Dan Robinson
The act of *taking photographs* in public of anything and anyone is a fully protected right of the photographer. However, what you *do* with that photograph after the fact is where legal issues arise.
'News use' of any publically-obtained image is fair game (such as TV or newspaper) as long as the person is not being cast in a misleading way. One example would be a news segment on shoplifters where the cameraman got some filler (b-roll) shots of an innocent woman in a store or on the street, then showed her in the segment in a way that one might deduce that she was a shoplifter. In that case, the person *does* have legal recourse and can sue for how she was wrongfully protrayed.
Now if the photos/video of a person's likeness are being used in a commercial non-news work such as a documentary, advertisement, movie, etc. Then the filmmaker/production company needs a signed release from the person granting permission. They don't need permission to *take the picture*, but they do need it to use the footage in a final work. This is why COPS blurs out faces, because the show is a 'non-news' work and blurring is easier than getting signed permission from the suspects.
The implication for chasers is not so much taking pictures of people in public as it is shooting lightning over a city or a bridge, shooting a supercell in the country, or shooting storms, flooding, snow, etc in urban areas. It's not something we'll run into all the time but it will happen to you sooner or later.
'News use' of any publically-obtained image is fair game (such as TV or newspaper) as long as the person is not being cast in a misleading way. One example would be a news segment on shoplifters where the cameraman got some filler (b-roll) shots of an innocent woman in a store or on the street, then showed her in the segment in a way that one might deduce that she was a shoplifter. In that case, the person *does* have legal recourse and can sue for how she was wrongfully protrayed.
Now if the photos/video of a person's likeness are being used in a commercial non-news work such as a documentary, advertisement, movie, etc. Then the filmmaker/production company needs a signed release from the person granting permission. They don't need permission to *take the picture*, but they do need it to use the footage in a final work. This is why COPS blurs out faces, because the show is a 'non-news' work and blurring is easier than getting signed permission from the suspects.
The implication for chasers is not so much taking pictures of people in public as it is shooting lightning over a city or a bridge, shooting a supercell in the country, or shooting storms, flooding, snow, etc in urban areas. It's not something we'll run into all the time but it will happen to you sooner or later.
