Image rights

Taking a picture and publishing it are two separate legal acts. Almost every dispute turns on that distinction.

Illustration: Image rights

Photographing is not publishing

In almost every country, taking a photograph in a public place is not in itself unlawful. What the law regulates is dissemination. Some systems require separate consent for each step — one to be recorded, another to be published. Others look only at the result and ask whether publication harms a legitimate interest. Either way, agreeing to be photographed is not agreeing to be published, still less to be published in a different context.

The standard exceptions

Four situations recur almost everywhere: a person illustrating a news event; a person who is merely incidental to a place or scene rather than its subject; crowds and public gatherings, where no individual is singled out; and public figures carrying out their functions. Conversely, commercial or advertising use of someone's likeness almost always requires permission, even where the photograph itself was lawfully taken.

Intimate images: the clearest convergence in recent law

This is the area where legislation has moved fastest and most alike. The rule now spreading everywhere is simple: consent to record is not consent to share. Several systems have removed the requirement to prove an intention to cause distress, which was hard to establish and caused prosecutions to fail. Synthetic and manipulated images of real people are increasingly covered, and platforms are subject to short removal deadlines.

Children: the most poorly handled question

An image of a minor requires the consent of those with parental responsibility, often both. The practical difficulty lies elsewhere: publication by a parent, a school or a sports club. A written refusal is an objection and must be respected, and where an institution uses a consent form, an unsigned form means refusal, not tacit acceptance.

Report first, litigate second

Removal obtained from the platform is almost always faster than a court order. Capture the whole page with the URL, the date and the account name, then use the reporting form, and only then start proceedings. For intimate images, hashing services let participating platforms block re-uploads without you sending the image anywhere.

The law country by country

The legal framework, the procedure, the time limits and the costs differ from one country to another. Each country below has a detailed page: governing texts, key facts, the actual procedure, costs, where to go and the traps to avoid.

Select a country to open its detailed page.

European framework

European Union

The Union has no free-standing right to one's image: a photograph of a person is personal data protected by the GDPR, and removal is handled through the Digital Services Act.

Britain and Ireland

United Kingdom

There is no stand-alone right to your own image — but privacy, data protection and new intimate-image offences fill most of the gap.

Ireland

Coco's Law made non-consensual intimate image sharing a specific criminal offence, with no requirement to prove intent in the main case.

North America

United States

Image rights are a matter of state law — but a federal statute now requires platforms to take down non-consensual intimate imagery within 48 hours.

Canada

Outside Quebec there is no general right to your image; the criminal law on intimate images and new provincial statutes do the work.

Australia and New Zealand

Australia

The eSafety Commissioner can order removal and fine those who refuse — an administrative route with no court needed.

New Zealand

The Harmful Digital Communications Act gives a fast civil route through an approved agency, with the District Court behind it.

South Asia

India

Criminal provisions on voyeurism and obscene transmission, plus IT Rules requiring removal of intimate imagery within 24 hours.

Pakistan

PECA 2016 criminalises the non-consensual use of intimate images, and the FIA runs the investigations.

South-East and East Asia

Singapore

The 2019 penal code reform created specific voyeurism and intimate image offences, backed by fast protection orders.

Malaysia

Content offences under the communications legislation, reinforced by the Online Safety Act framework.

Philippines

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act is one of the oldest and strictest statutes of its kind in Asia.

Hong Kong

The 2021 reform created dedicated voyeurism and intimate image offences, alongside the doxxing regime.

Africa

South Africa

The Cybercrimes Act and the Films and Publications Act both criminalise sharing intimate images without consent.

Nigeria

The Cybercrimes Act covers cyberstalking and the distribution of obscene or intimidating material.

Kenya

Publishing intimate images without consent is a specific offence under the 2018 cybercrimes statute.

Ghana

Section 66 of the Cybersecurity Act makes non-consensual sharing of intimate images a criminal offence.

Uganda

Sharing intimate images is criminalised — but so, in some circumstances, is possessing them, which can expose victims.

Zambia

Cybercrime legislation covers harassment and obscene material; the framework was replaced in 2025.

The Caribbean

Jamaica

The Cybercrimes Act covers malicious communication; the Sexual Offences Act and voyeurism provisions complete the picture.

Trinidad and Tobago

Harassment and sexual offences provisions carry the weight; there is no dedicated intimate image statute.

This topic is also covered for French-speaking countries · German-speaking countries.

Further reading

Links to official or reference sources. They open in a new tab.

Page checked in September 2026. The instruments cited can change: if in doubt, confirm with the official source given.

Locate this page in the site map

A question, a correction, a suggestion? Write to us.