youtube is our friend:

Doesn't have to be commercial.  For example, if someone uses a pic they took of you in public as part of a political ad, and you didn't sign a release, they are liable and have to remove your image from the ad or stop running it.

I assume most would understand I mean commercial purposes to be inclusive of advertising.

The main exemptions to requiring a release are public figures (Huskey v. NBC, 1956) and newsworthy events (Time v. Hill, 1976)

When we talk about lacking a "reasonable expectation to privacy", people are referring to Forster v Manchester (1963) where the court basically stated that if you can be observed from a public thoroughfare you cannot object to surveillance. So if you're at a public range you cannot object to being photographed, even if you are not a public figure (which has no clear legal definition) and are not newsworthy (ditto).

Politicians are public figures and most of what they do is probably considered newsworthy (for better or worse), so that's why they don't need model releases to run opponent photos in attack ads.

Yes if someone took a photo of me and prominently used it as an ad "Big Blue wants to take your guns away, that's why he supports proposition 3738, so should you! Think of the children!", then I could sue. I'd have to consult a suitably experienced privacy lawyer but my suit would likely be based under either False Light and/or Misappropriation of Likeness (privacy torts).

However if I attended a rally, and happened to be in a photo (say behind Obama in some GOP ad) that was used - I likely would not have much of a case. Per Faloona v. Hustler the publisher would be liable for any damages I sustained; but given the use of the photo was not really focused on appropriating my likeness for their message, it would be very challenging for me to demonstrate any damages.

So as to whether or not a model release would be required for a political ad.. It would depend. 99% of advertising and stock it's irrelevant since no agency will buy photos without the releases anyway, including most pro-political ads which I'm sure they gather the releases from the smiling supporters.

This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I do take photos.

There are a hundred hypotheticals, but this is my main point:  If the photo in question is going to be used to promote a product, service, idea, or thing, a photo release is necessary.

This doesn’t simply apply to celebrities either. All of us have a right to protect our likeness from being used against our will.

If Knudsen wants to use anyone's likeness to promote his political agenda, he should have a release.  And just blurring faces may not be sufficient, since some people wear name tags, hats, and other distinctive clothing that might contain names and company logos.  These items all have the ability to identify an individual or group just as readily as their faces.

I've taken pictures and video in an official capacity in the Air Force, so I'm a little familiar with the hoops to jump through for photo releases.

 

Unfortunately he is allowed to take picture and use them if he is taking it in a public area. The only way we can stop him is if the park/area he is taking pictures in requires a permit to do so such as some of the other parks. We should ask the range master about this or email  the parks and rec. office about safety concerns with photographers in the area taking picture of guns and the serial # which put us in the risk of identity theft and fraud. 

There is no reason to stop people from taking pictures.  I'm not sure how the serial number of your firearm puts you at risk for identity theft. Also not sure how a camera in the area all of a sudden would make for an unsafe shooting environment.?

With just a name (first and last) and the internet, you can pretty much find anyone's age and address, here in Hawaii.

I don't mean some special search engine that you need to subscribe to, either.

Sadly, criminals do it all the time.

Anybody even think that perhaps these may have been associates of Knudson ?
Can get any pic scenario I want !

His story changes on a week to week basis.
 
My guess: he is a liberal communist/fascist who thinks guns are evil just because it's one of king barry's talking points. If the dems supported gun rights, he probably would not have any problem with the range, regardless of the 'bullet flying past his head', which he knows, not assumes, was a bullet because his brother/friend/whatever REMF was in Vietnam and knows what bullets sound like.