Perhaps what is lacking in this thread is an analysis of the fundamental reasons why such laws exist. The following points in the article, which I've highlighted in bold, provide a strong hint.
"Copyright law protects the rights of property owners to make money and otherwise protect the reputation of their intellectual property, and limits the rights of others to associate their own property with it.
That’s why the Port Authority of New York was able to make a serious case, in 2014, that dinnerware being sold by a New York store featuring images of the World Trade Center twin towers was harmful to the Port Authority’s reputation."
Most of us are very concerned about our reputation and appearance, but some more than others. I've noticed over the years that certain people, friends and associates, sometimes object to some of my shots I've taken of them when they were not 'posing' or not aware that I was taking a photo.
Sometimes such people were perhaps not smiling, were looking a bit sad, or a bit disgusted, or perhaps I'd taken a shot from a certain perspective which had highlighted the size of a lady's bottom.
What has surprised me is that some of those people not only get angry when I show them the photo, but demand that I delete the photo from my records. (I usually oblige, deleting the jpeg for display, but not the RAW image.
)
A classic example of this principle that appearances and reputation trump all, is the painting of Winston Churchill at the age of 80, by Graham Sutherland. The portrait was funded by donations from the British parliament.
The portrait portrayed Churchill as a rather grumpy, sad and scowling personality. Both Churchill and his wife were very displeased. The painting was torn into pieces and burned. Here's a link to the details for those interested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/winston-churchill/11730850/Secret-of-Winston-Churchills-unpopular-Sutherland-portrait-revealed.htmlWhat's interesting is that some years previously, during WWII, Yousuf Karsh had taken a similarly unflattering photo of Churchill, which became very famous. Perhaps his grumpy and scowling appearance was accepted at the time because we were in the middle of a war, and such an appearance was considered to be more appropriate.
Of course, I'm above such petty concerns of my reputation in the mind of others, and my appearance in the mind of others. I understand that opinions exist only in the mind of the beholder. I'm more concerned with 'truth'. (And I'm very humble as you can see.
)
To emphasise my point I'll attach a photo of me at a dinner (taken with
my camera and processed by
me).
Can you recognise me? Notice that I did not delete this photo.