>>3837995Like I said, "Potentially"
As the 3 other people replied, it can depend on situation.
For example, someone already in the public eye, such as celebrities, loose a lot of rights when it comes to publishing.
You could potentially use a celeb image really easy, but doing that with Jane Doe who isn't a "public figure" might have different rules apply.
It's so situational, I doubt any medium to large organizations just let their photographers publish anything, they probably have a separate department that does that. The photographer gets images. Taking photographs is always usually legal no matter the circumstances. A whole separate team sifts through the images to determine what is the best cost/benefit ratio. I wouldn't doubt that a lot of news establishments publish photos all the time that aren't technically "OK" to publish - they probably determine what the risk is. "Will this person ever come to us and complain we used their image without permission?" "Is this a circumstance where we even need to ask them?" etc etc.
However, the laws are still really lax. Usually journalists have to knowingly or recklessly be found at fault. If they're just publishing "in good faith" it's pretty damn hard to do anything to them.
Or maybe I'm full of bullshit about that- I'm not in publishing so I don't know. But just reading about past lawsuits (there ARE lawsuits against journalists/publishers) I have to guess that they aren't 100% in the clear 100% of the time
