Now's the time to wrap it all up into a quick, summary package. The bottom line to all of this complicated mess is this:
[1] There are two laws to consider: those surrounding privacy and commerce.
These are exceptional cases that most pro photographers don't run into with the exception of the paparazzi (who shoot celebrities for tabloids). It's usually the case that it's everyday people who are angry with someone that violate these laws. That, or a misguided company practicing overbearing security measures who get caught up in problems like this. Rarely do real photographers have this problem, and accordingly, this entire chapter assumes you didn't violate anyone's privacy to get the photos you took. (Examples include breaking into someone's house, or using a hidden camera at work.) Also within the privacy realm is the issue of libel—that is, whether you said something defamatory or untrue about someone. This is often more associated with text, but photos can imply libelous intent. Again, this is rarely a problem for photographers, since it's usually only their intent to license appealing pictures, which rarely involves text.
As for commerce, people have a right to be compensated for when their images are used in association with a commercial process or product. For that, one needs a release, but this is far from a straightforward issue. In fact, it's so curvy, that this is usually where the internet rumor mill opens up, where just about everyone gets it wrong. So wrong, that they get themselves in more trouble by trying to protect themselves from something that they shouldn't have worried about in the first place. The bulk of this chapter focuses on this subject.
[2] It's legal to take pictures. It's how they are published that matters.
Assuming that you're not breaking any laws in the process (that is, breaking into someone's house), it's always legal to take pictures. Exceptions are private properties, military installations, etc. Security guards are the most likely of people to try to stop you from taking photos, and while they are almost always wrong in their interpretation of the law, the fight to be right may not be worth your while.
[3] Publishers are culpable for how images are used, NOT photographers.
If you haven't done so, immediately read Model Releases: Who is Responsible?. That short(er) chapter basically encapsulates why releases are necessary, and who is ultimately responsible if an image is used improperly. The reason for getting model releases is not to protect you, it's to protect those who ultimately license the photos from you. If it were that simple, why do photographers care about getting people to sign model releases? Because more clients will buy a released image than an unreleased image. Therefore, getting a model release is ultimately business decision, not an act of self-protection. (Yes, exceptions exist, and that's also discussed here.)
Note that because not all uses of images require a release, you don't need to have photos released just to sell them. Unreleased photos of people have a more limited scope of usage to editorial, but that's still a rather sizable market. In fact, many would say it's a much larger market than commercial images, especially for independent freelance photographers who are not represented by an agency. As for the release itself, the only thing you need to disclose do is whether a photo has one or not to whoever licenses it. They can decide whether they want to use the image based on their interpration of commerce laws on their intended usage. (It's not your job to interpret the law, since you're not the one publishing the photo.)
[4] Suing someone is expensive!
Even if you are worried about yourself, the practical reality is that no one is going to sue you unless (a) you have a lot of money that can be taken, and (b) they have a lot of money to spend on the suit. For someone to bother with any suit, they need to have a strong case, or risk losing a lot of money in trying. And because of (2) above, they aren't going to sue you, they're going to sue whoever publishes the image in question.
Ok, so that's the summary—the simply-stated bottom line. If you're not a professional photographer, you can probably just stop here. (I'm surprised you even read this far.) But, if you are a professional, it's important to understand the subtler nuances of all of this to better plan for when and how you should do business with those who wish to license images from you. If you skipped to this section from the beginning, you may want to return there, since the rest of this summary assumes you've read the chapter.
Returning to the photos of the school soccer game portrayed at the beginning of this chapter, maybe you can now answer some of these questions yourself. If you want to license some to the local paper for a news story, now you know you could—without a release. If you want to sell prints back to the parents, again, you know you can do this—without a release. If the school wants to put your pictures on its website, you know it can do this—without a release. However, if you want to use the pictures for some sort of ad, promotion, or statement, that's another story. For these, you need a release. Or rather, the publisher would need a release. And, because they do, they're not likely to license the photo from you unless you already got that release ahead of time. So, that's why I use the phrasing, "you need a release." So, the first thing to learn is the set of conditions where a release is necessary, and when one isn't. Complicated, to be sure. But, not impossible.
The second-most important aspect we examined the Risk/Reward Analysis. Here, the lesson is that you can't just look at things at face value, whether something is strictly legal or not. You have to look at the more practical, real-world considerations. For example, if one of the parents has a problem with your showing his kid's face in print, your biggest problem is probably going to be social concerns, not legal ones. No doubt, such an event will cause a stir in the community, and if you're going to have a business selling pictures, this isn't going to bode well for you. Even though you're legally allowed to publish these pictures in many contexts, chances are that you don't want to be pursuing this line of action. The "risk" here is that choosing the path of being "right" isn't necessarily good for business.
Conversely, there are many cases where using a photo would require a release under strict interpretations, but because the "risk" of any harm being done is too low to avoid the use. The example cited in the chapter concerned the photo of a kid on a beach taken in Miami, but the photo was used for a small local ad in a small San Diego flier.
The examples I gave are simple, but as I mentioned at the start of the chapter, most situations aren't as cut and dry. And while most consumers don't run into them often, pro photographers do, and as such, you must get used to having ambiguously wide, grey lines on whether a release is required for any given subject or use. That said, just about every situation has a pragmatic side that will help you determine the best course of action anyway. In some cases, that may be that you don't use an image that you are entitled to, or it may mean that there's no harm in using an image for which you "technically" need a release. So, while the technical details are critically important to learn, it's impossible to put them into use without a pragmatic voice that interprets circumstances for the reality that they are.
There's no way to teach pragmatism. It's an offshoot of common sense that comes from empirical experience in life. You either get it or you don't. One way to determine if you're not being pragmatic is, as described above, you find yourself constantly worrying about whether you need a release for one photo without thinking about the checklist items at the beginning of this chapter. If you find yourself looking for literal interpretations, you're not be pragmatic. If you're trying to pin-point specific arguments for or against something, you're not being pragmatic. There's certainly nothing wrong with contemplating the subtler nuances of the law and having thoughtful discussion about it, but if it affects your decision-making on how to move forward with business, then you're not being pragmatic.
Lastly, don't assume I'm suggesting you be carefree about the issue of releases. I'm not—you can make as many bad decisions by being too lax on the matter as well. Pragmatism is finding that reasonable middle ground where the costs and the benefits are in balance.
