I don't know the law in total, but my understanding is in agreement with Smokescreener's post. Pictures taken in a public setting are completely legal; Coccozella's website being a perfect example. Since Tiki has been involved in taking pictures for some time, maybe HE can tell us. I really don't care because I was never involved in CONTENT on that site.
Perhaps Paul's "settlement" is the result of a very special situation where he could demonstrate ACTUAL damages. Maybe Paul could fill us in on the details. However, I have no doubt that Katrina will look up some more statutes and misintrepret them as well, as usual.
Let me make one thing PERFECTLY clear: I don't take pictures of ANYONE -- I don't even own a camera! I was DUPED into helping a fellow beachgoer; since it appeared legal and his offer was inticing, in a lapse of sanity I set aside any ethical considerations temporarily -- that was my ONLY mistake -- (THAT and trusting Tiki to keep his word), I agreed to use my personal money to register a website. That was my ONLY involvement with Tiki's plans, though HE wanted much, much more from me.
I was extremely lucky to get back a dime of my original money. I'm sure I'd have never even got that except that I was the registered owner of the site. Then it ended. I haven't seen a penny since. If I hadn't received back the registration amount, that would've been fine too. I was willing to write it off as a lesson in life.
So condemn me for being human. I trusted someone. I made a mistake in judgement. I got caught up in the moment. But, I ALSO shut the whole thing down after a very short period of time. Tiki took all the pictures and went his merry way and presumably opened another site in his own name - or perhaps got someone else to use their name. I don't know and I don't care. I am in no way involved in what he's doing.
So, if Katrina wants to continue to smear my good name, go ahead. It's nothing to Katrina to try to ruin someone's reputation, apparently. The sad thing is that some of you are buying into it.