Actually, the whole of federal Indian law is based on the "reserved rights doctrine". The sovereignty exercised by Indian tribes was not given to them by anyone. Tribes retain all of the powers of a sovereign except those that have been surrendered by treaty, clearly abrogated by the Federal govt, or are inconsistent with the tribes' status (as lesser sovereigns under the ultimate control of the Federal govt).
This doctrine dates to the 1832 Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia and has been the foundation of federal Indian law for the past 170 years.
That Indians' rights are those that they reserved, not those that they were given, is reflected in the term "Indian reservation".
i can't quote chapter and verse on this and it differs from state to state, but the basic gist of it is...
you can't use someone's image, voice, likeness, etc without their permission for most commercial purposes (advertisements, etc), but you can for journalistic purposes (newspaper stories, nightly news, etc). there are sometimes weird exceptions even for this, but i don't have time to get into them now.
of course you can say that using them in the news is a commercial use too, since the news organizations are all owned by big bad corporations, but that is a different argument.
shows like COPS get permission from their victims since they are more entertainment than they are journalism, but the same footage could probably be used on the local news without permission.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the whole of federal Indian law is based on the "reserved rights doctrine". The sovereignty exercised by Indian tribes was not given to them by anyone. Tribes retain all of the powers of a sovereign except those that have been surrendered by treaty, clearly abrogated by the Federal govt, or are inconsistent with the tribes' status (as lesser sovereigns under the ultimate control of the Federal govt).
This doctrine dates to the 1832 Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia and has been the foundation of federal Indian law for the past 170 years.
That Indians' rights are those that they reserved, not those that they were given, is reflected in the term "Indian reservation".
i can't quote chapter and verse on this and it differs from state to state, but the basic gist of it is...
you can't use someone's image, voice, likeness, etc without their permission for most commercial purposes (advertisements, etc), but you can for journalistic purposes (newspaper stories, nightly news, etc). there are sometimes weird exceptions even for this, but i don't have time to get into them now.
of course you can say that using them in the news is a commercial use too, since the news organizations are all owned by big bad corporations, but that is a different argument.
shows like COPS get permission from their victims since they are more entertainment than they are journalism, but the same footage could probably be used on the local news without permission.