In article <alpine.BSF.2.21.1803021213280.84693@xxxxxxxxxx> you write: >And this largely reflects the current state of copyright law in many >jurisdictions. For (2), the laws usually state that an individual who is >the clear focus of the composition must consent to any use of that >reproduction (regardless of whether they receive any compensation). I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong at least in the U.S. and I am pretty sure in most other countries. The copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer. There are right of publicity or personality rights laws that may have some relevance if the photograph is used commercially and if the person is famous, but in the US they are state laws, in Canada they are provincial laws, they are inconsistent, and they are rarely applied other than in egregious cases like your image used without permission to endorse something in an advertisement. We have never asked permission to post plenary videos on Youtube because we don't have to. As I said in another message, I have plenty of sympathy for people who have a camera shoved in their face, but this is getting awfully complicated. R's, John
