That's because I'm a private person. Public servants don't have an expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.

It's not about privacy, you can record anyone in a public place, it's about publishing and monetizing work using someone's identity after.

Please reread the second sentence all the way to the end.

Reread mine

I did. It's still wrong.

There may be a 'newsworthy' or 'artistic' exception here. In some jurisdictions, a photograph (or video) used for editorial purposes or for artistic purposes does not require a model release. Afroman has valid claims on both here.

If he doesn't make money from it then perhaps. If he does then idk

Artists and journalists make money. That's not a legal problem.

This is not a news agency from what I understand

There are exceptions for recording events on your own property. Do you think every time security footage ends up on the news that the TV station is breaking the law?

Is Afronan a news agency?

This is incorrect. For example, this happens all the time to celebrities. Someone takes their photo in public and sells it to magazines who publish the photo on the cover. They receive no money and have signed no release.

Bad example for your argument, as these magazines constantly break the law by outright lying and publishing fabricated news stories.

It's pretty much their business model to publish fake news. While they'll have to redact the articles later, they've already made their money by that time.

While I can't speak for the legality of using photographs from people for profit without their consent, I'm sure that the magazines would still do it, even if it wasn't legal using the same tactics.

There's no law against fake news specifically, just damages to reputation as a result of false claims. The legality of individual photos varies greatly, but overall most of the photos are legal as evidenced by the lack of successful lawsuits on the topic. Lawsuits are easier when you're talking about millionaire/billionaire celebrities.

Using it in a commercial work doesn't preclude editorial use. Virtually every magazine, newspaper is a commercial work for example

Right, but they should have never been there in the first place. That warrant was complete bullshit

If you assault me first and then I take a photo of you and use it for commercial purposes it doesn't mean you can't sue. It just means I'd sue you back first for that other thing. But good luck suing cops in US...

Other than tacticool camoed up Taliban guy, most of the cops aren't recognizable.

Heh! Their names and addresses are public information, because they've gone all Streisand, and sued!

It's interesting that so many of them share a surname.

Nope- that generally only applies if you’re a celebrity; or if otherwise your job is your image.

The cops will lose this.

I wonder how that works, I can photograph you in public, I can sell the photo. That’s legal.

Are you a lawyer? It might be much less clear cut than you imply.

I can’t tell what you want to say from a link. Depending on how much of that you read of that article you could come to different conclusions.

So, are you saying it's not clear cut...

The link means that laws may vary by jurisdiction, and so absolute or general statements may reflect your morality more than the facts of Afroman's case in Adams County.

Oh, another lawyer I see. Here you go anyway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Should I ask if you’re a lawyer now? Is that how this works? Maybe ask what law you're an expert in? It's sad to see the level of discourse on HN has dropped so low now.

As for the actual topic I don’t know what you think the link means. That’s too general a topic to just just know what you’re trying to say.

IANAL and that's my point, it's not an easy question with a clear cut answer;) if you say a legal issue is clear then you better know what you're talking about my friend, because they rarely are.

If you think the article is too general, I think you have not read it. There is very practical information as to how this law works in various jurisdictions. You can also see Wikipedia for "model release". You will see contradictory information of course, because it's not a clear cut issue. But the takeaway is, if I take a video of you at a mall being weird and use it to make a viral music video on which I capitalize and which makes you uncomfortable, guess what you can (and should) sue me. Will you win? Maybe not, maybe yes, depends on how prominent your role is in the video I guess.