Dialog-warning-orange.svg Personality rights warning

This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of depictions of living or deceased persons may be restricted by laws regarding personality rights. The extent of these restrictions depends on jurisdiction. Personality rights restrictions apply independently of copyright. Before using this content, please ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights.

Photographs of identifiable people

Image taken in a private place and requiring evidence of consent (here, provided)

This article sets out some general guidelines to bear in mind when taking pictures of identifiable people that are intended for uploading onto The guidelines apply to photographs of others and do not apply to obvious self-portraits. They also do not apply to photographs where the subject is unidentifiable.

The consensus on (subject to any local law to the contrary) is that the subject's consent is not usually needed for a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place, but is usually needed for such a photograph taken in a private place. When required, evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media. This may be accomplished using the {{consent}} template.

Consent of the subject (who is a non-public figure) is required even for photographs taken in public places in some countries (see list below).

Photographs taken in a public place

In the United States, consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places. Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual.

Photographs taken in a private place

Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy.

What are 'public' and 'private' places?

For our purposes, a private place can be considered a place where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and a public place is a place where the subject has no such expectation. Note that there may be private places on public land (such as a tent on the beach) as well as public places on private land (like at a large private party or concert where there is generally no expectation of privacy when many people are openly taking photographs). This general principle is a good starting point when gauging whether the community is likely to require that the consent of the subject should be obtained before uploading.

As always, of course, if there are any local laws which control the taking of photographs, or the use that may be made of them without the subject's consent, those will take precedence.

Legal issues

There are a variety of non-copyright laws which may affect the photographer and the uploader, including defamation, personality rights and rights to privacy. In consequence, the commercial use of these pictures may still be problematic if the depicted person does not agree. Even if the copyright license allows for commercial use (which is required for an image to be in the scope of, the permission of the photographed person may still be needed in some countries.

You should bear in mind that defamation may arise not only from the content of the image itself but also from its description and title when uploaded. An image of an identified unknown individual may be unexceptional on its own, but with the title "A drug-dealer" there may be potential defamation issues in at least some countries.


These vary from country to country, but the general rule is that an image is definitely unacceptable to if it is illegal, or arguably illegal, in any one or more of: (a) the country in which the photograph was taken; (b) the country from which the image was uploaded; (c) Germany (where images are stored).

Moral issues

Not all legally-obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable to even if they otherwise fall within the project's scope. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:

These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: (No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation).

The extent to which a particular photograph is "unfair" or "intrusive" will depend on the nature of the shot, whether it was taken in a public or private place, the title/description, and on the type of subject (e.g., a celebrity, a non-famous person, etc).

This is all a matter of degree. A snatched shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place may well be acceptable to the community; a similar shot of an anonymous member of the public may or may not be acceptable, depending on what is shown and how it is presented.

Re-use of the image images are released under wide licences, but without any guarantee that they are free of non-copyright legal restrictions on re-use. Someone re-using in a derogatory manner an unexceptional Free-Photos.ibz image of an identifiable subject might run the risk of the subject suing for defamation. But since neither the photographer, the uploader nor have encouraged such defamatory use, the image itself is still perfectly acceptable to The fact that a photograph is capable of being misused does not mean, in itself, that it is objectionable here.

Putting something under the public domain or a free license does not open the door for abuses of the right of publicity or defamation on-wiki or off-wiki. These acts are just as illegal as they would be otherwise, no matter the copyright status of the image, and that punishment can be enforced even on, for example, abusive re-uses of public domain US government images.


In each case, of an identifiable individual with no evidence of consent given, and assuming no defamation or other legal issues:

No consent was required for this shot as it was taken in a public place

Normally OK

This image is acceptable, even without consent, but a non-pixellated version entitled "An obese girl" was deleted as potentially derogatory

Normally not OK

Can an image be made allowable by adding the {{Personality rights}} template?

No. The {{Personality rights}} template has nothing to do with the allowability or otherwise of an image under these rules. Its purpose is simply to warn re-users of’ content that local laws may impose additional requirements on re-use, over and above those that we enforce here. If a photograph fails the rules on this page it must be deleted, and it is never a valid argument that adding a {{Personality rights}} template will allow it to be kept.

Removal at the request of the subject, photographer or uploader

Sometimes the subject, photographer or uploader of an image requests that it be removed from, for example because it may cause embarrassment. Generally, images are not removed simply because the subject does not like them, but administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests where good reasons can be given.

Avoiding problems

It may sometimes be possible to avoid the legal and moral issues mentioned here, for example by:

Country specific consent requirements

In a number of countries consent is needed for just taking a photograph of one or more identifiable people, to publish it and/or to use it commercially even if the person is in a public place. The following is a list of countries where consent is needed for one or more of the mentioned situations.
This list is incomplete: Just because a country isn't listed here, it does not reflect a fact that everyone is free to take/publish/commercially use pictures of people in public spaces in that country.

Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place (by country)
Country Take a picture Publish a picture Commercially1 use a published picture
Afghanistan No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Argentina No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Australia No (with exceptions) No (with exceptions) Yes
Austria No No (with exceptions) Yes
Belgium No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Brazil Yes Yes Yes
Canada Depends on province Yes (with exceptions) Yes
China No No Yes
Czech Republic Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Denmark No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Ethiopia No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Finland No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
France Yes (with exceptions) Yes Yes
Germany Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Greece No No Yes (with exceptions)
Hungary Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
India No No (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Israel No Yes Yes
Italy No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Japan Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Libya No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Mexico No Yes Yes
Netherlands No No (with exceptions) No (with exceptions)
New Zealand No (with exceptions) No (with exceptions)  ?
Norway No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Peru No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Poland No Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Portugal No (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes
Russian Federation No Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Slovakia Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions) Yes (with exceptions)
Slovenia No No Yes
South Africa No No Yes
Spain Yes Yes Yes
Sweden No No Yes
Switzerland Yes Yes Yes
Taiwan No No (with exceptions) Yes
United Kingdom Depends on circumstances Depends on circumstances Depends on circumstances
United States No No Usually (although laws differ by state)
1: In this context "commercial use" is purely {{personality rights}}, and thus never a reason for deletion



Per the Law Supporting the Rights of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers[1] article 38 (1) "[a] Person who takes photographs, films, portraits or records voice of a Person shall be prohibited from publishing, displaying or distributing the original or copy of picture, film or voice record of the said person".
Some exceptions lie in the same article, mainly if the photo is taken during a public event (1), related to public figures (1), of world known celebrities (1), or authorized by the public authorities (1) or the said person itself (2).


Publication of personal photographs without consent is considered violation of privacy by the Argentine law. It is explicitly mentioned as a civil infraction in the Civil Code[2].
The Argentine Copyright Law (Law 11.723)[3] gives the following rules for commercial use of images of people:
A portrait photograph of a person may not be placed in commerce without their explicit consent or authorization. This consent can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity. Publication shall be free only for scientific, teaching or general cultural purposes or where it is related to facts or events of public interest or which have taken place in public.


