Re: On T.V. without my permission

Probably. If you're in public you're pretty much fair game for photography and filimg, except the type that tries to look under your clothing.

You say you were in a store parking lot, so the owner of the lot gets to decide whether and on what terms someone can take pictures or shoot video there. If the property owner doesn't object, there isn't much you can do.

The reason these folks wanted a waiver was probably just to discourage you from bringing a meritless suit. Even if the law is on their side, dealing with a lawsuit will cost money before they win. The fact that they asked you to sign doesn't mean that their rights depend upon your signature.

Re: On T.V. without my permission

Here is the law in Nevada, allowing injunctive relief and setting statutory damages at $750.00, plus punitive damages, if you can't prove greater actual damages:

http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs/atty/approveAndReply.cgi?id=280637443

NRS 597.810 Remedies for unauthorized commercial use; liability of owner or employee of medium used for advertising.

1. Any commercial use of the name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness of another by a person, firm or corporation without first having obtained written consent for the use is subject to:

(a) Injunctive relief to prevent or restrain the unauthorized use; and

(b) An action at law for any injuries sustained by reason of the unauthorized use. In such a suit, the plaintiff may recover:

(1) Actual damages, but not less than $750; and

(2) Exemplary or punitive damages, if the trier of fact finds that the defendant knowingly made use of the name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness of another person without the consent required by NRS 597.790.

2. No owner or employee of any medium used for advertising is liable pursuant to this section for any unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness unless it is established that the owner or employee had actual knowledge of the unauthorized use.

(Added to NRS by 1989, 1609)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 598.988)

The interesting question I don't have an answer for is whether the $750 is for each airing of the unauthorized commercial, or whether a "single-publication" rule applies. Happy suing!