Photographs, Consent and Social Media in Adult Social Care
Last updated: April 2025 · Reading time: 12 minutes · Category: Rights, Dignity & Person-Centred Care
Before the next photograph is posted, one question is worth sitting with honestly. Is this image for the person in it — or for the service that supports them? That distinction matters more than most providers realise. And on days like Easter Sunday, Christmas, a birthday or a summer garden party — when care homes, supported living services and the people supported in their own homes are celebrating — the camera comes out more than ever.
The instinct behind it is genuine. There is real warmth in wanting to share those moments. But warmth of intention does not settle the question of consent. And consent — specific, informed, and meaningful — is not the same as a smile when the camera is raised.
This article is not about discouraging providers from sharing the good work they do. It is about asking whether that sharing is truly for the person, or whether it has quietly become something the service does for itself.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is over twenty years old. When it was passed, most people did not have a camera in their pocket. Social media, in the form we recognise today, barely existed. The idea that a photograph taken during afternoon tea in a care home could be seen by thousands of people within minutes was not a scenario the legislation was written to address.
The world has changed. The legislation has not kept pace in this specific area.
That does not mean providers are without guidance or obligation. It means that the framework requires careful, thoughtful interpretation — and that registered managers cannot wait for prescriptive rules that may never arrive. The responsibility to think this through sits with you.
When Carevia looks at social media posts from care providers, the first thought is often the same one most people have: that looks lovely. The residents are smiling. Staff are clearly caring. The atmosphere seems warm and genuine.
The second thought is the harder one: how was this agreed? What was the thought process? Does that person know this image is now public?
Both thoughts matter. The second one has to come before the post.
The Three Questions You Need to Answer Before Posting
Consent in this context is not a single question. It is at least three.
Question
What it means in practice
Do they consent to the photograph being taken?
Has the person been asked, in the moment, whether they are happy to be photographed? Not assumed from a previous conversation or a general care plan note.
Do they consent to the photograph being stored?
Where will it be kept? Who has access to it? On what device? Is the person aware their image is being held by the organisation — and not on a staff member’s personal phone?
Do they consent to the photograph being shared publicly on social media?
This is distinct from the first two. A person can be happy to be photographed and happy for families to see an image without consenting to it being posted publicly on a platform accessible to anyone.
These are not interchangeable. Consent to one does not imply consent to the others.
There is also a fourth consideration that is easy to overlook. Even if a person gave consent at some point in the past — perhaps when they moved into a service, or during a care review — is that consent still current? Have circumstances changed? Has their condition changed? Do they even remember giving it? Consent is not a one-off administrative task. It is an ongoing conversation.
Where the Mental Capacity Act Fits — and Where It Doesn’t
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the framework for making decisions on behalf of people who lack capacity to make those decisions themselves. It is the right starting point for any provider thinking about this issue — but it needs to be applied carefully.
The first principle of the MCA is that you must assume a person has capacity unless there is evidence to the contrary. That means if someone appears to have capacity, you ask them. You do not go straight to a capacity assessment or a best interests process. The question of whether someone consents to their photograph being shared on social media begins, and in most cases ends, with asking them directly.
If a person has capacity, their answer governs what happens. If they say no, you do not post. If they say yes, you document it. There is no process to override a capacitated person’s refusal.
Where the MCA becomes relevant is where there is reason to believe a person may lack capacity to make this specific decision. And this is where the thinking needs to be more careful.
Lacking capacity for some decisions does not mean lacking capacity for all of them. A person with moderate dementia may retain the capacity to express a view about whether they want their photograph taken, even if they lack capacity for more complex decisions. Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific. It cannot be assumed from a diagnosis or a general assessment.
Principle 2: Supporting People to Understand the Decision — All of It
The second principle of the Mental Capacity Act is that a person must be given all practicable help and support to make their own decision before anyone concludes they cannot. That is not a procedural box to tick. It is a meaningful obligation.
In the context of social media, it means helping the person understand what they are actually agreeing to. And social media is a messy mixture of the good, the bad and the genuinely unpredictable.
For many people living in care homes or receiving support at home — particularly older people who have lived most of their lives before smartphones existed — the concept of social media may be limited or unfamiliar. They may understand that a photograph is being taken. They may not understand what happens next.
What does supporting someone to understand actually look like here? It means explaining clearly: the image could be seen by anyone — not just family members, not just people who know them. It could be commented on, reacted to, or shared further by people entirely outside your control. Once posted publicly, there is very limited ability to control where it goes or how it is used. Even if the original post is taken down, the image may already have been saved, screenshotted or shared elsewhere.
