--Pimplink
Mmmmm, I could point out that their being turned down by a law firm says something on the subject in itself.
Check this out -
http://www.dnai.com/~pcombs/carwash.html . It gives a look inside how ambush reporting works, where the subject most definitely does NOT want their image used. Down at the end he says the same thing my lawyer tells me- if I'm told by the subject that I don't have permission to use their image, then I can't. But, this has to be said *at that time*, after the fact doesn't count.
The case law that covers this is found under the concept of implied consent as it applies to the defined limits of personal privacy (when one leaves home and ventures into public places, a great deal of expectation along these lines is lost). Not to mention the rights of artistic expression and of the press.
And don't laugh at that last part, those of us that "cover the uncovered" at special events are reporters in every sense of the word and our offerings fall squarely within alternative media. We're simply photojournalists that dare to go a bit further than most, documenting lewd and lascivious public behavior, and picking up the slack where the establishment either prefers to ignore certain behaviors or feels it is somehow restricted in covering it.
Hey! It's a dirty job but someone has to do it...
