The New York Post was all too gleeful to share a stash of Ashley Alexandra Dupre photos last week. Then, over the weekend, it issued this notice to web publishers: “First, if you linked to our photo gallery Friday of Ashley ‘Kristen’ Dupre, thank you. Second, we wanted to let you know that our rights to those photos expired tonight so the link no longer works. We apologize if this causes any problems for you.”

Who gets to claim rights to Dupre’s photos? The media at large might argue: nobody. The girl’s connection to Eliot Spitzer makes her newsworthy, as do photos of her; they’re not just pretty visualizations of who was doing “unsafe” acts with the ex-governor (as of today!), but what they offer as photo evidence is worth talking about, making the pics themselves newsworthy.

In the case of the Post, the snaps were taken by photographer Wesley Mann; he licensed them to the tabloid. But do they hold newsworthy value? Absolutely: The photos themselves have become the news story.

But in a blanket argument, Dupre’s attorney Don Buchwald says he’ll go after anyone who published photos of her, even those taken from her MySpace page. He argues: “While the circumstances surrounding Governor Spitzer’s resignation are newsworthy, some publications, in violation of journalistic norms, have used the occasion of Gov. Spitzer’s political misfortunes as an excuse to exploit Ms. Dupre’s persona for commercial purposes.”

The Associated Press, meanwhile, isn’t agreeing. Says the wire service in a statement: “The Associated Press discussed the photos obtained from the MySpace page in great detail and found that they were newsworthy. We distributed the photos that were relevant to the story. Those photos did not show nudity, nor were they explicit.”

Funny, because isn’t this the same Associated Press who routinely goes after publishers who run their photos without permission, no matter how newsworthy the pics?