It is generally OK to take photos of people in public without obtaining permission. "There is also currently no tort of invasion of privacy in Australia, but in ABC v Lenah Game Meats (2001) the High Court did not exclude the possibility that a tort of unjustified invasion of privacy may be established in the future. Based on this view, the Queensland District Court found in Grosse v Purvis (2003) that a tort of invasion of privacy had been made out on the facts and awarded the plaintiff damages. However, this case concerned a long history of harassment over many years and has limited application. As a result, taking photographs of people in public places is generally permitted."[4]

Exceptions might arise in cases where certain acts are done in what is technically public space, but "where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy" (eg a secluded part of a public beach): "it is an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment to photograph a person to provide sexual arousal or gratification if the person is undressed or engaged in a private act in circumstances where a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, and he or she has not consented to being filmed. A private act includes using the toilet, bathing and engaging in sexual activities not ordinarily done in public."[4]

More generally, subjects can prevent publication of "clearly degrading" photographs: "Injunctions can be obtained to halt the publication of photographs if the images are indecent, offensive or otherwise demean the subjects in them (Lincoln Hunt Australia v. Willesee (1986) 4 NSWLR 456 at p.464). The depiction has to be clearly degrading though, merely saying you were "embarrassed" or "uncomfortable" will be laughed out of court - Donnelly v Amalgamated TV Services (1998) NSWSC 509."[5]

The state of Queensland has legislation explicitly prohibiting recording of "private acts" in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy: Queensland Criminal Code S227A - Observations or recordings in breach of privacy. Such "circumstances" may arise either from the subject being in a private place (S227A(1)(b)(i)) or from the subject "engaging in a private act and the observation or visual recording is made for the purpose of observing or visually recording a private act" (S227A(1)(b)(ii)). "Private acts" are defined by the Queensland Supreme and District Courts Benchbook.[6] The Code includes as an example A person changing in a communal change room at a swimming pool may expect to be observed by another person who is also changing in the room but may not expect to be visually recorded.


According to the Austrian Copyright Law[7][8] it is illegal to publish or distribute any picture taken of a person without permission if their legitimate interests are affected. Although you may be legally entitled to publish the picture if the person is not shown in a private situation and the picture is not used in a misleading or derogatory context or for publicity purposes, this would be illegal if the person successfully claims violation of their legitimate interests[9]. Therefore it is strongly recommended[10][11] to obtain permission from the person depicted in the photograph, unless their appearance is merely accidental and not incriminating or it is a Person des öffentlichen Lebens (public figure). It is not allowed to publish or distribute pictures which could reveal intimate life details or private information without interest for the public even if the photo was taken in a public space and shows people well known in the public sphere (e. g. Minister kissing a lady at the airport[11]).
In 2013, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) ruled that under certain circumstances, even just taking photos of people can violate their general personality rights. In that case, a person took a photo of a lawyer visiting their house and, when asked to explain the reason, responded that they took the photo "for amusement" (zur Belustigung). The court ruling did however affirm that cases where a person's presence on the photo is merely incidental can be considered differently.


Referring to article 8 (privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights the Belgian Courts assume that no specific damage or prejudice has to be suffered in order to be entitled to object to the publication of one's own recognizable image.[13]
All acts of reproduction or communication to the public of a portrait without prior consent are considered illegal.
Article 10 of the Belgian Copyright act implies not the right to prevent beeing photographed.
Belgian jurisdiction and doctrine have recognized that public figures have to accept the publication of their image if the photograph is not taken in private circumstances and if the publication has no commercial purposes (e. g. advertising, merchandising).[14]
Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest, and when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event.[15][13]
There are special rules and official recommendations if minors are involved.[13]


Article 5, sections V and X, of the Brazilian Constitution states that the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages to the image is ensured.[16][17]
The Brazilian Civil Code of 2002 deals with this matter in article 20 which has to be interpreted in the light of article 12 of the same codification[18] and the generally accepted doctrine, legalized by case law that specifically recognizes the image right as an autonomous personality right. This means, the right to own image is protected as such: Just taking someone's photo without his or her permission (in private or public space) can violate their image right and gives them a right to compensation for moral damage. Of course copying, reproducing, transfering, distributing, publishing or commercializing such a picture are illegal and anti-constitutional acts. Simultaneous prejudice to honour or reputation is not necessary. If the image is commercially exploited or used in a derogatory way, this will only aggrave the situation, but it is not a requirement for infraction complaint.[19][20]
Although not mentioned in the law, it is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of[21]
Once taken or published lawfully without obtaining the permission from the person depicted, it is not allowed to re-use or publish the same picture again at a later time or in another context without consent.
The consent to publish or use a picture can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity.


Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc. established "that under Quebec law a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject." Exceptions include (i) a person of public interest (ii) an unknown person who is implicated in a public matter (iii) persons included incidentally.[22]

Whilst the Aubry case was decided under Quebec law, it was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court's approach in the case is generally thought to give guidance on Canadian legal views on these matters more generally.[23] For example, the court explicitly rejected the US legal approach in which a "socially useful purpose" can support publication of a photograph without subject consent.[24] British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan also have privacy legislation giving individuals the right to sue for privacy breaches; in other provinces, common law protection may apply.[25] In addition, the the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) provides privacy protection which requires consent for the taking or publication of photographs for commercial purposes.[25] "For all activities, whether commercial in nature or not, provincial and common law privacy protections limit the distribution of photographs. Distributing an identifiable image of a person without consent is likely to violate one or more of these privacy laws."[25]


According to the Chinese Civil Law Article 100[26] photos of regular people may not be used for profit (commercially) without consent.

Czech Republic

The protection of own image and other personality rights is regulated by the Civil Code no. 89/2012 Coll., Articles 84 to 90.[27]
No consent for taking and using pictures of a person is needed to protect or exercise other rights. Also, the consent is not needed for legal official purposes, or for images of public appearances in matters of public interest. (Art. 88)
Exception is granted also for appropriate use for scientific or artistic purposes and for press, radio, television, or similar news reporting. (Art. 89)
No exception may be used to disproportionately invade the person’s rights. (Art. 90)
Any consent given may be revoked at any time. (Art. 87 (1)) In that case, the subject may be liable for damages caused by the revocation. (Art. 87 (2))


See also {{Denmark no consent}}

Although there is no specific law granting such right, court practice gives certain amount of protection to the right to own image.[14]. The governmental Danish Data Protection Agency, has made a declaration regarding publication on the Internet of pictures taken of persons in a public area[28]:

The predominant point of reference, is that any publication of a portrait photograph requires consent [of the person depicted]. The reasoning for this, is that such a publication might provide the depicted person with discomfort, possibly with other information such as name, of the publication for all with access to the internet, and the considerations of this discomfort is judged as more important than a possible interest in publication.

