Re: I love the black or white logic here...
There are also limits on business exploitation of what is done in a public places. For example, in many jurisdictions you can't take photos of people in public places and sell them for profit - or use it freely - unless you obtain a "release" from them. The fact that you walk in a public places doesn't allow anybody to take "ownership" of your "image data" and use them as he or she wish.
I think it depends on the photograph or recording. If you are purposefully posing or otherwise are the subject of a picture or recording, then yes, you are likely going to sign a release for commercial use of it. Alternatively, you are participating in a commercial venture in hopes of being compensated for your time spent and your image. However, and you can demonstrate this in most parts of the world just by looking at the newspaper, if you are another face in the crowd, identifiable or not, you will not be asked for a release, you will not be able to sue for use of your image, and you most definitely will not be able to have your image removed from said image or video if it's used in the future. You can try to sue, but being as you were background or otherwise incidental to the image, there is nothing for you.
Google was pushed into allowing people to be blurred out in their Street View product, but that was likely due to the "focused" nature of the image. If you are just one of two or three people, looking directly at the car as it passed, it could be said you were a subject to a reasonable person, especially if it was taken out of context. However, there is also the reasonable person standard that Google leaned on for pictures of a house or the interior through large picture windows. In those cases, it was argued (successfully, I believe) that if the homeowner wanted privacy, they would close the drapes or otherwise obscure things on their property. Without such an exemption or limitation, any single person on the street could be held liable for taking an otherwise innocent or incidental picture showing your auto-erotic asphyxiation routine just by recording their passing or taking a selfie or group photo at an inopportune time.
In these and other cases, if you draw a line for online use or aggregation, you have to be extremely narrow in scope, or you end up making people liable or even criminals for being out in public, taking a picture in a public space, and incidentally getting an image of some guy propositioning a police officer or something. Additionally, any further restriction on what public actions can be filmed by the public gives an officer or other government official even more reason or motivation to threaten, cajole, or even take action against a member of the public catching that someone in a bad moment in the background... or even purposefully recording them.
It doesn't take an amoral, exceptional lawyer to find the small cracks in a broadly or ambiguously worded law or regulation and pry that sucker wide open to catch any number of people in a net supposedly crafted for a specific group of companies or behaviors. In such cases, I would prefer to work on finding better ways to obfuscate personal identify in the data rather than restrict or prevent its transmission. Doing anything more than that runs the risk of unintended consequences, especially given the lazy and unsophisticated nature of the folks tasked with modifying or adding to the law.