> … and yet there are still counter-examples: Candid photography[1] has long been recognized as art, and I wouldn't feel that the photographer is a "shitty person" for trying to capture a view of the world not affected by knowledge that the camera is trained on them. (And permission after the fact is not always possible. Nor necessary, even to avoid be "shitty".)
I think if the picture/video is to be posted online or in a gallery, the person in the picture has a right to say how their likeness is being used, regardless of context. If someone's in the background of a video a I would say it's not as relevant, unless the background person becomes the subject unintentionally (as often seen in fail videos).
Surveillance is a different matter. You are notified you're entering a building with cameras, and those also aren't streamed online or displayed publicly.
As for public figures: there's usually separate laws for such things for public figures, AFAIK
I think if the picture/video is to be posted online or in a gallery, the person in the picture has a right to say how their likeness is being used, regardless of context. If someone's in the background of a video a I would say it's not as relevant, unless the background person becomes the subject unintentionally (as often seen in fail videos).
Surveillance is a different matter. You are notified you're entering a building with cameras, and those also aren't streamed online or displayed publicly.
As for public figures: there's usually separate laws for such things for public figures, AFAIK