There's established precedent in the United States that photos of you aren't "yours." Any other circumstance means that journalists and others can't expose bad behavior without getting litigated.
But it's not just a photo, and in any case, a driver's license isn't yours either. It's a government issued official document, and they can require that you return it at any time. So there are even more rules to have to worry about now, hooray...
I verified my ID for Freelancer.com once. They wanted a scan of your ID and a picture of you holding up the same ID and a random number they provided. A picture of your ID that someone got off a website is indistinguishable from a picture of a picture of your ID. A picture of you holding your ID is indistinguishable from a picture of you holding a picture of your ID. It could easily have been a deepfake.
I think this is a real problem and the right to communicate isn't stronger or deeper than the right to prevent illegal or provably harmful communications. (yes 'illegal' can become twisted, I'm limiting to just the painfully obvious things that everyone finds unacceptable (except would-be criminals))
(yes 'criminals' is frequently defined in terms of what's already illegal so I'm just making a fine mess here but while we're at it, let's appeal to the expectations of 'decent' people and then we just bounced it back to definition of 'decent' ad nauseum... ok I'm done)
A picture of a driver's license is the property of the photographer. Richard Prince is a millionaire for taking pictures of others' intellectual property and then auctioning it off, for example.
reply