A portrait photograph is defined as a photograph, with the purpose of depicting one or more specific person(s).[28]

The exceptions is traditional (non-internet) news-media-distributions (TV and newspapers) as well as in a context with "distinctly expessions of opinions and subjective judgements [that demands the publics attention]".[29]


Reproduction of the image does not require consent:[31]


There is no specific law about photographing people or publishing the images; some of the issues are very vaguely regulated.

Taking a picture of a person in a public space does not require consent. Offices, factories etcetera and fenced yards of these are not regarded as public space, even when visible from outside, but are less protected than areas defined as private (homes, tents, private yards, dressing rooms etcetera).

Publishing pictures of a person in a public space may require consent, unless the person clearly is not the main subject of the image and the picture does not cause damage, suffering or despise to the person in the picture. Photographs of public events or regular life in the streets should be unproblematic. Photos of people who are of public interest (famous politicians, artists, sportsmen) and who are carrying out their public duties or going about their usual work may be published without consent.

An image of an identifiable person may not be used for promotion (in advertisements or similar), even if not identifiable for a stranger. Commercial use is not different from non-commercial use, neither in such cases nor otherwise.


Article 9 of French Civil Code states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private life”.[34]
This is generally considered to include one's right to the own image, even if it is taken in a public space.[35][36]
According to case law and legal doctrine, photographs taken of (one or more) individuals require authorisation.[37] Just taking someone's photo without consent (in private or public space) can be considered as an invasion of privacy and gives them the right to claim for cessation of the wrongful conduct. Everyone is legally protected from unauthorised distribution, publication or commercialisation of a picture of himself. The permission has to be interpreted in a strict way (only to the extent expressly consented to by the subject).[36]
It is generally recognized both by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied or not needed for pictures of[36]
Although it is usually considered to be superior, the right to one's privacy and own image is also not absolute and shall be balanced especially with the right to freedom of expression.[39] This can be of certain relevance for professional photographers and artists.[40]
There are special rules and criminal sanctions if minors are involved.[35][41]


Apart from the already mentioned there is a small number of additional exceptions to the above statement.
Publishing or propagating the image does not normally require consent:
Also in these cases, it is not allowed to publish or distribute the picture without permission if this may affect the subject's legitimate interests.[43]


In Greece taking photographs in public, whether identifiable people are shown or nor and whether the photograph displays just one person's portrait or a crowd of people, is protected as freedom of speech by the Greek Constitution in Article 14, and consent is not required for taking or publishing a photo of a person. At the same time, Article 9 of the Greek Constitution protects the privacy of people inside their own homes by forbidding illegal entry into their home, so a photographer cannot enter a private home without permission. In Greek legal cases there is a clear distinction between public spaces and private places: if a photograph is made in the street or at a venue where the public is invited (like, e.g. a shopping mall or a music nightclub) then the photograph is considered part of the public record as there is no reasonable right to privacy there, but if a photograph was made in a private home and the entry into the home was without permission then the photograph is an invasion of privacy (examples of that are photographs by photojournalists who followed firefighters inside homes ravaged by fire, whereas the firefighter had a legitimate purpose to enter the private home the photojournalist was required to secure permission). The freedom of speech clause in Article 14 of the Greek Constitution, however, also places very specific limitations on speech or photographs that can offend the Christian religion, the President of the Republic of Greece, or shows military bases. For example, a photo of the President of the Republic of Greece that would offend his personality wouldn't be covered by the freedom of expression even if it was made in a public place. Same with photos that would offend the Christian religion. As for military bases, even if a photo showing the composition of the armed forces was made from a public area, the photo wouldn't be protected as free speech. But any other kind of photo that does not involve the Christian religion, the President, or the armed forces is okay to take and publish without consent by anyone as long as it was made in a public space (e.g. the street) or even in a privately-held venue where the public is invited (e.g. a shopping mall or museum). Property owners in Greece have no right to restrict the publication of photographs already taken. Furthermore, there have been legal cases that have established that photography, including amateur photography, is protected not only as freedom of speech but also as "personality development" per the Article 5 of the Greek Constitution which states that "All persons shall have the right to develop freely their personality" and the legal cases have established that this means that property owners cannot require a photography permit or ban photography on their premises if they invite the public in their premises because the moment the property owner invites the public the premises become part of the public space and the individuals who decide to enter maintain their constitutional rights, including the right to photography which has been defined as part of the constitutional right to develop one's artistic personality. An example of such a legal case was between photographers and a train station operator in which the operator was forced to accept photography without permission "in all parts of train stations where the public was invited":

Greek case law has established that it is legal for citizens as well as photojournalists to produce and publish photographs depicting identifiable police officers as long as these photos were taken in public, such as during political demonstrations or durings arrests in the street, even if the identifiable police officer in the photo is suspected of crimes:

There have been cases of police officers claiming that it is illegal to take photos of them even in public, but when such cases went to the courts the judges held that it is legal to record the police and publish the photos. According to the Greek Ombudsman, who cites a report by the Data Protection Authority (DPA) numbered 67/2002: "the journalistic research regarding the person who was arrested and the reporting of the press is protected by the freedom of the press clause of Article 14 of the Greek Constitution and it is irrelevant to the above reasosing" where "above reasoning" is: "the police forces are restricted in their publication of personal data of the arrested persons because these personal data are considered sensitive personal data based on the Article 2, Sentence B of the law 2472/1997 and therefore the processing of these data is governed by the Article 7, Paragraph 2, Sentence E, Case BB of the above law." Furthermore, it has been established that Greek Law 2472/1997 on personal data processing does not apply to photography, whether the photography is of an artistic or journalistic nature, as the law is intented to be applied in cases of automatic computer processing of databases containing marketing information such as automated calling lists for advertisement calls, or spam e-mail.

The Greek Constitutition (as well as the European ECHR European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations documents on Human Rights) gives individuals the right to freedom of speech (freedom to transmit information and freedom to receive information), including the rights to report, freedom of the press, freedom of the arts (which is editorial use), etc. Individuals have a right to privacy inside their own homes which is cancelled when they go out in the public place where the freedoms to transmit and receive information take precedence and can be freely exercised by any person (not only professional photojournalists, this was established in legal cases soon after the fall of the Greek Military Government of 1967-1974). Journalistic and editorial use is irrelevant to the privacy law per the decision 67/2002 of the DPA. According to Greek law regarding the "right to report" and freedom of speech, there is no restriction on the taking or publication of photographs of identifiable people in public places. Journalists and television regularly show identifiable people in the street without their consent, and street photography exhibitions are regularly being held in art galleries and also at the Syntagma Metro Station without the consent of the subjects. Furthermore, the culture in Greece is very liberal and Greeks don't mind being photographed and will happily pose for the camera of a tourist, and photographers in small villages are welcomed as very respectable and important persons. The Ombudsman of Greece has agreed that taking and publishing photographs is an act of "personality development" since the photographer-artist-journalist expresses his or her personality by exercising their freedom of speech by photography and publication, and they also develop their artistic or journalistic personalities in the same way.

