With politicians, it's pretty much fair game across-the-board.  With celebrities, it's something of a gray area.  Paparazzi are always looking for that humiliating shot of Brittany Spears or of Lindsay Lohan that will net them a cool $250,000 payday from the National Enquirer.......which amounts to selling the celeb's likeness.  And it's done all of the time, without any legal consequences to the photographers -- much to the anger & irritation of many celebrities.  However, there are sometimes legal consequences which accrue to the celebrities themselves if they or if their bodyguards physically attack the annoying paparazzi -- or try to smash their cameras.  So it's not clear-cut that there's "no use" of celebrity images allowed under the law.

Anyone remember that controversial movie which depicted the violent and bloody assassination of Bill Gates a couple of years ago?  Did Bill Gates sue the movie producers?  Could he have done so?  Hint: Bill Gates is not a politician.........

There are some legal advantages to being a nobody:

This is semi-related -- google is planning on implementing changes to their mapping services that will blur the faces of people in street scenes --

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080514214733.2n13nqsx&show_article=1

As most photographers know, some people are hyper-phobic about the idea of having their picture taken.  It must be tough for those types of people in today's world -- where your picture gets taken many times, every day.  Unless if you never go out anywhere.......and even then it's doubtful.  Your picture might be being taken while you are outside in your yard........the era of Big Brother is, no doubt, just around the corner.  In fact, it's already here --

.......excuse me, someone's knocking hard on my front door...............

Something To Do At 3:00AM