> You don't have an unlimited right to publish other people's imagery for commercial purposes absent permission, even if they are photographed in public

You 100% absolutely do if it is in public when it comes to publishing, even commercial publishing. Where do you think news gets their photos? Travel magazines? Professional photographers? You don’t need permission to publish or sell a photograph taken in a public place regardless of who or how many people are in it.

With all kindness, it is you who are mistaken. Right to Publicity laws vary state-to-state. For example, California has rather strict Right to Publicity Laws[0] while (oddly) Oregon has less strict rules[1]. There are various factors to consider in every jurisdiction, but the rule of thumb is definitely not ‘if you take a photo in a public space then you can use it for commercial purposes’.

[0] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l... [1] https://www.rightofpublicityroadmap.com/law/oregon

Edit: corrected intended phrasing of 1 sentence.

> The mere fact that a person’s likeness is used in connection with a commercial product or service does not violate the statute

Nope even your own source confirms it. You can publish a photo taken in public for commercial purposes without permission - the only exception listed there is if your present it in such a way that it appears as an endorsement. Then you need permission (for the endorsement). In that case though it isn’t the photo that is the problem it is the false endorsement (which is illegal no matter what the medium, photo, words etc).

Slight misconception. You don't need a release for some narrow commercial purposes, like artwork, academic study, or selling to news/wire services. But if you want to use it for stock photography, marketing (i.e. local businesses, tourism boards), entertainment production, or to produce a likeness or design which you intend to own separately, then you would need a release.

Good test here is if you could reasonably make a civil claim against the person reusing/redistributing the cropped images of themselves for their own purposes after the fact without permission.

The problem is that "commercial" is an ambiguous/misleading term in this context. (Cue the long-standing discussion over non-commercial in the context of Creative Commons that was never resolved.)

As you say it means certain types of uses but does not mean simply that I'm making money off it. I can absolutely take your picture in a public place and , in general, sell it to any newspaper or sell a poster made from it if I want.

Again not true at all. If I take a picture of Times Square with 1000 people in it, I don’t need permission from anybody there. I can sell the photo as a stock photo or otherwise with absolutely no permission. The same principle is true for a picture of one person on your local street.

Crowd photo yes. Photo of one recognizable person? Stock sites will absolutely look for a model release so that it can be used in marketing materials, ads, etc. You can, of course, simply publish it on a blog or in a newspaper or sell it as a poster without permission.

Stock sites may but again, not the law

Your photos are fair game but if you present someone prominently in your ad they absolutely can come after you for damages or for monetary compensation for using their image. Why do you think that celebrities can sue for it? You think the average joe can't do the same thing?

That is true - the problem isn’t the photo though it is the false endorsement. A false endorsement in any medium is illegal.

Yes, that's why I mentioned the publication of the photo for some commercial purposes, eg advertising. Nobody is disputing your right to take pictures in public.

> You don't have an unlimited right to publish other people's imagery for commercial purposes absent permission, even if they are photographed in public

You disputed it right here. You 100% have a right to PUBLISH even for commercial purposes without permission.