Nude Photography law in Texas

[JP171]

I just heard something I find disturbing, I hope that someone can give me some information.

I was told by someone on another forum that it is now a "state Jail Felony" to photograph someone without permission if they are nude(I added the nude part, the poster just said a person without their permission). I would like to know if anyone knows anything about this. I am not talking about invasion of privacy as in taking pics or video of someone in their home or hotel room thru the window or peephole, but someone that is at say a nude beach on a public waterway. or standing out in the front yard nude.

[CaptainTom]

google is your friend.

here is a post from 2008

Flickr: Discussing Ridiculous Texas Photography Law in Austin

[Howard Barlow]

Why not look it up in the Penal Code?

[JP171]

ok got it, thanx Tom, I tried google but didn't get a hit, guess you defined your search better than I did. and Texas does infact have a no expectation law so its good thanx.

[Bob_S]

I think the only caveat I didn't look it up in the code, but if you are taking the pictures without the person's consent and you are taking them for anyone's sexual gratification, then it is illegal.

[JP171]

Bob you are essntially correct, but the sexual gratification part is the sticking point, almost any pic can be used for sexual gratification.

here is the statute

Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING. (a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to:
(i) invade the privacy of the other person; or
(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.

[Carl Stone]

Originally Posted by JP171

Bob you are essntially correct, but the sexual gratification part is the sticking point, almost any pic can be used for sexual gratification.

The DA is the one to decide whether or not to prosecute for violating privacy for the purpose of sexual gratification. If folks are comfortable with that, then there is no more to say. I mean the local government will decide, what could go wrong?

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Carl Stone

The DA is the one to decide whether or not to prosecute for violating privacy for the purpose of sexual gratification. If folks are comfortable with that, then there is no more to say. I mean the local government will decide, what could go wrong?

Maybe this is why we don't have any pictures or video of Erykah Badu from bystanders?

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by JP171

Bob you are essntially correct, but the sexual gratification part is the sticking point, almost any pic can be used for sexual gratification.

The cases that I have seen have involved people suspected of photographing the butts, crotches and breasts of people in crowds. I know that law enforcement has made arrests, but I don't know if any prosecutions have held up in court. All the cases I've read have been dismissed or were up for hearing.

[Carl Stone]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

Maybe this is why we don't have any pictures or video of Erykah Badu from bystanders?

All I can say about that is if folks get sexual gratification from seeing Badu nude, then they have a very low threshold for gratification.

[Dobick]

key points:

(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

if you have their consent to take the picture -- not a violation

if the person that takes the photo has no intent to arouse of gratify sexual desire -- not a violation

"I'm sorry that you see it that way Mr. Officer -- but when I took these candid photos, I sure didn't intend to arouse anyone!"

so how does anyone prove that statement to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.

I do not think it can be done.

[Steelsun]

It's one of those murky laws that have little standing if pursued by a good defense lawyer. It was passed to please the voters and is mostly a tool for plea bargaining now. Several other states have similar laws, and it's similar to the blanket anti-porn laws that were written in the early 1900s that have all been thrown out by higher courts.

It rose a stink when it first passed with Private Investigators and news reporters, since it could attempt to be used against them.

[JP171]

the bad part is that it so ambiguous that it can be used against anyone, and beyond a resonable doubt doesn't really come into play here( I know what the rule about it is) all it takes really is a smart DA to get female indignation going on the jury. I can see if its just pics of butts,breasts or a specific body part(even feet/shoes can be a sexually arousing part for some) but to take photos of someone in public that is running around nude, if they expect privacy they should be someplace private then to use it as a faux privacy law is just BS.

[Carl Stone]

Originally Posted by JP171

the bad part is that it so ambiguous that it can be used against anyone, and beyond a resonable doubt doesn't really come into play here

(Porky Pig voice on)

Uhhhhhhh.............. da beeyah, da beeyah, B-B- BINGO!

(PPVO)

[robert t]

Originally Posted by Carl Stone

All I can say about that is if folks get sexual gratification from seeing Badu nude, then they have a very low threshold for gratification.

ROFLOL, well put