These are not abstract risks. They are the reality of how social media works. Supporting someone to make their own decision about consent means giving them this information, in a way they can understand, before they agree. Not after.
If a person cannot understand those implications — even with appropriate support — that is relevant to the capacity assessment. The decision they are being asked to make is not a simple one.
And even where a person does have capacity, Principle 2 means helping them understand that social media is not the only option. They should know there are alternatives before they are asked to agree to the most public one.
If a proper capacity assessment determines that a person lacks capacity to consent to their image being shared on social media, the provider must then consider whether doing so is in that person’s best interests.
This is where it is worth pausing and asking a harder question — and one that needs to come before the best interests decision itself.
Is social media even the right option?
There are many ways to share photographs with family members and loved ones that do not involve making an image publicly visible to anyone on the internet. A person could be supported to have a WhatsApp conversation with family, with control over which photographs they share and with whom. A service newsletter — sent privately to families — can celebrate the same moments without a public audience. A printed photograph book, something the person can look through with staff, family members and friends, can carry just as much warmth and meaning as any Facebook post. More, perhaps, because the person is part of it.
Social media is quick. It is easy. It has become a default — a way of showing the world that good things are happening inside a service. That instinct is not wrong. But ease of use is not a justification for choosing it where a person’s privacy and rights are at stake.
Providers are used to completing best interests decisions for areas of care — medication, personal care, moving and handling. These decisions carry a clear rationale. They are necessary for the person’s health, safety or wellbeing. The benefit is identifiable. Sharing a photograph on social media is different.
What is the direct benefit to this specific person? Not to the service’s reputation. Not to staff morale. Not to public perception of care as a sector — however genuine and valuable those motivations are.
If the answer is that it might make families aware of a good day, that the person appeared to enjoy the activity, that it celebrates something meaningful to them — those are not unreasonable considerations. But they need to be articulated, documented and genuinely weighed against the alternatives. Making a family aware of a good day does not require a public post. Celebrating a meaningful moment does not require an audience of strangers.
If the best interests decision concludes that social media is the right route, it should be able to say clearly why — not just why sharing the image is in the person’s interests, but why sharing it publicly, rather than through a more controlled alternative, is the better choice for that individual.
The best interests process under the MCA requires you to consider what the person’s own wishes and feelings would be — including any previously expressed views — and what they would likely want if they had capacity. That is a meaningful test. It asks you to think about the person, not the optics.
A registered manager who sees a team member about to post a photograph of a resident and asks “have we thought about whether this needs to be public?” is not being obstructive. They are doing exactly what the legislation requires.
Addressing the common arguments
There are arguments for social media photographs that come up regularly in adult social care. They are worth acknowledging — because they are not dishonest arguments. They just do not carry the weight that is sometimes placed on them.
The argument
The honest response
Families love seeing it.
Families can be kept informed and included through newsletters, private messages, supported WhatsApp conversations, or printed keepsakes. The warmth families feel does not require a public audience to be genuine.
The local authority likes it.
Local authorities are equally — often more — impressed by structured evidence of person-centred care: care plan reviews, outcome records, meaningful activity logs. A private newsletter demonstrating personalised engagement says more than a Facebook post.
We can use it as evidence of activities for CQC.
CQC inspectors are looking for evidence of person-centred care, not a social media presence. Activity records, care notes that describe the person’s experience, and accounts from staff and people being supported carry more evidential weight. A photograph on Facebook is not a substitute for that — and if it were the primary evidence, that would itself raise questions.
None of these arguments are made in bad faith. But none of them place the individual’s rights, preferences and dignity at the centre. They are reasons that serve the service. The question the MCA requires is what serves the person.
Can the person actually access the images themselves?
There is one consideration that is almost never raised — and it may be the most revealing of all.
If the stated purpose of sharing a photograph on social media is partly for the person’s own enjoyment, for them to look back on a good day, to feel celebrated — then ask this: can the person actually access those images?
Not in theory. In practice.
Do they have a social media account? Do they have a device to access it? Do they have the opportunity, the support, or the digital literacy to find and view a post on a provider’s Facebook page? For many people living in care homes or receiving support at home, the honest answer is no. The images sit on a public platform that the person themselves cannot reach.
