Josh -- the way the legal process works these days, the answer is "all of the above." Always CYA (cover your assets).

The people whose faces are "blured" out, either did not sign a release, or could not be reached with one.

Josh, the short answer to your question is "yes". They will sue everybody. Whoever isn't judgement proof (broke) will pay.
Bill

Ah crap. I better tell these guys, 'cause for the most part, they have no idea what the hell they're doing.

Fair Use
 

Any Photo or Video of Anyone in a public place (or accessible from a public place or Given access via a Press Pass.). Can be used in any TV/Magazine/Newspaper/ ....... without release.
This is called "FAIR USE"

Fair use is how all Sports/News/Entertainment... Photo/Video Images show up on TV or in print.

The photo or Video can not be used for Advertisement or product endorsement.

In other words .
If you have Photo/Video Images of a Event or A person of interest. You may sell (per use) them to a Media outlet.
But you may not sell the image to the public for commercial gain.

There is a lot more to this subject. You would need to do some legal searches on copyright and fair use.

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. Fair use is a doctrine which applies to copyright and trademark. The rights that are implicated here are rights of publicity, which are subject to state law. Most states preclude commercial appropriation of likeness without permission. As others have mentioned, there is generally an exception for news reporting.

Um, no, it's not. Sports venues generally have release printed on the ticket.

Sorry, but this topic has nothing to do with copyright or fair use.

I am not going to reply
 

There is so much mis-information in this one thread. It stifles the imagination!

A suggestion, Tom . . . spend some time here before you put your foot in it again.

Paul N. Tauger, Esq.
California State Bar Number 160552

I have noticed on a number of TV shows featuring "real video" footage have begun using blurry dots to hide people's identity.

One recent show I saw included a woman in a church choir robe playing a piano at a wedding. Her face was blurred out.

I wonder if an individual has a right to control their whole image and not just an imgae of their face?

The statutes usually preclude commercial appropriation of "likeness." I have no idea whether "likeness" has ever been construed to mean something other than face, though I can certainly think of instances in which it probably could. With respect to defamation liability, of which false light is a species, the test is whether it is understood to whom the subject of the defamation refers. If someone with a sufficiently unique and identifiable physique or profile (Alfred Hitchcock comes to mind, though, of course, the dead can't be defamed) were the subject of false light defamation, they'd be able to maintain an action, even if their face was not shown.