However, using a photo for a commercial advertising of a product, let's say by printing the photo on an advertising billboard on the street which promotes a brand of biscuits, is illegal without the consent of the person, unless the photo shows a group of people in a public space or if the person is only a small part of the advertisement. Law 57 of the Greek Code was relevant on commercial advertising photography before the Code was updated. There is also case law regarding the application of the law of 1997 to published lists of alleged rich tax evaders: a journalist was acquitted of charges of privacy breach: journalistic/editorial use of information, especially when in the public interest, is not a breach of privacy law. The same legal principles can be applied to photography, especially photography important in the public political discourse:

Even photos taken inside private homes can sometimes be allowed to be published without consent, if they are in the public interest or show public personalities. This PDF contains some information about the boundaries of the right to privacy: The individual doesn't have an absolute right to privacy, if the individual has chosen to put himself in a social environment or position which is, for example, dominant or public, the rights of others (e.g. freedom of the press) are greater than the right to privacy. This is very relevant to public figures. Someone at a public event full of photographers and the press should expect no privacy and they know it before they decide to participate in the public event, e.g. as actors, dancers, speakers or audience. But even inside the private home, for example, if a police officer beats someone inside a home during a search warrant execution, and there is a photo (e.g. by a neighbour who entered the house) then the photograph is in the public interest and therefore can be published. The press is allowed to expose private facts that prove someone who says an opinion in public contradicts his private life, e.g. someone protesting nudism in public while being a secretive nudist in private cannot expect privacy protections from the law if journalists discover his private nudism and expose him.

The Law 366 of the Greek Code (366 GPC) says (according to the PDF) that the law of defamation doesn't apply if the statement is true. For example the caption of a photo describing a policeman beating a civilian wouldn't be considered defamation if the photo shows a policeman beating a civilian because the caption would simply describe the truth. The same law recognizes that there is no intrusion of privacy when the private fact is related to public activities. For example, photos of a politician accepting a bribe from a businessman, even if the photo was taken inside a private home, it would be in the public interest and therefore it could be published.


In Hungary, the right to the own image is guaranteed by the Civil code: the 1959. évi IV. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről[44] (until 2014.03.14.) and the 2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről[45] (from 2014.03.15.).
According to the law above, “It is required the consent of the person for taking or publishing of the image [or voice record] of a person”.


Hebrew and English


Publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent:[47]
In all of these cases, it is not allowed to publish or use images that may “harm the honour or reputation or also the public image of the depicted person”.


In general you are free to take pictures for private use of other people in public areas under the Constitution of India (CoI) article 19, however publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.[50]


There is no law in Japan that formally defines "right of portrait", "right of publicity", or other related rights. However, with reference to Article XIII of the Constitution of Japan, a ruling by the Supreme Court has stated:

"Any person possesses the freedom to not have his/her feature or figure (hereafter 'feature etc.') photographed without his/her consent, as one of the freedoms guaranteed for the individual's personal life.
Kyoto Fugakuren IncidentKeishu Vol. 23, No. 125 at 1625 (Supreme Court of Japan Grand Bench 1969)

This ruling deferred to name this right "the right of portrait (肖像権)", but this right is generally regarded as its Japanese equivalent.

According to an article by the Japan Professional Photographers Society,[51] the exceptions defined by Tokyo High Court is as follows:

If and only if these two conditions are met, the feature etc. of an individual may be photographed or published without the person's consent. If a photograph is to be published or is made public in any way, the photographer must inform the subject the exact manner and purpose to publish and obtain explicit permission.[51] Other precedents have been compiled by H. Kawarazaki, Esq. and is cited here for reference.[52]


Copyright Protection Law of Libya (Libyan Law No. (9) for 1968), Article 36:

A photographer may not show, publish or distribute a photograph unless the people depicted in the photograph have consented, unless the photograph is of a public event or of officials or persons enjoying public renown, or the public authorities have given permission for its publication for the general welfare. Notwithstanding the preceding, no photograph may be shown or circulated if doing so would result in detriment to the honour, reputation or social standing of the person depicted in the photograph.


Information is available at the Personality rights in Mexico wiki entry at the University of Edinburgh Law School


Dutch law has a particular approach to the image right of the person portrayed (so called portretrecht or “portrait right”) which differs from most other countries.[53] The “portrait right” is seen as part, or derived from the author's (copy)right (auteursrechten). Therefore, there is no legal way to object to being photographed (provided there is no other violation of privacy[54]. In this context, Dutch courts apply the concept of “public figure”, who usually is expected to accept more public interest than others[55] since the image right of the person depicted does not exist before the picture is captured.
Articles 19-20 of the Dutch Copyright Act grant property-like protection to persons who have been portrayed on photos or other depictions, especially if they have commissioned their own portrait. If a portrait is made without having been commissioned by or on behalf of the person(s) portrayed, article 21 of the Dutch Copyright Act allows individuals to prevent the use (openbaarmaking, “disclosure”) of their portrait, if “a reasonable interest” to do so can be established.[56] In principle, it does not matter whether the photo was taken in a public or private space and whether there was a permission or consent to be photographed or not. The “reasonable interest” claimed as opposed to the publication (openbaarmaking) of the picture has to be balanced by the judge against the rights and interests invoked by the defendant, like press freedom or freedom of expression. Besides misuse, undesired advertising or damage to reputation, reasonable interests may be privacy concerns[54], but also commercial interests of the subject in order to merchandise his or her own picture by him or herself.[53]

New Zealand

See the guideline of public photography by New Zealand police


Article 45c[57] of the Norwegian Copyright Act states that photographs of a person may not be reproduced or shown publicly without consent of the person depicted, except
This protection applies during a person's lifetime and for 15 years after the year of their death.
Even if these exceptions are met, it is still illegal to publicize a photography if the photography is defamatory, derogatory, demeaning or in any other way tramples on the dignity or honor of the depicted.[58]
Consent given for publication only applies in its specific context. That is to say that if a person has allowed publication of their depiction in a newspaper article for instance, that does not mean they have given consent for that picture to be reproduced anywhere else.


The Constitution of Peru of 1993 is one of the few (besides Spain and Brazil) which explicitly mentions a fundamental right to own image (Article 2.7).[59]
In Article 15 of Peruvian Civil Code of 1984 the use of a person's image and voice is regulated as follows:
The profitable use[60] of a person's image or voice is not allowed without their explicit authorization (...). This consent is not required, if the use of the image or voice is justified by the notoriety of the person or their official position, facts of general importance or public interest, or scientific, educational or cultural purposes; neither is it required if the use of the image is related to facts or events of general interest celebrated in public. These exceptions do not apply where the use of the image or voice attempts against the affected person's honour, prestige or reputation.
As seen above, current civil law still uses the term “profitable use” (aprovechamiento[60]). Relevant post-1993 case law, as well, deals mainly with commercial image use like undesired advertising[61] etc., or defamation cases[62][63].
However, the constitutional Legislator made clear his intention to protect the right to the own image as such, not for commercial use only and without requiring to prove prejudice to honour or reputation (see Debates of Constitutional Commission[64]). Therefore, possible constitutional problems with applying civil law should lead us to assume that consent is required by Peruvian law for any reproduction or distribution of a person's picture, unless the exceptions mentioned above are present (particularly if it is a public figure acting in public). This is supported by Peruvian legal doctrine[65] and case law[62][61].


