parties actions did not violate the plaintiffs’ image rights for her picture had become a public document. The plaintiff, however, was of a different view for she states that the New Vision did not own any copy right in her image even if it used her image for a news feature under the law that use is regarded as one of fair use and not for profit meaning that the New Vision did not take any economic rights in the image as alluded by the defendant and third party and as such could not transfer any such rights to a third party for in accordance to what was viewable from Exhibit D10 the third party had only a right to use the image in single usage only and not otherwise but when the same was reproduced over and over it limit of tfair usage exceeded the purposes for which the picture was requested, that is, for use of the materials as originally produced and therefore , clearly infringed on her private proprietary rights. From the arguments above, it is apparently clear to me that the issue to be resolved here is whether the plaintiff’s image rights have been infringed upon by the defendant and third party. The plaintiff’s evidence is that that she is a successful commercial farmer and a board Director in NAADS and that her a commercial farming did actually make her famous resulting into not only her being visited by the high and mighty but that she even featured in the New Vision newspaper and Etop newspapers as can be seen from Exhibits P7 and P4 were the features of the plaintiff which is not disputed by the defendant. On the other hand the also agrees that when it wanted to promote its new product known as ‘Agro Save Account’ it engaged the services of the third party herein to develop a concept which would promote the product with the third party proceeding to develop the same using