[...] [...]

“Protect people from what?”
Actually, I was thinking there of the photographers primarily, and the subjects secondarily.

Agreed that the ‘public’ use crosses the line. I’m not in favor of penalizing ‘thought crimes’ of individuals, though.

Protect people from what? If somebody takes a picture of a person in public with the intent of later using it in private in a sexual or other manner not condoned by the established religious or other sensibilities of those in the community does it somehow defile the soul of the person photographed? Where does the photographer’s intent harm the person photographed. If the intent is translated into some sort of PUBLIC action which involves the subject of the photograph in a defamatory or harmful manner (perhaps by having their picture used by a prosecutor as an example of the deviant behavior of the photographer!!!) then I can see a cause for legal action, but not until then.

The problem with many of the comments I have seen here is that they buy into the basic premise of the law – that the mere taking of a photograph of a person in public may, by and of itself, have harmful consequences. That is BS unless you also buy into the “Defilement of the Soul” argument. Oh yeah, is using a Victoria’s Secret catalog for sexual purpose illegal in Texas? If so then 95% of the adolescent males and probably 15% of the adolescent females in Texas should be in jail….if they aren’t already – Texas being Texas.

Yikes.
I like to think that at least some of my travel-related pix are not ‘not typical tourist pictures’ or else I’m wasting my time!

“this law makes creepy into criminal”
We do have a need to define the line carefully in order to protect people. The fact that governmental agencies can take endless images of these same people (in parks, etc.), as well as corporations in public place like malls, makes it important to protect individual photographers also.

He was released on $30,000 bail. That is very high because he had close ties to the area. He was arrested a few days later for taking pictures of teen girls playing tennis somewhere else. He was not able to make bail immediately. The only other information available is that he had been seen frequently photographing underage girls at tennis courts. I don’t know how the case was disposed of.

Again, it appears to be a thought crime as what should pass for sports photography is now a felony, based on what the defendant was thinking at the time. There is no invasion of privacy, another feature of the Texas statute. Generally the commentary is this law makes creepy into criminal.

W,
amusing comment. thanks.

I bet it gets crowded somtimes
up there on that stool!

Not to beat the point, but with the vagueness of the statute, and how it has been applied…if someone uses a photographer’s image in an ‘improper’ manner, and the image is traced back to the source, the ‘use’ might be deemed as proof of ‘intent to arouse or gratify’.

On “reasonable expectation of privacy”, there have been cases (in other jurisdictions) where this has been applied in a very loose manner.

I have since found other cases and related issues that I’m looking into, likely for another post.

Thanks for all your responses.

Regarding your question about a photograph becoming toxic as a result of its subsequent use, I believe its possible, but only because the way others react to the image would be used by the prosecutor to establish what the photographer’s intent was in the first place. That is another reason why this statute is so dangerous.

As for “reasonable expectation of privacy” it really only applies to dressing room and toilet areas. Invasion of privacy is mentioned in that part of the statute, but its probably redundant. Everywhere else in Texas, all that is needed are the improper thoughts plus a lack of consent to be photographed or have the image transmitted (uploaded).

There is also a third part of the statute dealing with distributing images produced by others, provided the actor knows what the nature and content of the image is. In other words, you can get busted without taking a picture.

-Ron