I agree, indeed, but I still find it strange that someone would use such a photo on the cover of a DVD. The photo itself is copyrighted so I don't think you could legally use a copyrighted image photoshopped by an amateur and if it wasn't an official version, and it probably wasn't, there could be no official permission. But maybe I just give it far too much thought All in all, I agree, it must have been done by an amateur.
--Previous Message-- : My guess is, by an amateur - the photo is from : an 80s fashion shoot where a tiara would not : have been worn anyway, and one poster above : actually imagines the original without it. : 1980s costume jewelry is bad enough (the : earrings) but adding a tiara that's neither : a Grimaldi one nor a good match here nor : particularly appealing in itself points : towards not only an amateur, but an amateur : lacking in taste. : : --Previous Message-- : I keep thinking about the fact that the : photo : was quite obviously photoshopped. I wonder : whether it was done in an : "official" way by a studio or a : professional at the very beginning or simply : by an amateur who made it available online : and the circulation started that way. The : fact that someone used it on the cover of a : DVD box would suggest that the photo, as it : is, should be available through a photo : agency of some sort as it wouldn't be legal : to use a photo simply found on Google, I : guess. On the other hand, why on Earth would : someone photoshop an image if it was quite : easily possible to actually take a : photograph of Princess Stephanie WEARING a : tiara if that was necessary. Unless she : suffers from a tiara allergy : : :