How did the 1995 photos of melania trump resurface in later years and who owned the negatives?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Photographs of Melania Trump taken in 1995 for a French men’s magazine resurfaced publicly multiple times over the years, most prominently when the New York Post republished them in July 2016 and again when media outlets revisited her modeling history in 2022 and later coverage; the photographer Alé (Jarl Alé de Basseville) has been identified as the creator and has said the shoot took place in Manhattan in 1995 [1] [2] [3]. Reporting cites the original photographer and media outlets publishing the images; available sources do not provide a clear chain of documented ownership for the original negatives beyond the photographer’s role [2] [3].
1. How the photos first entered public view: the original shoot and credit
Photographers and contemporary reporting say the images were taken in 1995 during a Manhattan shoot by French photographer Jarl Alé de Basseville (credited as Alé de Basseville) for a European men’s magazine; that origin is cited repeatedly in news accounts of later resurfacing [3] [1]. The work was part of Melania Knauss’s modeling portfolio at the time and circulated in industry contexts before becoming grist for tabloid front pages years later [2] [4].
2. The 2016 resurfacing: tabloids and political context
The most visible reappearance occurred in July 2016 when the New York Post ran a nude photo of Melania on its cover, reporting the shoot dated to 1995 and highlighting her past modeling as the presidential campaign unfolded; U.S. outlets like The Hill and The Guardian reported the Post’s use and cited the photographer’s account of the shoot [1] [3]. That publication’s timing — during Donald Trump’s 2016 candidacy — turned archival modeling images into a political-media controversy [1].
3. Subsequent waves: 2022 and trade press revisiting modeling archives
The photos returned to broader public attention in November 2022 when outlets such as Us Weekly noted that 1995 nude modeling pictures “surfaced” in the New York Post and republished related images and interviews with the photographer; fashion and trade outlets have also run features compiling photographers’ recollections about Trump’s modeling years, underscoring that these images are long-lived elements of her public biography [2] [4]. Those pieces framed the pictures as part of an established modeling archive rather than newly discovered material [4].
4. Who “owned” the negatives — what reporting says and what it doesn’t
Reporting identifies Alé de Basseville as the photographer who took the 1995 shoot [3] [2]. However, available sources do not document a legal chain-of-title or explicit transfer of original negatives — i.e., whether the photographer retained negatives, sold them to a magazine or agency, or transferred them to another party is not stated in current reporting [2] [3]. Claims about specific ownership of physical negatives are not made in the cited articles; therefore, definitive ownership beyond authorship is not found in the provided sources [2] [3].
5. How images “resurface”: media reuse, archives and tabloid incentives
The pattern in the reporting is straightforward: archived modeling images are repeatedly licensed, republished or excerpted by tabloids and entertainment sites when public interest rises — for instance, during election cycles or when memoirs and retrospectives appear — rather than emerging from a single new discovery [1] [4]. Trade outlets and celebrity weeklies noted that photographers and magazines often keep files that can be reprinted, and tabloids exploit that commercial availability to create splash front pages [2] [4].
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas in coverage
Mainstream outlets framed the reuse of the photos as routine tabloid coverage of a public figure’s past modeling work [1] [3]. Gossip and celebrity outlets tended to sensationalize the images, while some defenders framed them as artistic model work and not politically meaningful — a stance voiced by campaign surrogates in 2016 when the Post published the pictures [2]. Readers should note tabloids’ commercial incentive to spotlight provocative material during politically fraught moments and the photographers’ and magazines’ incentive to monetize archival images [2] [1].
7. Limitations and unanswered questions
The available reporting names the photographer and traces public republication across years but stops short of documenting who physically held the original negatives at each stage or any formal sales/rights transfers; those details are absent from the sources cited here [2] [3]. For legal ownership of negatives, contracts between photographer and magazine or sale records would be needed; such documentation is not reported in the linked articles [2] [3].
If you want, I can pull together a timeline of every public republication noted in these sources or search specifically for archival/rights-transfer reporting about the negatives.