The Polish Civil Code mentions the right to the image as a personality right protected by civil law.[67]
Exceptions from the consent requirement are named in the Copyright Law[66]
“2. Consent is not required in the case of the publishing of the image:
1) of a commonly known person [public figure], if the picture was taken in connection with the exercise of their public function, in particular political, social, professional,
2) of a person, when he or she constitutes a part of a whole as in a gathering, landscape or public event.”
According to case law, “subsequent publications do not require consent (provided there was a consent to the first publication) provided that the original source is specified and no changes have been made.”[68]


According to Article 79(2) of the Portuguese Civil Code, publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent:
In all of these cases, it is not allowed to publish or use images that may “harm the honour or reputation or simply the public image of the depicted person” (Article 79(3)).
Due to Portuguese criminal law regulation concerning privacy it is illegal to take a picture of a person who opposes to being photographed.[72][73]

Russian Federation

The law makes no exceptions with regard to pictures of officials or persons enjoying public renown, consent is required even in that case. See Art. 152-1 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation (as added by the Federal Law № 231-FZ of Dec. 18, 2006). However, consent is not required if the image is used in the state's, society's or other public interest. In the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the term "public interest" was clarified:


Article 152 of the civil code of the Russian Federation specifies that the publication and further use of the image of a citizen is allowed only with consent from the citizen. Such consent is not needed in particular when the image is used in state, social or other public interests.

The term public interest should not refer to any interest of the public but rather to the need of the society to reveal and expose the threat posed to the democratic state governed by the rule of the law, civil society, public safety and environment.

The courts should distinguish between the information on facts (even the disputable ones) that positively influence the discussion of the matters concerning for example the execution of the duty of the officials and public figures in the society and the information on the details of the private life of a person not engaged in any public activity. Whilst in the former case the mass media perform the civil duty informing the citizens on the matters of public interest, in the latter case, however, they play no such role.

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation № 16 June 15, 2010


The protection of own image and other personality rights is regulated in the Constitution of Slovakia, the Criminal Code and the Civil Code. In resume: [55]
A person whose personal rights have been violated unjustifiably according to art. 13 of the Civil Code shall be able to request that the said violation be terminated and the consequences originating therefrom be eliminated, in order to obtain appropriate satisfaction. In those cases in which such satisfaction is insufficient, because the dignity and social standing of the affected person have been considerably diminished, the affected person may apply for compensation for non-pecuniary damages.

In general a consent isn't required, but if the depicted person feels that his/hers personal rights have been violated by having his/her photograph taken and/or published and/or commercially used may sue for infringement of basic human rights for privacy (thus a basic level of privacy is to be expected on public streets).

South Africa

Privacy in South Africa is protected by the law of delict and the Bill of Rights, which also provides for freedom of expression.[74]

Photographing a person without their consent in an area where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy is permitted as a general rule. There may be some restrictions on photography in general in certain places based on municipal bylaws and the National Key Points Act which is related to national security issues.[75][76] Consent is required to use photographs of identifiable persons for advertising purposes.[74][77]


In Spain, the right to the own image is guaranteed by Constitution (Sections 18.1 and 20.4).[78]
Civil law deals with this subject in the context of privacy legislation (Fundamental Law No. 1/1982).[79]
According to section 7.5 of the above law[80], “the taking, reproducing or publishing of the image of a person captured by photography or filming or any other means in places or moments of private life or outside these” is considered to be an “illegal intromission in private life”, unless in some specific cases. The same applies under section 7.6 of the mentioned law to the illegitimate “use of the name, the voice or the image of a person for publicity, commercial or similar purposes.”
The exceptions to the above statement are the following:
Later commercial re-use of previously published news pictures or public figures' images (lawfully released without permission) is not allowed without the consent of the person(s) affected (see Sentence 231/88 of the Spanish Constitutional Court, dealing with the death of the star matador Paquirri).[84]
Special rules apply to minors and incapacitated persons. If they are under a legal disability, written consent from a legal representative is to be obtained in order to capture or publish or use their picture, and shall be submitted to the local Public Prosecutor's Office for approvement (section 3 of the above law).

Other regulations: Section 491.2 of the Spanish Penal Code penalizes the use of the image of the King or any of his ancestors or descendents, the Prince or Princess Consort, the Crown Prince, the Regent or any Member of the Regency in any way that can damage the prestige of the Crown.


Taking a picture of a person in a public place is allowed as a general rule. Places exempt from this rule are courts of law or security-classed places. Also, with a new law you are not allowed to take pictures concealed without consent if it is a private area (e.g. restroom, showers). Publishing a picture of a person is generally allowed, as long as no abuse of personal integrity is involved. Within a journalistic framework (in a publication with a publisher accusable by law) even more freedom is allowed. Use of a picture of a person will require consent if used in marketing or in advertising, other commercial uses might not require consent.[87]


Swiss civil law contains a general clause for protection of personality rights, which may be restricted only with the consent of the person affected.[88] This applies to the right to the own image, even if a picture is taken in a public space. In principle, any unauthorized picture which aims to depict the person as such is considered an infringement of personality rights (according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Court). Therefore, just taking a person's photograph is an offensive act and consent must be obtained from any person recognizably depicted as an individual, unless their appearance is merely accidental and has nothing to do with the purpose of the image. Consent can be given expressly (either written or verbal) or implied through actions. It is generally recognized by case law and legal doctrine that consent is implied for pictures of public figures, at least when performing their public functions or activities (not necessarily also in private situations). Consent is also implied for people consciously and voluntarily exposed to the public in some kind of public event. As an exception, predominant and mostly public interests (e. g. public information, science) will allow an unauthorized picture to be admitted.[89]
The Swiss personality right to privacy does not protect financial interests. Therefore it makes no difference in terms of the right to one's own image if a picture is used commercially or in a non-profitable way.