A scrapbook in someone’s bedroom. A printed photograph book on the shelf in their room. These are images the person can pick up whenever they choose, look through with a visitor, return to on a difficult day. That is access. That is value. A post on a provider’s Facebook page that the person has never seen and cannot find is not for them — whatever the intention behind it.
This is the difference between value and vanity. Between a decision genuinely made for the person and one made about them. It is worth sitting with honestly before the next photograph is posted.
Retracting Consent: The Process Most Providers Don’t Have
Where a person does consent — clearly, informedly and with capacity — the story does not end there.
Consent can be withdrawn. People change their minds. Circumstances change. A person who was happy to appear in social media posts twelve months ago may feel differently now. Their health may have changed. Their personal circumstances may have changed. They may simply have a different view.
Does your service have a clear, accessible process for a person to retract their consent? Do they know that process exists? Has it ever been explained to them?
For many providers, the honest answer is no. Consent — if it was obtained at all — was recorded once, filed somewhere, and treated as permanent. That is not how consent works under the MCA or under data protection law.
At the point of consent
Explain clearly that the person can withdraw consent at any time and describe simply how they would do so.
A named process
A clear method for communicating and recording withdrawal — known to staff, not just filed in a policy document.
Regular review
Consent reviewed at intervals — at care reviews as a minimum — not assumed to remain current indefinitely.
A clear response
When consent is withdrawn, the image comes down promptly, the record is updated, and the decision is documented.
The process for withdrawing consent should be as straightforward as the process for giving it. If it is difficult or unclear, it is not a genuine process.
It is one of the most common assumptions in social care — and one of the most problematic. A person is smiling in a photograph. They seem relaxed. They were clearly enjoying the activity. Surely that means they are happy for the image to be shared?
Appearing happy in a moment is not consent to that moment being made permanently public.
A person can enjoy a party, feel included, be genuinely pleased about their birthday — and still not have understood, agreed to, or even been asked about whether their photograph will be posted publicly on social media. The assumption that a positive emotional state implies consent is one that would not pass scrutiny in any other area of care.
We do not assume that a person who seems relaxed during personal care has consented to that care. We do not assume that a person who does not protest has agreed. We ask, we record, we respect the answer. The same standard applies here.
There is also something worth sitting with more carefully. A person may appear happy in the moment and feel entirely differently when they see the image afterwards — or if someone points out where it has appeared, who has seen it, or what was said about it. The photograph captures a second. The consequences of posting it can last considerably longer.
Consent is the legal question. But there is a human one sitting alongside it that registered managers should also be asking.
Is this photograph dignified?
Before the image is captured, before consent is even considered — look at the person. Has he had the shave he likes every morning? Has Mary got her red lipstick on, as she always does for any occasion? Is the person’s hair done the way they prefer it? Are they dressed in the clothes they would choose to be seen in?
These are not small details. They are a reflection of who that person is — their preferences, their identity, their pride in how they present themselves to the world. An activity photograph taken in the spirit of celebration can still fall short if the person in it is not at their best in the way they would choose.
Ask yourself honestly: if a family member opened that photograph, would they see the person they know and love, presented with care and respect? Or would they see someone who looks like the occasion crept up on them?
Sharing an undignified image publicly, even with good intentions, is not a neutral act. It is a statement about how that person is seen by the people who care for them. The same culture that produces a dignified care note — one that honours who a person is, not just what was done to them — is the same culture that pauses before a photograph and asks whether this image does that person justice.
The effort we apply to our own photographs
Consider what happens when people take photographs of themselves or each other in ordinary life. At a restaurant, someone takes a photograph of the group. They ask to see it. They study it. They ask for it to be taken again. The light was wrong, or someone blinked, or it simply did not look the way they wanted to look. Then come the filters — adjustments to colour, light, contrast — before the image is deemed ready to share.
We all do this to some degree. We curate how we appear. We choose the angle, the moment, the version of ourselves that goes public. It is not vanity. It is dignity. It is the reasonable expectation that we have some control over how we are presented to the world.
The people being supported in care homes and supported living services have the same expectation — whether or not they can articulate it. The difference is that they are often not the ones holding the camera, choosing the moment, or deciding whether the image is good enough to share. Someone else is making those decisions for them.
Which brings a pointed question: if Mary consents to a photograph being taken and shared, how do you know that particular photograph represents her in the way she would want to be seen? Has she seen it? Has she been given the opportunity to say it is not quite right, that she would like it taken again, that she is not happy with how she looks in it?
