Carey Mulligan Vogue Cover Same As French Elle, German Glamour (PHOTOS)

Thanks to some super style sleuthing, the gals at Fashionista and Styleite have uncovered a surprising instance of "wardrobe repeat": Vogue's October 2010 cover photo, featuring a colorful Carey Mulligan in Chanel couture, appeared in nearly identical form on the covers of German Glamour (December 2010) and French Elle (November 2011).

What gives?

Fashionista wondered aloud if this is even legal, a thought that crossed our minds too -- it's one thing for a Conde Nast publication like Vogue to share with another Conde mag, like Glamour. But Elle is a whole different company -- how was this allowed?

The truth is, it's not the first time. We noticed in passing last month, when Kate Moss graced the cover of Marie Claire Australia for the November 2011 issue in a Chanel Spring 2011 feathered dress. Gorgeous pic, but just one problem: the exact same photo appeared seven months earlier on the May 2011 cover of Vogue Nippon.

Like with the Carey Mulligan mags, the two publications are owned by different corporations -- so would think there's be no sharing allowed, unless the photographer who took the pic licenses it his- or herself. But apparently sharing photos is status quo in the international magazine scene?

See the offending covers, with both Carey and Kate, below.

(Via Fashionista)

Comments

[sabelmouse]

11:34 AM on 12/09/2011

don't these mags all belong to the same publisher anyway ?

[NevaforLeadership]

11:25 AM on 12/09/2011

Has stock fashion photography become a cheaper way to do it?

[Netta Chinn]

11:12 AM on 12/09/2011

Cary - hot picture, lov'n the bangs and bob!

Kate - flawless, what a fountain of youth she has found, wooooork!!

[srh1983]

11:10 AM on 12/09/2011

I will never ever understand the issue of 'necks'. The picture on the right looks to be the least-retouched and her neck looks normal. I haven't figured out why or how it looks natural to someone when they Photoshop someone's head off and put it 2 inches closer to the shoulders.

[pdbdbol]

06:58 AM on 04/08/2012

wow great eye, i didnt even notice that. they are copying are march 1990 elaine irwin american vogue cover, her head was actually photoshop transplanted, and the hair is the same exact.

[rkeeeballs]

11:07 AM on 12/09/2011

...What is this tom-foolery ?...pulling the wool over our naive eye's ? have they no shame ?

[Seeyl8rg8r]

09:55 AM on 12/09/2011

recycling on an odd level ;)

[Knot MaFawlt]

09:39 AM on 12/09/2011

A photograph is the work product of the photographer; so why is this a story?

[listgirl3]

09:09 AM on 12/09/2011

It's just so hard to be a model, and keep posing for different mags you know....lol

[aspletter]

07:09 AM on 12/09/2011

Maybe now people will realize its all one magazine and stop buying multiples... same thing with the car magazines. Different writer names, same story, same pictures.

[aac405]

01:50 AM on 12/09/2011

At first glance, i seriously thought that was Justin Bieber.

[OhMaryOO]

09:27 AM on 12/09/2011

I see it but I really think Justin Bieber strongly resembles Rachel Maddow...

[ctslair]

11:54 PM on 12/08/2011

Yaaawwn. Who gives a rat's butt who's on the cover of yet another insipid magazine touting fake people on the cover and more pointless BS inside?

[kck1024]

09:53 PM on 12/08/2011

They're not even real, lol... what difference does it make if the fake photo ends up on different mags? It's still fake!

[snrinehart]

09:41 PM on 12/08/2011

Better question.. why is Carey significantly thinner on the Elle cover?!

[HadHuffofit]

09:31 AM on 12/09/2011

The picture on Elle is not the duplicate one. See her mouth a bit opened and her teeth exposed! That's what makes her face look thinner after she drops her jaw a bit.

[tangelan]

08:44 PM on 12/08/2011

That's just lazy.

[Knot MaFawlt]

09:43 AM on 12/09/2011

No, it's free enterprise; the photographer is getting paid for work product. Don't you wish you could get a deal that pays you multiple times for the same job?

[PJ Rypinski]

12:29 PM on 12/09/2011

Great point, wonder why this is supposed to be so "shocking".

[bmcke51010]

07:35 PM on 12/08/2011

It probably has more to do with CHANEL's clout than the model or publication!