trends (copyright cases, publicity suits, and contract enforcement) are the primary paths shaping precedent today ^{[3] [1]}.