first-amendment right-of-publicity indiana
Is selling an autographed mugshot of oneself a violation of Indiana&#39;s &quot;Son of Sam&quot; (notoriety-for-profit) law?
<p>Let's hypothetically say a person is arrested and booked into a county jail. During the intake process, their mugshot is taken. Let's also say that later on the arrest makes major news, even beyond local news, like regional and national news, and the person's mugshot is a part of the news coverage. The person was later convicted of the crime they were arrested for and is now out of prison.</p>
<p>Could they sell autographed copies of their mugshot? Or would this be in violation of Indiana's <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2012/03/23/son-of-sam-statutes-federal-and-state-summary/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Son of Sam&quot; laws</a> (<a href="https://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2022/ic/titles/005#5-2-6.3-3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Indiana Code § 5-2-6.3-3</a>) that prevent a person from profiting off their crimes?</p>
<p>I have done a cursory google search and could not find anything explicitly forbidding this, but also nothing clearly stating that it was 100% legal either. Person in this hypothetical scenario is in Indiana, United States.</p>

<p>Indiana Code § 5-2-6.3-3 requires a person charged with a felony to remit 90 percent of any income derived &quot;directly or indirectly from a felony&quot; to the state's crime-victims fund.</p>
<p>So if the defendant's crime was not a felony, the law does not purport to have any effect on the mugshot transaction. But even if it was a felony, the law does not actually prohibit the mugshot sale, it merely imposes a tax on transactions related to that offense.</p>
<p>But the law is unconstitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that these &quot;Son of Sam&quot; laws violate the First Amendment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We conclude simply that, in the Son of Sam law, New York has singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income. The State's interest in compensating victims from the fruits of crime is a compelling one, but the Son of Sam law is not narrowly tailored to advance that objective. As a result, the statute is inconsistent with the First Amendment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/simon-schuster-v-crime-victims-bd" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Simon Schuster v. Crime Victims Bd</em>., 502 U.S. 105, 123 (1991)</a>.</p>
