maverick75 wrote in post #15147789
It depends on the city you're in, everyone has different laws.
No, it doesn't. That particular area is a matter of the First Amendment, and it's been hashed out in the Supreme Court. The Constitutional concept is "free expression" which includes both journalism and art.
Ever heard of the "Girls Gone Wild" videos? Maybe you've seen the ads on late-night television. If not, you can Google it.
Guess what: The producer had no model releases. One woman sued him and lost. The court ruled no model release was needed to include the plaintiff’s image in the “Girls Gone Wild” video as long as her image/likeness was not used to promote another product or service.
The states have crafted their privacy laws around the Constitution, being careful not to limit an artist's Constitutional right to free expression except specifically in the promotion of another product or service.
Look at the case of photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia.
In 2006, a New York trial court issued a ruling in a case involving one of his photographs. One of diCorcia's New York random subjects was Ermo Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew who objected on religious grounds to diCorcia's publishing in an artistic exhibition a photograph taken of him without his permission. The photo's subject argued that his privacy and religious rights had been violated by both the taking and publishing of the photograph of him. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the photograph taken of Nussenzweig on a street is art - not commerce - and therefore is protected by the First Amendment.
Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Judith J. Gische ruled that the photo of Nussenzweig—a head shot showing him sporting a scraggly white beard, a black hat and a black coat—was art, even though the photographer sold 10 prints of it at $20,000 to $30,000 each. The judge ruled that New York courts have "recognized that art can be sold, at least in limited editions, and still retain its artistic character (...) [F]irst [A]mendment protection of art is not limited to only starving artists. A profit motive in itself does not necessarily compel a conclusion that art has been used for trade purposes."