So when you consent to your photo being taken what control should you have over the image afterwards?
Depends on the situation, really. On a very basic level, the copyright belongs to the creator (photographer), and as long as (s)he's obtained consent, then they are their property to do with as they please, contractual specifics aside. From a purely legal standpoint, I don't see how I would have any claim if someone else took a picture of me, willingly and knowingly, and then showed it elsewhere, unless I'd made some form of stipulation at the time. Obviously there are certain social constructs in place that go against that, such as in a relationship where it is usually assumed that the photos are not to be shared with anyone outside of the relationship (except where there's a clear understanding between the individuals themselves), but while it's a 'self-evident fact' that intimate acts within the relationship are somehow sacred ground, I can't see how it can overrule outright law.
I think perhaps it's all of our responsabilities to be clear when entering such muddy waters as these: if you are trading photos, state clearly that they're for personal use only, or whatever sharing options you're comfortable with. Professional situations should be covered by agreements or contracts anyway, so we can probably safely ignore them. Situations where there's an agreement that the photographer can use the pics, because it's assumed they'll only be in their portfolio or perhaps a small showing that hardly anyone will see, again, I think that falls under 'personal responsability' and it shoudl be made clear at what point free permission to use your image ends.
Is there a valid reason the photographer shouldn't be able to do what they want when the same objection wouldn't be met concerning a snap of you in the street?
It's the level of intimacy. People can see you every day as much as they like, but that doesn't mean they have the right to come peeking in your windows at night. Same is true of pictures, some are taken in the public domain, and thus are public property (to a degree, I know there are some legal issues with rights to your own image and junk), but those taken in private are subject to certain privacy rules.
Can you 'remove' the rights of the photographer to prioritise your rights (imagine causing harm to someone's livelihood to keep your 'dignity')?
There are some cases where the reverse is true: think of celebrities or public officials who've had photos - often taken prior to any apparance in the public eye - and who've had their lives turned upside down, jobs lost, general mayhem, all because someone sold The Sun a rudie pic.
I don't think either party should have their rights removed, but if you let someone take your picture with your consent but without any stipulations as to what can and cannot be done with it, then it should default to the copyright holder has all the rights, end of story.
Does the context in how they were taken make a difference? Do you have less rights over 'selling' your body as a model compared to having a spur of the moment horn as a OH?
there does have to be a certain amount of difference, because if a model - with, presumeably, a contract and very specific set of agreements - runs into problems, then there's a black and white set of rules that either have or haven't been followed; if a partner or an ex-partner breaks an agreement, chances are you won't have it on paper, so all you have is your word versus theirs. Thus, the best they could ask for is plausible claims to an agreement.
What is the shape of the informal contract when you pass on pictures (is non-sharing an unwritten clause?)? If there are unwritten clauses what form do they take?
I don't think so. I do treat photos shared with me with a default of "my eyes only", and try my best to delete or destroy them as soon as I'm able to after a relationship ends if it's in that context. But I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone thinks the same way, and if something goes horribly wrong, I don't want to feel like it's my own fault for not being clear: this way, I'll know it's because the guy is a dick, and enough of a dick that I'd feel ok about kicking up ten kinds of shit about it.