Person-centred care plans should include how a person likes to be presented. Not just what they like to eat or how they prefer to be addressed. How they like to look. Their preferred side for a photograph. Whether they want to check an image before it is kept or shared. These are not frivolous details. They are the difference between a photograph that honours someone and one that simply captures them.
There is a reason people joke about having a preferred side. The joke exists because the feeling behind it is universal. Everyone has a version of themselves they would rather the world saw. Registered managers should be thinking about whether their photography practices — and their care plans — give the people they support the same consideration that any of us would take for granted.
Carevia Pro+ members can use Ask Carevia+ to sense-check governance decisions, explore best interests evidence, and prepare for inspection — available any time.
Everything covered so far has focused on consent and the MCA. But there is a second legal framework running alongside it that carries its own significant risks.
UK GDPR.
A photograph that identifies a person is personal data. Taking it, storing it and sharing it publicly are all forms of processing that require a lawful basis. For most care providers, that means either the person’s explicit consent, or a legitimate interests assessment that genuinely weighs their rights against the provider’s purpose.
This matters across the whole process — but it carries a particular risk that is easy to overlook.
Staff personal phones.
In many services, photographs at events or activities are taken on personal mobile devices. A member of staff takes out their phone, captures the moment, and either posts it directly or sends it to a team WhatsApp group so that someone else can post it. It feels informal, quick, harmless. It is also potentially a serious data breach.
When a photograph of an identifiable person is taken on a staff member’s personal phone, that image sits outside the organisation’s control from the moment it is captured. The provider has no oversight of where it is stored, who can access it from that device, whether it is backed up to a personal cloud account, or what happens to it if that member of staff leaves.
Has the person consented to their photograph being taken on a staff member’s personal device? Not on an organisation-owned device with a clear data management policy — a personal phone. Most providers do not ask that question separately. Most people being supported have no idea their image may be sitting in someone’s personal cloud account.
Taking, storing and sharing images without proper process is not just about undermining someone’s right to consent and privacy. It may also be a breach of GDPR — with reporting obligations to the ICO and the reputational and legal consequences that carries.
A photography policy that is silent on personal devices is not complete. A comprehensive policy should cover:
Personal device use
Whether personal devices are permitted for taking photographs of people being supported — and if so, under what strict conditions.
Approved devices and data management
What devices are approved, how images are stored, transferred and then securely deleted.
Staff leavers
What happens to images held on personal devices when a member of staff leaves — and how this is managed and confirmed.
Organisational responsibility
The ICO is clear that organisations are responsible for how personal data is handled by their staff, including where personal devices are used for work purposes.
Good practice in this area is not about banning photographs. It is about building the habit of thinking — before you capture, before you share, and before you assume.
That habit starts with the person in front of you. Not the occasion. Not the post. The person.
Dignity comes before the camera
Before consent is even considered, there is a prior question. Is this photograph one the person would want taken at all — right now, in this moment, looking as they do?
Mary is proud of how she looks. She has worn red lipstick for as long as anyone can remember. She takes care of her appearance. It matters to her. Does the photograph being taken reflect that? If Mary hasn’t got her makeup on, does she actually consent to a photograph being taken at all — regardless of whether she smiles when the camera appears? A smile in the moment is not an answer to that question.
Bill served in the army. He irons his clothes with precision. He would not be seen in public any other way. A candid photograph taken mid-activity, in a creased shirt, would not represent how Bill sees himself or how he would choose to be seen by anyone else. He would not want that image on Facebook. He possibly would not want it taken.
These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the kind of detail that should already be in a care plan — and if it is, it should be informing every decision about whether a photograph is appropriate, not just what happens after it is taken.
Ask before you capture: Is this person presented in a way that reflects their own standards and preferences? If you know them well enough to support them, you know enough to answer that question honestly.
Explore the alternatives — even where capacity is absent
Where a person lacks capacity, the obligation to explore alternatives does not disappear. It becomes more important. The person cannot advocate for their own privacy preferences in the way someone with full capacity can — which means the registered manager and the team carry that responsibility on their behalf.
The best interests process should not arrive at social media as the default answer. It should work through the options genuinely:
Supported sharing with family
Could the person be supported to share photographs directly with family via a private WhatsApp conversation — with control remaining closer to them? This gives families the same warm moment without a public audience.
Private service newsletter
A newsletter sent to families and loved ones can celebrate the same events with the same photographs, in a closed environment the person’s circle can access without it being visible to anyone on the internet.
