> > Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure some will ... but: > > I thought it was okay to take pictures in a public place and use them in > publications without any permission from the subject. Of course MacChicken > or Captain's Cook, or wherever it was, is not a public place, or is it? To > take pictures in a department store, for example, you need the > owner/manager's permission. But outside (maybe even in a fast food joint) -- > surely -- you don't need any kind of permission? It would be quite okay in > South Africa, for example, or a London street. Every day thousands of > pictures go out in newspapers. How many photographers ask Tony Bliar [not a > typo] if it's okay to publish his picture? > > Thousands of pictures are being taken in Iraq. How many of those subjects > have given their permission for them to be published? But as far as showing/ > publishing goes you've done that; and pretty thoroughly.
As has already been alluded to, the law differs greatly from country to country. But, as a gross oversimplification, use of a photographic image as part of news or current affairs coverage is almost always 'fair use', and does not require an explicit model release from every identifiable person. The rules are different for 'celebrities', too. As part of their celebrity status they actually have a lesser right to privacy than the general public. So a photograph of Tony Blair taken in a public place is usually publishable without special permission; he has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