In Taiwan (Republic of China), although there's no formal definition of “right of portrait”, however the mentioned right is considered as parts of rights of personality or rights of privacy, and protected by civil codes (Article 18, 19, 152, 184 and 195-1).[90]
Publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent as favour of public interests or fair usage. In all of these cases, the personality (honour, reputation, public image) of depicted person should not be infringed.
As the ruling of Su No.2476, ROC 91 (2002) by the Taipei District Court (臺北地方法院91年度訴字第2476號判決), “Commercial usage would be seen as an infringement of the ‘right of portrait’, if author does not declare his/her intention at first.”[91] Also ruling of Shang-Yi No.958, ROC 94 (2005) by the Taiwan High Court (臺灣高等法院94年度上易字第958號判決).[92]
However the “right of portrait” cannot be formed and protected, if appearances or features of any individuals which cannot be identified or recognised in the media (photographs, video, etc.), according to the ruling of Min-Zhu-Su No.53, ROC 102 (2013) by the Intellectual Property Court (智慧財產法院102年度民著訴字第53號判決), “Using facial features of a individual without permission in any photographs or visual media is an offence, which infringes individuals own right of portrait. However, the claimed right cannot be formed, if the media contains only partial features which cannot be recognised as an individual, e.g. a photograph contains only part of face from the person being photographed.”.[93]

United Kingdom

this section is a work in progress: draft for discussion, editing, improvement

Where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, taking and publishing of photographs without consent is likely to be an invasion of privacy,[94] unless there is a clear public interest at stake. This follows in large part from balancing Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act, which must be done on the merits of each case. Whether there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a difficult issue, and not simply a matter of public or private space. "It is not possible to draw a distinction in principle between, on the one hand, engaging in activity which is clearly part of a person's private recreation time intended to be enjoyed in the company of family and friends, and on the other, routine acts such as a walk down a street, a ride on a bus or a visit to the grocers to buy milk. It all depends on the circumstances."[95] An exemplary case is Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (2004), where a public figure was photographed outside a drug rehabilitation clinic.

A "reasonable expectation of privacy" may therefore apply even in public spaces, particularly for children: a UK court has held that a child's right to privacy was infringed when photographed on a public street together with his parents.[96] Another recent court case "upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there."[97] Beyond expectation of privacy, however, recent cases establish privacy rights for behaviour in public places that the subject does not want others to know about.

In addition, it has been established that even public figures can have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". "Stars like Michael Douglas and Princess Caroline of Monaco have established in Court that everyone, however famous, has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that photos of them in their private life should not be published unless there is a legitimate public interest in doing so. This does not just mean that they are entitled to privacy when they are in private places such as their home. It also extends to behaviour they would not want others to know about."[98] Examples include Von Hannover v Germany[99] (Princess Caroline), Douglas v Hello! Ltd (2005, Michael Douglas), Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (2004) and POI v The Person Known as "Lina" (2011).[100]

A decision by the ECHR suggests the mere taking of a photograph may also infringe privacy, but most cases involve publication so this area is less clear.[96]

Photography at public events is likely acceptable without subject consent.[96]