A printed photograph book
A physical collage or photograph book that the person can look through with staff, family, and friends carries meaning precisely because it is personal. It belongs to them. They can share it on their own terms.
Framed prints and displays within the service
Celebrating a moment by displaying a photograph within the service can be meaningful — but where it is displayed matters. A photograph in a person’s own room, in a space they control and choose who enters, is a private display. A photograph on a communal noticeboard, in a corridor, or in a shared lounge is not. Anyone who visits the service — other residents’ families, contractors, professionals, members of the public attending events — can see it. Consent to a photograph being displayed privately in someone’s own room is not consent to it being visible to everyone who walks through the building.
These alternatives are not second best. For many people — particularly those with limited understanding of social media, or those for whom dignity and controlled presentation matter deeply — they are better.
Supporting understanding — even where capacity is in question
Even where a full capacity assessment concludes that a person lacks capacity for this decision, that does not end the conversation with the person. The MCA is clear that people must be supported to be involved in decisions made about them, even where they lack capacity to make those decisions themselves.
What does the person express when shown a photograph of themselves? Do they light up, or do they look uncomfortable? Do they reach for it, or do they turn away? These responses are not formal consent — but they are meaningful. They are the kind of evidence that should inform a best interests decision, alongside what is known about the person’s lifelong values, preferences and sense of self.
Mary’s known pride in her appearance is relevant evidence. Bill’s lifelong standards around presentation are relevant evidence. A best interests decision that does not account for what is known about the person is not a complete one.
The question is not only whether sharing the photograph is in their best interests. It is whether this photograph, of this person, on this platform, reflects who they are and how they would choose to be seen.
The practical checklist
Before taking a photograph
Is the person presented in a way that reflects their own standards and preferences? Have you asked them individually, in this moment? Have you considered whether right now is the right time — or whether to wait until Mary has her lipstick on?
Before storing a photograph
What device was used? Where is the image going? Who has access? Images should only be stored on approved, organisation-controlled devices and systems — not personal phones.
Before posting a photograph
Have all three consent questions been answered? Has the person been supported to understand what social media actually means — including that the image could be seen, commented on or shared by anyone? Have alternatives been genuinely considered, not just dismissed because social media is quicker?
Where a person lacks capacity
Has a capacity assessment been completed for this specific decision? Has the person been involved and their responses observed? Has the best interests decision genuinely weighed the alternatives — and what is known about this individual’s values, preferences and sense of dignity?
When a person withdraws consent
Remove the image promptly. Update the record. Document the decision and the action taken. The process for withdrawing consent should be as clear as the process for giving it.
As a registered manager
The culture around this starts with you. Staff who see a manager pause and ask — does this photograph do this person justice? — will internalise that as the standard. Staff who see images posted without thought will treat that as normal too.
RAOF™ — Read, Ask, Observe, Feedforward — is the framework Carevia is built on. It is a way of triangulating evidence before acting. Applied to this issue, it looks like this.
RRead
What does your photography policy actually say? Does it cover personal devices and GDPR? What do care plans record about known wishes regarding photographs and social media? What does any consent documentation say — and when was it last reviewed?
AAsk
Have you asked the person directly, with support to understand what they are agreeing to — including the alternatives? Have staff had the conversation about why personal devices are a risk, not just what the rule is?
OObserve
Watch what actually happens in practice. When photographs are taken at events, who is asking for consent, how, and is it being recorded? Are personal phones appearing? Is the culture in your service treating this as a meaningful question or an afterthought?
FFeedforward
What needs to change? Is the policy fit for purpose — does it address GDPR, personal devices, the alternatives to social media, and withdrawal of consent? Does the team need training not just on what to do, but on why it matters for the people they support?
These are not complicated questions. They are the right ones.
The RAOF™ Time Planner embeds this cycle into your working week — so reflective leadership becomes a habit, not an occasional exercise.
Before every photograph is shared publicly, these questions should be answerable. Not as a bureaucratic exercise — as a genuine test of whether what is about to happen is actually for the person.
Work through them in order. If the answer to any question is no, or uncertain, stop at that point.
1
Is the person presented in a way that reflects their own standards?
Have they had their hair done as they like it? Are they wearing what they would choose? Does Mary have her lipstick on? Would Bill be happy to be seen this way? If not — wait, or do not take the photograph at all.
YES — continue
2
Has the person seen the photograph and been given the opportunity to say it is not right?
Have they had the chance to check it, ask for it to be taken again, or decline it? Does their care plan record how they like to be presented in photographs? A smile when the camera is raised is not the same as approving the image.
