There are two unique and separate rights involved when publishing a photograph in advertising.
The first is copyright, this belongs to the person who created the artwork: the photographer. The creator can at his own discretion license or extremely rarely in the case of a family portrait transfer the copyright to you. If the studio licenses the photograph to you they can use the photograph for their own use, including advertising so long as complies to the second right.
The second right belongs to the subject(s) of the photograph and that is one of likeness. Unlike copyright which is rather clear cut, since likeness rights are ones of privacy and can be a lot more fuzzy. Typically speaking the photograph would need to clearly identify you and there would have to be an expectation of privacy. If you signed any contracts with the photographer, I would check your copies for a model / likeness release. If you cannot find one in your copies requesting a copy of your signed release from the studio would likely be the first step in resolving this matter.
***********
Yes, so if you are worried about your privacy always ask to buy the copyright to the photos and buy the negatives. There is no legal remedy for you because whoever takes the picture has the exclusive copyright of the image unless you buy it from them. Hopethis helps!
***********
If you did not consent, I would say no, and virtually no photographer will ever sell you the rights to his work. Most likely, you consented without realizing it. Check your agreement/contract that you must have signed before the photo session took place and discuss your concerns with the studio. If you did not consent in any way, (i.e. there is no contract), it was in poor taste to use your image without consulting you first. In this case, if you object civilly, you may be able to get the advertising suspended or be compensated for it. In the case of Photography, copyright ownership prevents the client from reproducing any images created so as to avoid further payment for work done. It does not mean the photographer has carte blanche to use the images any way he sees fit. Most standard contracts stipulate that the studio retains the right to promote, use, alter, etc. as they see fit.
Generally not, although there are some exceptions.
Not necessarily, if it was just a general picure of people in a crowd. However, if the photo is to be used commercially (or in ANY money-making-type of endeavor) you MUST obtain a "release" from them allowing you to use. it.
if it can be shown that the photograph was used to make a profit, sue the magazine for violating your copyrighted piece of artwork. If the photograph is strictly for educational purposes and there is no profiteering involved whatsoever, than it falls under the "fair use" laws and it can be used and reproduced for educational purposes; even distributed to large groups of people in a classroom situation without any compensation provided to the photographer.
"Without your permission" is a phrase. It is commonly used to describe actions or events that occur without one's approval or consent.
State and Federal law permit law enforcement personnel to photograph and fingerprint persons that are under arrest or imprisoned for the purposes of identification. It cannot be used for other purposes without the permission of the subject.
A tracker list on the internet is used to find out what different websites a person is visiting. Most of the time is it used without the person's permission and installed without knowledge or permission.
My ATM card was used at three stores totaling about $400 without my permission. The envelope was opened by someone and they used it without my knowledge until today and without my permission. What can I do? What will happen to the person who used it?
No
If you enter without permission, yes, or it may be a criminal trespass. The key, used without permission, is simply a burglar's tool.
Use of protected material without permission or an exemption in the law is called infringement.
No portion of these may be used without permission beyond the permission given with the purchase of the media.
If intellectual propert is used without permission from the owner or an exemption in the law, this is known as infringement: the user is infringing on the owner's exclusive rights. Infringement comes from the Latin for "to break."
By the strict letter of the law yes it would be an infringement if you used the photograph without permission. Although you own the property in question the photographer owns the rights to his expression of that property.