[mablopoule]

Yes, let's narrow even more the kind of content allowed in platforms with draconian laws.

"I'm sorry mister, but we can see chidren playing in the park at 44:28 in the hour-long documentary you've produced, so we had to remove the video."

/s

[Ekaros]

I think it is entirely reasonable to totally ban any media that has any person who haven't given explicit release on their likeness. It isn't too much to ask for valuing everyone's privacy.

[snapplebobapple]

That wouldn't have knock on effects like utterly destroying investigative journalism or anything.... There are tons of things that people would censor if the above were law that are not in the public interest to be censored.

[brightlancer]

In the US, there is no general expectation of privacy in a public place.

Implementing your proposal is also unreasonable: before one took a photo of their spouse in the park, they would have to clear the background of all persons or get their explicit consent.

[Ekaros]

Maybe allow private use, but to publish anywhere for example in social media or other media absolutely.

[brightlancer]

Would this also apply to journalists? Only uncredentialed journalists without a government license?

If there was a protest outside my business, could I post a photo of the crowd online? What if it were a riot?

What if, as I and a large crowd were peacefully leaving an event, I lifted my camera above my head and blindly took a photo of the mass of people shoulder to shoulder?

Many places have laws which would prevent someone from taking a photo of an individual and selling copies of that photo without the subjects permission; but these laws don't usually apply to someone in the background or a crowd shot, and they don't apply to non-commercial use or some commercial uses, including journalism.