YES — continue
3
Does the person have capacity to consent to this photograph being taken, stored and shared publicly?
Not capacity in general. Capacity for this specific decision. If yes — have they consented to all three? If no — has a capacity assessment been completed and a best interests decision documented?
YES, with documented consent or best interests — continue
4
Has the person been supported to understand what social media actually means?
Do they understand the image could be seen by anyone, commented on, shared beyond your control? Do they understand that alternatives exist — a WhatsApp to family, a newsletter, a printed book? Have they been supported to make an informed choice, not just given the option to agree?
YES — continue
5
Can the person actually access this image themselves?
Not in theory — in practice. Do they have a device, an account, the opportunity to view the post? If not, is the image genuinely for them, or for the service? Could a printed copy, a scrapbook, or a direct share serve them better?
YES — continue
6
Was the photograph taken on an approved device — not a personal phone?
Is the image stored on an organisation-controlled system? Is there a clear data management process covering how it is held, who can access it, and how long it is retained?
YES — continue
✓
If you have reached this point, you can evidence genuine, person-centred consideration.
Not because a process has been followed. Because the person has been thought about — their dignity, their wishes, their understanding, their access, and their rights. The decision is documented, defensible, and genuinely theirs. That is the difference between value and vanity.
This is not a checklist designed to make social media photographs impossible. It is a framework designed to make them meaningful. If a photograph clears every question above, it is genuinely for the person. If it cannot, the question worth asking is not how to get around the obstacle — but what that obstacle is telling you.
Build the leadership habits that make decisions like this easier
Carevia Pro gives registered managers and quality leads access to governance and assurance planning tools, the RAOF™ Time Planner, workforce development resources, and a growing library of practical guidance. Pro+ adds Ask Carevia+ — your always-available virtual quality partner.
Governance & Assurance Schedule Planner — structured oversight built into the year
RAOF™ Time Planner — embed leadership reflection into your working week (Pro+)
Inspection Readiness Dashboard — self-assess across all five CQC key questions (Pro+)
Does a person need to consent every time a photograph is taken?+
In practice, consent should be refreshed regularly — particularly where circumstances have changed or time has passed. A blanket consent signed on admission to a service is unlikely to be sufficient and does not cover the specific context of a public social media post. Each decision to post should be considered individually.
What if a person appears happy in a photograph — does that count as consent?+
No. Appearing happy or relaxed is not the same as consenting to an image being taken or shared. Consent requires understanding what is being agreed to, including the reality of what social media means — who can see it, comment on it, and share it further. A positive emotional state in a moment cannot substitute for an informed agreement.
How should we handle withdrawal of consent?+
The process for withdrawing consent should be clearly explained to the person at the point consent is given. It should be straightforward — a verbal or written request that is then acted upon promptly, with the image removed and the record updated. Consent should be reviewed at regular intervals, at care reviews as a minimum.
Do we have to use social media to share photographs with families?+
No — and it is worth exploring alternatives before social media becomes the default. A supported WhatsApp conversation with family, a private service newsletter, or a printed photograph book are all meaningful ways to share moments without the privacy implications of a public post. Where a person lacks capacity, the best interests decision should consider these alternatives rather than assuming social media is the natural choice.
Can staff use personal phones to take photographs?+
This needs to be addressed explicitly in your photography policy. Photographs taken on personal devices sit outside the organisation’s data management systems from the moment they are captured. Most providers should prohibit the use of personal devices for photographing the people they support, or have very clear controls in place where exceptions are permitted. The ICO is clear that organisations carry responsibility for how personal data is handled by staff.
Can a family member consent on behalf of someone?+
A family member’s request or agreement does not override the person’s own rights or the need for a proper consent or best interests process. Family members are not automatically authorised to make decisions about someone’s image unless they hold a registered Lasting Power of Attorney for personal welfare. Their views can be considered as part of a best interests process — but they do not replace it.
Is this covered by GDPR as well as the MCA?+
Yes. A photograph that identifies a person is personal data under UK GDPR. Sharing it publicly constitutes processing that requires a lawful basis. For most care providers, this means either the person’s explicit consent or a legitimate interests assessment that properly weighs their rights. Both the MCA and data protection legislation apply and need to be considered together. A failure of process could constitute a data breach — with reporting obligations to the ICO.
Carevia is not a legal service. This article is for guidance purposes only. Always refer to the official MCA Code of Practice, ICO guidance, and seek professional advice where needed.
