# Man arrested for taking picture **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 19, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735 "2014-05-19T15:31:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/61 "2014-05-21T15:26:03Z")
Here is the relevant phrase: “without her consent for his own benefit,” It is well established that if one photographs a recognizable likeness in a public place, that picture cannot be used for gain without the consent of the people who are recognizable. If the guy had just gone in and taken some pictures in the facility and then took them home and did not expose them to public view, there would have been no actionable conduct. But he published the pictures with something to gain for himself, which is violation of laws of privacy. It doesn’t need to be economic gain. As a TV news photographer and reporter, I faced this question daily. The answer is always the same: Don’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/62 "2014-05-21T15:29:22Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > Here is the relevant phrase: “without her consent for his own benefit,” It is well established that if one photographs a recognizable likeness in a public place, that picture cannot be used for gain without the consent of the people who are recognizable. Is there an exemption for celebrities? I’m sure that all of those entertainment rags don’t get permission for shots of movie starts shopping or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/63 "2014-05-21T17:12:47Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So a vulnerable person is walking - or stumbling - through a park, and you take a picture of him. You’re saying - in Mississippi, at least - the seriousness of the crime depends on how much the photo’s worth? Where the vulnerable person is in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, that’s when you might validly claim a First Amendment immunity from prosecution for photographing that person and using the photograph for a protected First Amendment activity (like commenting on the fitness of a political candidate). That is, legally, a very different case from taking the photo when after unauthorized entry into the vulnerable person’s nursing home. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/64 "2014-05-21T18:59:45Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > BTW could the phrasing be parsed as that they are two violations, or as that the illegal photography was an element or a modality of the exploitation? > > In either case, ISTM it’s not “taking a picture” per se that gets him in trouble, it’s doing so "improperly and without her consent ". Breaking into the facility (or entering peaceably but under false pretenses) and photographing a patient without the consent of her family or caregivers, probably puts him at odds with state laws for the protection of patients and of vulnerable adults, which would come under the allowable restrictions of time, place and manner on “speech”. > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > IANAL, but a Google search finds the “Mississippi Vulnerable Adults Act” which bars exploitation of vulnerable adults, and defines exploitation as “the illegal or improper use of a vulnerable adult or his resources for another’s profit or advantage, with or without the consent of the vulnerable adult, and includes acts committed pursuant to a power of attorney. “Exploitation” includes, but is not limited to, a single incident.” Taking this photo would appear to qualify, in my opinion as a layman. I work in a retirement community (in Washington state). I don’t have the relevant laws at hand, but I do know what I was told during new-employee orientation shortly after I was hired: We are absolutely forbidden to take photos of residents _in their rooms_. Group photos of the residents in the facility’s public areas seem to be allowed (with consent), and photos are taken for official purposes. For example: “These residents are likely to wander off. Please watch for them and report if you see them outside without supervision.” For that kind of thing, photos are needed because not every employee is going to know every resident by name. In my case, I’m a cook stuck in the kitchen most of the time, and I can’t attach names to every face, so a list of only names to watch out for would be useless to me. But these legitimate photos are still taken in public areas. We are also forbidden to accept any kind of gift, no matter how small, from a resident. I’m not sure if that’s an actual law, of if it’s just a policy to protect ourselves from accusations of exploitation from relatives. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/65 "2014-05-22T09:35:06Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So a vulnerable person is walking - or stumbling - through a park, and you take a picture of him. You’re saying - in Mississippi, at least - the seriousness of the crime depends on how much the photo’s worth? > > Suppose you only write a story about it. Does the length of the sentence depend on whether the story is any good? The statute might be overly broad and unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances you pose. If I am a photographer and publish an art expose with regards to the poor state of health care in the U.S. where we allow vulnerable persons to stumble through a public park, with photos of a vulnerable person, and I am charged under this law, I might very well have a case. If I break in/sneak in to a nursing home and take a picture of Mrs. Smith pissing herself in her bed, then certainly not. Neither you nor I would expect or tolerate such a thing for ourselves or our family, right? What public issue or debate is stifled by giving sick and/or old people dignity and peace in their beds? ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/66 "2014-05-22T21:31:31Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Is there an exemption for celebrities? I’m sure that all of those entertainment rags don’t get permission for shots of movie starts shopping or whatever. Yes. If a person is recognized as a public figure, no release is required to use their likeness. The idea being that a public figure has become a public figure voluntarily, and thus there is a tacit public domain of his likeness. There is also an exemption for bystanders at a breaking news event (as opposed to a feature story that has no immediacy). ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/67 "2014-05-23T16:23:18Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > No, it doesn’t matter. If he trespassed, let him be prosecuted for trespassing. If he broke in, let him be prosecuted for that. But the story says he was arrested for taking a picture. I’m astonished that you think that taking a picture of someone in private premises with the expectation of privacy should be legal based on free speech. It isn’t free speech, it’s the invasion of privacy. I’d be very surprised if there were no laws prohibiting it, and I’m confident that such laws would pass constitutional muster. Free speech is the ability to convey ideas, not abrogate the rights of others. > [@DSeid](#): > > [Privacy rights relevant to photography:](http://www.photoattorney.com/2005/09/rights-of-privacy-concerns-for.html) A fact! Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/68 "2014-05-24T18:18:38Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > I’m astonished that you think that taking a picture of someone in private premises with the expectation of privacy should be legal based on free speech. It isn’t free speech, it’s the invasion of privacy. I’d be very surprised if there were no laws prohibiting it, and I’m confident that such laws would pass constitutional muster. > > Free speech is the ability to convey ideas, not abrogate the rights of others. > > A fact! Thanks! “Free speech” is not the only clause in the first amendment. The relevant part would refer to freedom of the press. The point of freedom of the press is to prevent Правда, which is to say that the government should not be able to silence the press or dictate what it can or cannot report (we have plenty of mega-corporations to handle that, TYVM). But the first amendment _only_ protects the press _from the government_, not from the people. So, if I object to an image of me taken where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, I can, at least in theory, sue the party that published it. “Freedom” of any kind is not a literal white-card, because my freedom will run up against the boundaries of your freedom, and we will have to somehow resolve our contention. Otherwise, why would we need a social order in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/69 "2014-05-24T19:23:58Z")
Prevent what now? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/70 "2014-05-24T20:10:03Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Prevent what now? _Pravda_, or “truth” in Russian. Perhaps he meant so that news media did not become government mouthpieces, like the Soviet era [newspaper of that name.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda) ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735/71 "2014-05-25T00:31:44Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > “Freedom” of any kind is not a literal white-card, because my freedom will run up against the boundaries of your freedom, and we will have to somehow resolve our contention. Otherwise, why would we need a social order in the first place? I randomly picked up and read a copy of some conservative magazine several years ago, and it had an article about “God-given rights”. And the article made a good point: “God-given” rights (or, “freedom of [whatever]”) are only those rights that do not infringe upon the rights of others. IIRC, the same article spoke about freedom of speech/the press, and pointed out the same thing you did. It said, “You have the right to say anything you want, but I’m not obligated to provide you with a forum in which to say it.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-arrested-for-taking-picture/688735.md?page=3)