[ghaff]

It depends on the jurisdiction (2 party consent vs. 1 party, etc.). It depends if there was an "expectation of privacy." It depends if the image or video is being used for a commercial purpose like advertising. [ADDED: I'm mostly discussing the US here.]

This case is probably questionable but, to your point, if I take a picture of you canoodling in a public park I'm perfectly within my rights to publish that image so long as it's not for marketing or advertising purposes (if people are recognizable).

[Gargoyle]

I think the tweeter may end up having problems over the fact that she did try to exploit the tweets for fame and advantage. If it had been just sharing observations about something happening around her, she'd likely be fine. Trying to gain personally from the story makes it much more shaky on an ethical level for me.

And there's no excuse for encouraging people to seek out the subject's identity. Awful idea all around.

[masklinn]

> This case is probably questionable but, to your point, if I take a picture of you canoodling in a public park I'm perfectly within my rights to publish that image so long as it's not for marketing or advertising purposes (if people are recognizable).

It depends on the jurisdiction.

Mainland europe tends to have pretty strong personality rights, especially (but not solely) for non-public persons (e.g. people who aren't politicians or athletes or stars or more generally in the public consciousness).

And in many countries there you would not be within your rights to publish a specific image of a couple "canoodling in a public park". You would if you were taking a picture of something else entirely (e.g. a crowd, a public event, a landmark or monument) and they just happened to be in the frame, but not if they were the subject.

[ghaff]

My bad. I was specifically referring to the US which indeed tends to tilt more toward freedom of speech/press vs. privacy rights than many other countries do.