Exactly.
This woman is a private citizen who did an ad for a specific group. It is illegal to use her image for something else without her consent.
No. It's not.
I found that out when the Washington Post used a picture of me without my permission.
Totally different. That's new coverage. That and documentaries have different guidelines.
From the website "Conservative" provided:
Using the Name or Likeness of Another | Citizen Media Law Project
1. Use of a Protected Attribute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used an aspect of his or her identity that is protected by the law. This ordinarily means a plaintiff's name or likeness, but the law protects certain other personal attributes as well.
2. For an Exploitative Purpose: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used his name, likeness, or other personal attributes for commercial or other exploitative purposes. Use of someone's name or likeness for news reporting and other expressive purposes is not exploitative, so long as there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the plaintiff's identity and a matter of legitimate public interest.
3. No Consent: The plaintiff must establish that he or she did not give permission for the offending use.
They clearly violated #1 and #3. A Court would have to decide on "Exploitative Purpose", but, again from the website in regards to "Exploitative Purpose":
You also may be held liable for some non-commercial uses of someone's name or likeness if you exploit the plaintiff's identity for your own benefit.
For example, one court has held that an anti-abortion activist who registered domain names incorporating the names and nicknames of his ideological rivals had misappropriated their names for his own benefit.
So like I said, what they did was illegal. She should sue them.
