How did that happen? Aren't publications supposed to get your permission to publish pics of you, uhm BEFORE they publish?
As I understand it, for private citizen adults, it depends on whether your have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." So, if you're on a stage in front of an audience, or strolling the streets of town in a pirate costume, it could be assumed that you're expecting to attract attention, hence you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In those cases, the publication wouldn't technically need permission, although most reputable ones will make sure you know you're being photographed and they have your okay. The rules are different for example, for a public figure who has been caught in the act of doing something wrong. In that case they call it investigative journalism and put the photo on the front page. Or if you're a little kid (where reputable publications *always* get parental permission.)
If you're a private citizen attending a public event, and you're in the background of a photo or in a crowd shot, obviously it would be unreasonable to get permission from everyone in the photo. Although then, your name wouldn't be in the caption, as Donna's was.
Don't know if I've answered your question, or overcomplicated it. For me personally, the guidance from the Annapolis Capital is to err on the side of caution and get permission except in the obvious cases like the ones above.