If I take a recognizable photo of you without you signing a model release and then I use it in a commercial work you can sue. Which the cops did in this case.
It's pretty much their business model to publish fake news. While they'll have to redact the articles later, they've already made their money by that time.
While I can't speak for the legality of using photographs from people for profit without their consent, I'm sure that the magazines would still do it, even if it wasn't legal using the same tactics.
The same excuse the magazines use for the articles would be just as applicable with these pictures, as we thought it was legit transfers directly over to we thought they'd given permission.
It's all fine legally as long as the articles are retracted for missinformation
What you're thinking of is getting damages/convictions because of the misinformation. That's indeed quiet hard and will require proving that you've actually been harmed, which is extremely challenging, generally speaking.
It's interesting that so many of them share a surname.
The cops will lose this.
The law may be clear cut ... who knows what the court will decide. I was saying I don't know what you think the link means, what you think /= the law.
As for the actual topic I don’t know what you think the link means. That’s too general a topic to just just know what you’re trying to say.
If you think the article is too general, I think you have not read it. There is very practical information as to how this law works in various jurisdictions. You can also see Wikipedia for "model release". You will see contradictory information of course, because it's not a clear cut issue. But the takeaway is, if I take a video of you at a mall being weird and use it to make a viral music video on which I capitalize and which makes you uncomfortable, guess what you can (and should) sue me. Will you win? Maybe not, maybe yes, depends on how prominent your role is in the video I guess.