silence7
Because it's a pain to go do (and was especially so in the film era) and it change what the photo conveys in a meaningful way.
Think of for example a photo like this, showing anti-civil-rights protesters in 1969:
Blurring the faces would meaningfully obscure what was going on, and confuse people about who held what kinds of views.
In the US, kinda sorta.
Advertisers are liable if they use your likeness to promote a product, imply endorsement, or otherwise make commercial use of it without your consent. This gives you the right to sue, which is worth absolutely nothing when you're dealing with a shady overseas shell company hawking fake Viagra.
News organizations, artists, and random private individuals can publish a photo or other image of you taken in a place where you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy without having to contact you or have your consent. This is important: think of trying to share a photograph of a public event, and having to track down people in the background, or create public awareness when you photograph politician committing a crime.
It's considered a civil dispute. You can sue to those using your face in an ad for monetary damages, which in practice means you're trying to sue an overseas shell corporation with no assets, and can't get anything, so no lawyer will represent you.
Yes, that's the hope. It's still more expensive than silicon cells. But this gives it a plausible path to commercial viability.
On average, people junk cars at about 20 years. A few really do last longer, particularly if they're not driven daily.
That won't work at scale; cars wear out, and become expensive enough to maintain that people scrap them
Working to make the car payment, instead of zipping around on a paid-off bicycle
Selling your data is a new revenue stream for automakers, and as a practical matter, you can't avoid it.
The ML tool is a summary of the directions. That's a plausible use of ML