On the one hand, if a photographer takes a picture of a car in downtown Chicago, he is not obligated to find out who the architect of some random building in the background was, who paid for it, who contracted it, what was there before, and who demolished the original building, and then do a big write-up about it just to get the one photo published.

In this case, the photograph was of the army. Nobody is denying that the army looks pretty darned good with such a gorgeous Hirst Arts model behind it. But that isn't the point, and should not be made the point.

Now, on the other hand, the accompanying article would have felt more comfortable if it did not include a blurb at the beginning extolling the virtues of the particular army line, and plugging them so fervently. See, if it were just a photo meant to document the great skill and work the guy put into his army, it would just be simple journalism, and thus protected against charges of copyright infringement. The reason it feels uncomfortable to me, is that it goes beyond simple documentation, into a commercial.

Then again, Bruce uses some minis from various companies to display his own work, in a commercial capacity. He gives credit, but those entities are not under obligation to allow it. There has to be some measure of mutual courtesy for these things. We can't always get angry at the slightest provocation.