  1. Jump up World Intellectual Property Organization: Law Supporting the Rights of Authors, Composers, Artists and Researchers of Afghanistan
  2. Jump up Article 1071-bis of the Civil Code of Argentina: “He who arbitrarily interferes in someone else's life by publishing portrait pictures and correspondence, (...) will be forced to cease such activities, if he had not previously done so; and to pay the damages duly stipulated by the judge, according to circumstances. (...)”
  3. Jump up Ley de propiedad intelectual (Ley 11.723) (See Article 31)
  4. Jump up to: a b, Street photographer’s rights
  5. Jump up Your right to take photographs. OCAU Wiki. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.
  6. Jump up "Private act, for a person, means – (a) showering or bathing; or (b) using a toilet; or (c) another activity when the person is in a state of undress; or (d) intimate sexual activity that is not ordinarily done in public (s207A) “State of undress” for a person means – (a) the person is naked or the person’s genital or anal region is bare or, if the person is female, the person’s breasts are bare; or (b) the person is wearing only underwear; or (c) the person is wearing only some outer garments so that some of the person’s underwear is not covered by an outer garment (s20)"
  7. Jump up Austrian Copyright Law, section 78
  8. Jump up Legal comment and case-law referring to this rule
  9. Jump up See reference article: Simon Mair, Dürfen Bilder von Personen ohne deren Zustimmung in der Öffentlichkeit dargestellt werden?. Vienna, Austria, July 2009
  10. Jump up See information leaflet for professional photographers by Rechtsschutzverband der österreichischen Berufsfotografen (RSV)
  11. Jump up to: a b See reference article: Dr. Anderl, Mag. Grama, Vorsicht bei Veröffentlichung von Event-Fotos. Vienna, Austria, July 2008
  12. Jump up Article 10 of the Belgian Copyright Law of 30 June 1994: "Ni l'auteur, ni le propriétaire d'un portrait, ni tout autre possesseur ou détenteur d'un portrait n'a le droit de le reproduire ou de le communiquer au public sans l'assentiment de la personne représentée (...)". English paraphrase by Peggy Valcke and Eva Lievens (Media Law in Belgium. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands, 2011, page 65): “According to this article an author or owner of a portrait as well as any other person who has a portrait in his possession, does not have the right to reproduce it nor distribute it to the public without the consent of the person portrayed (...)”.
  13. Jump up to: a b c Legal information about image right provided at the official site of the Commune d'Ixelles, a municipality of the Brussels-Capital Region.
  14. Jump up to: a b See Questionaire concerning Legal Protection of a Person's Image, published in Internet by the International Federation of Journalists.
  15. Jump up See reference article by Marc Isgour: Dutroux a-t-il un droit à l'image ? published at DroitBelge.Net in April 2004 (dealing with image rights based on the example of Marc Dutroux)
  16. Jump up See English text of the Constitution of Brazil of 1988.
  17. Jump up Short overview in English language: Legal Information by Global Advertising Lawyers Alliance GALA (Summary of Brazilian Copyright Law, see page 2 - "Image Rights").
  18. Jump up English translations are given in Intellectual Property Rights in Brazil by Pinheiro Neto Advogados lawyers' office, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasília (See page 41-42 - "The Right to Image and Other Personality Rights").
  19. Jump up See Sentence RE nº 215.984-1-RJ of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court of 4-6-2002, referenced e.g. by Thiago Pacheco Cavalcanti: Direito fundamental à imagem: tutela jurídica e os seus limites. Caruaru, Brazil, September 2010 (Search for the word "ANEXO")
  20. Jump up The obvious contradiction to the rule provided by article 20 of Civil Code is resolved by observing the general prevalence of the right of privacy and publicity over press and artistic freedom and freedom of expression, applying reasonable criteria for weighing and evaluation of each case. (See W. Vendrusculo, cited below, page 113-119)
  21. Jump up For more details, see also: Weslei Vendrusculo: Direito à própria imagem e sua proteção jurídica. Curitiba, Brazil, 2008 (exhaustive juridical exposition) and Gustavo Henrique Schneider Nunes: O direito à liberdade de expressão e direito à imagem. Marília, Brazil, 2007
  22. Jump up Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc.
  23. Jump up "the tone of the Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue made it clear that the justices saw the issue as being broader than just the specific legislation..."
  24. Jump up Eric Swetsky, The Use of a Person's Photograph Without Their Consent, Marketing Magazine, August 1998
  26. Jump up Chinese Civil Law article 100, Also here in English (search for Article 100): “The use of a citizen's portrait for profits without his consent shall be prohibited.”
  27. Jump up Czech Civil Code no. 89/2012 Coll.
  28. Jump up to: a b Datatilsynet: Billeder på internettet (in Danish)
  29. Jump up Kommentar til Datatilsynets afgørelse i Skælskørsagen (in Danish)
  30. Jump up The Ethiopian Civil Code states in Article 27 as a principle: “The photograph or the image of a person may not be exhibited in a public place nor reproduced nor offered for sale without the consent of such person”. (See reference link below)
  31. Jump up See Article 28. For all citations from the Ethiopian Civil Code see reference article by Fikadu Asfaw The Right to Privacy According To Ethiopian Law, published in February 2010 at Ethiopian Law Blog.
  32. Jump up Under Article 28 of the Ethiopian Civil Code the consent of the person concerned shall not be required “where the reproduction of his image is justified by the notoriety of such person or by the public office which he occupied.”
  33. Jump up “... where the reproduction of the image is made in connection with facts, events or ceremonies of public interest or which have taken place in public”, this means, not only if the person is depicted on the occasion.
  34. Jump up “Chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée”. (Art. 9 of French Civil Code)
  35. Jump up to: a b The right of one's own image in France (in French by French Wikipedia)
  36. Jump up to: a b c Le droit à l'image (French legal information site)
  37. Jump up See French case law regarding image rights (English summaries), esp. the case Brigitte Bardot/Beaverbrook, sentenced by Tribunal Grand Instance Seine in 1965.
  38. Jump up See French case law, case: Michel Leeb, sentenced by the French Supreme Court in 1990.
  39. Jump up See fr:Liberté d'expression in French Wikipedia.
  40. Jump up French comment on the Sentence of the Paris Court of Appeal of 5th November 2008 in the case of an artist's photograph of a perfectly recognizable person sitting on a public bench with her dog, titled “To Loose One's Head”.
  41. Jump up See French case law, see case: Miss X/Atlas, sentenced by the French Supreme Court in 1990.
  42. Jump up Section 22 of the German Artists' Copyright Act (KUG). The first sentence of the ruling provides: “Pictures are only allowed to be distributed or shown in public with the consent of the person depicted.”
  43. Jump up to: a b Section 23 of the KUG
  44. Jump up Civil code – Article 80.
  45. Jump up New civil code
  46. Jump up Italian's Copyright Law (Law 633/1941) provides in its Article 96: “The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent.”
  47. Jump up For all further citations see Article 97 of the Italian Copyright Law
  48. Jump up Under Article 97 of the Italian Copyright Law the consent of the person concerned shall not be required “where the reproduction of the image is justified by the notoriety [of the person] or the public functions performed.”
  49. Jump up “... if reproduction of the portrait is related to acts, events or ceremonies of public interest or performed in public spaces”, this means, not only if the person is depicted on the occasion.
  50. Jump up (2006-11). "Protection of celebrity rights - The Problems and the Solutions" (PDF). Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 11: 415-423. Retrieved on 2011-09-01.
  51. Jump up to: a b Yukio Kitamura, 肖像権・撮る側の問題点 ~二つの顔・プライバシー権とパブリシティ権~ (Portrait Rights: The Problem on the Photographer Side – Two Faces: Privacy and Publicity), Japan Professional Photographers Society 127, pp. 30–31
  52. Jump up Hiroshi Kawarazaki (2012-04-25), Infringement of Right of Portrait (肖像権の侵害)
  53. Jump up to: a b For more details, see the linked article on Dutch Wikipedia (in Dutch) or have a look at Chapter 11 (page 17-18) of the Report of the Netherlands ALAI Group on Copyright and Freedom of Expression (2006) in English language.
  54. Jump up to: a b Article 10 of the Dutch Constitution of 1983 recognises the right of everyone on respect for privacy. As an example, Dutch civil case law considered infringement of privacy the “picture of a couple walking arm in arm through park published by magazine”, objected by one of the depicted individuals (TORT Collection of Case Law and Legislation concerning Privacy, 2006. See Page 13.)
  55. Jump up to: a b University of the Basque County: Comparative study on the situation in the 27 Member States as regards the law applicable to noncontractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality
  56. Jump up See Dutch Copyright Act (English Translation)
  57. Jump up Article 45c of the Norwegian Copyright Act
  58. Jump up Article 390 of the Norwegian Penal Code
  59. Jump up Official English translation published by the Peruvian Congress: “Every person has the right: (...) 7. to his honor and reputation, to personal and family privacy as well as to his own voice and image.”
  60. Jump up to: a b Spanish term: aprovechamiento, in German this would be Verwertung.
