In Switzerland, where people have the legal right to control whether and how their image may be photographed and published, exemptions are made if the image/person is of public interest. This is decided on a case-by-case basis, so the news org has to be willing to argue this in court.

Let's say, as an example, a married politician having an affair with someone. Generally, news sites will publish photos with the face of the politician visible but would blur the other person. The former is clearly a person of public interest, the latter is not. Even if it's a photo taken in a public space.

This isn’t about real photos of things that actually happened. This is about AI generated imagery.

So it’s not a photo of a politician doing something bad. It’s an AI recreation of what they are alleged to have done.

The law does have to be written very carefully.

Would likely fall under fair use or an analogous right in most places. If Coca-cola does something stupid, they do not have the ability to censor depictions of their logo from reporting on it.

Think of that like reproducing a particularly ill-conceived Coca Cola advertisement.

Then, when someone uses their face to promote something, someone else can repeat the face with what it promotes.

So I think the whole thing actually works in this particular case.

That could come under fair use. Like if you had a coke can on film, you could broadcast it. But you could not apply the coke brand on some other product.

It works the same way as news currently does. You can report on people, but you can't take a picture of someone and use it as your brand's model/logo.