A person does not have copyright protection of their own image.
Steve.
That's poorly worded Steve. I know what you mean, but it doesn't read like that. What you mean is that people in public places have no automatic legal right to control what photographs are taken of them, or how they are used.
I often wonder what newcomers make of threads like this. The overall impression I get is that publishing yout photos is a bit of a legal minefield, especially if money is involved, but that is simply not the case from a legal position.
Legally, if you are a) in a public place, and b) your photos convey a truthful representation, then you can do what you like. There are very few exceptions, and these are always obvious. Children and celebs are fair game, legally.
People might try and stop you for all manner of reasons, but legally you are very unlikely to get into trouble. I have spent many years in publishing, I have issued and received plenty of writs, and have spent thousands on solicitors fees.
The law is actually quite liberal when it comes to taking and publishing pictures of people. Providing they are taken in a public place, and are a truthful representation, then legally you can do pretty much what you like.
Even if it's not a public place, unless you have actually signed something restricting photography and your pictures are accurate (ie not a dishonest representation) you're most unlikely to get legal problems.
99% of the difficulty is people trying to protect their own commercial interests, or their own self-image, by banning cameras and putting stuff in the small print on the back of tickets. These restrictions are nothing more than hot air; they don't have any legal status and the worst that can happen is you get thrown out and banned. Which of course, can be quite an effective restriction even if it has nothing to do with the law.
Er,, er, try grammar!