  61. Jump up to: a b See Sentence 2162-97 of Lima Cassation Court, cited in: Raúl Chanamé Orbe: Hábeas Data y el Derecho Fundamental a la intimidad de la persona. Lima, Peru, May 2003 (this work deals with data protection and privacy in Peruvian post-1993 legislation), page 69-72.
  62. Jump up to: a b Sentence of Peruvian Constitutional Court 0446-2002-AA/TC from December 19, 2003
  63. Jump up Action for defamation (Mufarech case) invoking the constitutional right to image in 2010 (in a case of caricature)
  64. Jump up “En cuanto a la voz y la imagen, como rasgos distintivos de la persona, se reconoce la facultad de todo ser humano de disponer de su imagen y voz libremente, así como impedir su reproducción, empleo o exhibición sin su previo asentamiento. Si bien no se requiere de este asentamiento tratándose de personajes públicos sobre actividades de interés público o general, en el caso de particular este asentimiento es indispensable, aunque su honor no esté siendo vulnerado.” Taken from the Diary of Debates of Constitutional Commission of 25th January 1993 (cited from [1]). English translation: The right of ervery human being to prevent reproduction, use and exhibition of their image without previous consent is recognized. Although this consent is not required for public figures dealing with events of general or public interest, consent is indispensable for regular, private people, even if no harm to their honour and reputation is done by the picture.
  65. Jump up Enrique Bernales Ballesteros (La constitución de 1993. Análisis Comparado. 2nd Ed., Lima, Peru, October 1996, p. 107.) cites Francesco Messineo stating: “La propia imagen es protegida porque identifica al titular como ser humano; consecuentemente, éste tiene el derecho de prohibir su reproducción.” (“The own image is protected because it identifies its owner as a human being; therefore the owner is entitled to prevent the reproduction thereof.”) Citation taken from Dyrán Jorge Linares Rebaza: Acciones de Cobranza y Derechos Fundamentales. (search for "2. DERECHO A LA IMAGEN").
  66. Jump up to: a b c The Polish Copyright Law (prawo autorskie ustawa) provides in its article 81: “1. The publishing of an image requires the consent of the person represented on it. Unless explicitly provided otherwise, the consent is not required if the person obtained an agreed payment for posing.” (Translation from: TORT Collection of Case Law and Legislation concerning Privacy, 2006. See Page 19.)
  67. Jump up Article 23 of the Polish Civil Code (Kodeks cywilny): “A man’s personal goods notably his health, liberty, reputation, freedom of conscience, family name, pseudonym, image, privacy of correspondence, inviolability of home and scientific, artistic, inventive or rationalising achievement, shall be protected by civil law independently of the civil protection contemplated by other provisions.” (Translation by: Z. Negbi, in: Dominik Lasok (Ed.), Polish Civil Law: The Polish Civil Code. Leyden, 1975)
  68. Jump up Holding cited from page 16 of the TORT Collection. This does not justify commercial re-use whithout specific consent for that purpose (see the case cited immediately before, on the same page).
  69. Jump up Article 79(1) of the Portuguese Civil Code provides: “The portrait of a person is not allowed to be exhibited, reproduced or put in commerce without the person's consent (...).”
  70. Jump up “The consent of the person concerned shall not be required where the reproduction of the image is justified by their notoriety or public functions performed (...).”
  71. Jump up “(...) if reproduction of the image is embedded in a picture of public locations or related to facts of public interest or performed in public spaces.”
  72. Jump up Article 199 of the Portuguese Penal Code provides: “Unlawful recording and photographing. 1. One who, without consent, a) records another person's words not intended for public knowledge (...) is punished with prison up to one year or a fine (...). 2. The same penalty applies to whom, against their will, a) photographs or films another person, even taking part in events in which their presence is lawful; or b) uses or permits to use such photographs or films, even if obtained lawfully.”
  73. Jump up In 2007, there was a case of a hobby photographer arrested by the police just for taking photos of kids at a funfair (they thought him to be a pedophile). Although the police justified this measure by claiming the missing parental consent to take photographs of their children, there is a general consensus among legal practitioners that the police was not acting legally. In this context, Marinho Pinto (today Bastonário of the Portuguese Bar Association) pointed out that “the only case it is not allowed to take photos is when there is an explicit refusal by the affected individuals. One has to actively oppose to beeing photographed by another person,” he said, referring to Article 199 of the Portuguese Penal Code.
  74. Jump up to: a b Burchell, Jonathan (March 2009). The Legal Protection of Privacy in South Africa: A Transplantable Hybrid. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law. Archived from the original on 7 December 2013. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.
  75. Jump up Hartley, Wyndham (22 November 2013). Publishing pictures of Nkandla compound 'is illegal'. Business Day. Archived from the original on 31 May 2014. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.
  76. Jump up de Wet, Phillip (20 March 2014). Nkandla: Mischief at ministry of make-believe. Mail & Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 May 2014. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.
  77. Jump up Fox, John (17 January 2014). The Law as it pertains to Photographers in South Africa. DPC. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.
  78. Jump up See the English text of Spanish Constitution of 1978 published by the Spanish Congress of Deputies.
  79. Jump up Ley Orgánica 1/1982, de 5 de mayo, de Protección Civil del Derecho al Honor, a la Intimidad Personal y Familiar y a la Propia Imagen (Fundamental Law of 5th May 1982 regarding Civil Law Protection of the right to honour, to personal and familiar intimacy and to the own image)
  80. Jump up See Spanish text under the given link.
  81. Jump up This consent can be revoked at any time, but the revoking party is liable for indemnity (section 2.3 of the above law).
  82. Jump up Legally defined as “persons who have been entrusted with a public function or who have a publicly known profession or notability”.
  83. Jump up Recent jurisprudence tends to restrict the admitted cases to those where public figures are participating in official acts or public events (considering ECHR judgment in the case Von Hannover vs. Germany). See reference article: Ana Maria Castro Castro, Is it permissible to publicly display photographs of individuals without their consent? Santiago de Compostela, Spain, August 2009
  84. Jump up See reference article: Gisela María Pérez Fuentes, Evolución doctrinal, legislativa y jurisprudencial de los derechos de la personalidad y el daño moral en España. Mexico City, August 2004 (Search for "Paquirri"). The Spanish Sentence is also extensively analized and cited in: Raúl Chanamé Orbe: Hábeas Data y el Derecho Fundamental a la intimidad de la persona. Lima, Peru, May 2003, page 50-56.
  85. Jump up to: a b
    Svenska: Tio frågor om lag och rätt
    English: Ten questions about the law
    . Retrieved on 1 February 2014.
  86. Jump up
    Svenska: Publicering på Internet
    English: Publication on the Internet
    . Retrieved on 1 February 2014.
  87. Jump up
    Svenska: Lag (1978:800) om namn och bild i reklam
    English: Act (1978:800) on name and image in advertising
    . Retrieved on 1 February 2014.
  88. Jump up to: a b Article 28 of Swiss Civil Code states: “Everyone whose personality is being harmed unlawfully is entitled to protect himself by suing anyone in court who participates in the harmful act. A harmful act against personality is unlawful if not justified by consent of the harmed person or by predominant private or public interest or by Law”.
  89. Jump up See Swiss answers in IFJ Questionaire concerning Legal Protection of a Person's Image.
  90. Jump up See the English text of Civil Codes (Amended on 2014-01-29) published by the Ministry of Justice.
  91. Jump up .Excerpt of original text: 「如未告知拍攝之目的,而予拍攝照片後,持之作為廣告之用,自對被拍攝者之肖像權有所侵害」
  92. Jump up Excerpt of original text: 「上訴人雖對系爭照片有使用權,但該照片係使用被上訴人之肖像,所以其使用方式仍不能侵害被上訴人之肖像權。上訴人將上開照片使用於軟體操作之系爭工具書 上及其所附之光碟中公開販售,不僅係以營利為目的而使用被上訴人之照片,而且使該照片公開販賣供不特定人買受使用,依法應得被上訴人同意,否則構成對肖像 權之侵害。」
  93. Jump up Excerpt of original text: 「未經他人同意,擅自使用表現他人五官之照片或視覺媒介之行為,即屬侵害肖像權。惟如照片僅表現被攝者之部分臉部,而無法由該局部特徵辨認係何人之面貌者,即不構成肖像權之侵害」。
  94. Jump up Technically the UK has no right to privacy. However the Human Rights Act 1998 has led to changes in this area: "many legal commentators have observed that the influence of Article 8 of the Convention has caused the courts in the UK to broaden the scope of the cause of action for breach of confidence. In its broader form – now referred to as “misuse of private information” – this cause of action might be said to be coming close to conferring a right to privacy.", Right to privacy
  95. Jump up Hugh Tomlinson QC, 26 April 2011, Privacy law: what's the way ahead?
  96. Jump up to: a b c UK Photographers Rights v2
  97. Jump up Is it legal to take photos of people without asking?. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.
  98. Jump up Nicola Solomon, 14 May 2008, PRIVACY LAWS ARE SNAPPING AT PHOTOGRAPHERS' HEELS
  99. Jump up The Human Rights Act puts the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, which means ECHR cases are relevant guidance.
  100. Jump up Caselaw: POI v The Person Known As 'Lina' – Anonymity and Blackmail. The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog. Retrieved on 30 May 2014.