If your face appears in an advertisement without your consent for that specific campaign, the issue is not merely the annoyance of seeing a photograph or video used by others. Your right to decide whether, where, and for what purpose your image is associated with a product, brand, or business may have been infringed.
I will explain which rules govern this protection, what changes if you authorized the shot but not the commercial distribution, which exceptions exist, and how you can approach removal and compensation. The most important distinction is this: being photographed does not automatically mean authorizing an advertisement.
When the Advertising Use of the Face Requires Consent
The starting rule is consent. Article 96 of the Copyright Law establishes that a person's portrait may not be exhibited, reproduced, or put on the market without their consent, subject to exceptions provided by law. The protection of the image runs alongside that provided by Article 10 of the Civil Code, which allows one to request the cessation of the abuse when an image is published outside permitted cases or in a manner detrimental to the person's dignity.
In an advertising campaign, the face normally serves to support a promotional message: it can lead people to believe that the person appreciates a product, collaborates with a company, or lends their image to an initiative. This commercial association is precisely what matters, even if no name, voice, or other personal data besides the photograph are used.
The copyright law governs both the need for consent and certain exceptions linked, for example, to matters of public interest or events held in public. However, these exceptions do not transform every photograph taken in a place open to the public into material that can be used to promote goods or services. The text of Article 97 of Law no. 633 of 1941 must be read together with the rule of consent and the concrete purpose of the publication.
Consent Must Cover That Specific Campaign
It is not enough to know that a photograph exists. Consent that is effective for advertising use must be referable to the actual use made of the image. A person may have agreed to be portrayed during an event, to appear in informative content, or to publish a photo on their own profile, without having authorized a sponsored ad, a storefront, a billboard, or a corporate newsletter.
If a release exists, its content becomes decisive. A distinction must be made between authorization for the shot, authorization for publication, and authorization for promotional exploitation. Time, media, territory, and purpose can delimit consent: a photograph granted for an organization's website for a defined period does not necessarily coincide with a license for paid social campaigns or printed material.
Written form is not the only abstractly possible way to manifest consent, but in commercial relationships, it is the document that makes it possible to prove its content and limits. Posing in front of a camera, handing over a file, or appearing in a video do not prove by themselves that the person accepted every subsequent reuse. Silence does not broaden a release that indicates a narrower purpose.
Even initially valid consent does not authorize modifications unrelated to the agreement. A problem can arise, for example, if the face is paired with a different product, if the photograph is cropped in a way that alters its meaning, if it is used after the agreed expiration date, or if a local campaign becomes a much wider dissemination. In these situations, not only the presence of a signature is decisive, but the correspondence between authorization and actual use.
Exceptions Are Not a License to Advertise
An image captured in public is not automatically free to use. Article 97 of Law no. 633 of 1941 provides for cases in which consent is not necessary, such as the notoriety or public office of the person, justice or police requirements, scientific, educational, or cultural purposes, or reproduction linked to facts, events, or ceremonies of public interest or held in public.
These scenarios require an effective link between the photograph and the reason justifying the publication. Reporting on a demonstration, for example, may require showing the context and the people present; an advertisement using the same frame to invite people to purchase a product instead has a different function. The promotional purpose must be evaluated independently, without confusing it with the fact that the shot was taken during an open event.
The same rule nevertheless sets a limit: exhibition or commercialization are not permitted when they prejudice the honor, reputation, or decorum of the portrayed person. This does not mean an explicit offense is required. A misleading, degrading pairing or one incompatible with the advertising message can make the infringement more serious. Context and the juxtaposition of the image matter just as much as the photograph itself.
Removing the Campaign and Stopping Further Dissemination
Protection does not end with money. If the image continues to be used, the primary objective may be to interrupt the dissemination: remove the content from the website, suspend the ad, withdraw promotional material still available for distribution, or prevent further publications. Article 10 of the Civil Code expressly contemplates the cessation of the abuse, in addition to damages.
An effective request must precisely identify the contested content and who is using it. For online advertising, helpful items include the URL, screenshots showing the profile or website, the date of detection, the ad text, and the entity promoting the product. For billboards, flyers, or packaging, photographs of the material, the location or channel of dissemination, and indications of the responsible company become relevant. Preserving evidence before removal prevents the use from remaining difficult to reconstruct.
Voluntary removal can quickly resolve the current presence of the image, but it does not decide by itself whether the previous use was lawful or whether it produced compensable harm. Conversely, the company may argue it received authorization through a photographer, an agency, or an organization. In that case, two relationships must be separated: the right to use the photograph as a work and the right to publish the face of the portrayed person.
When the dissemination is widespread or still ongoing, judicial tools directed at stopping the use may also assume relevance. However, there is no automatic rule: urgency, the content of the claim, and the remedies concretely obtainable depend on the persistence of the campaign, the available evidence, and the position of the subjects involved. Acting with verifiable data is more useful than merely reporting a photograph generically.
What Damages May Be Claimed
Compensation requires prejudice linked to the unlawful use. The infringement of the right to likeness can concern both economic consequences and non-pecuniary loss—that is, the compromise of one's personal sphere, privacy, reputation, or freedom to decide how to present oneself to the public. Not every inconvenience translates into the same sum: the content of the campaign, duration, dissemination, tone of the message, and audience reached all affect the assessment.
Pecuniary loss may emerge when unauthorized use has deprived the interested party of an economic utility or has caused a demonstrable loss. In commercial uses, Supreme Court case law also considers the possible economic value of consent, to be defined with regard to the circumstances of the case and, if necessary, on an equitable basis. The Review of Civil Case Law of the Court of Cassation recalls these criteria, distinguishing pecuniary loss from non-pecuniary loss.
There is no fixed tariff for a face. A person's notoriety can be an element, but it is not a requirement for protection. Even those who do not engage in public activities can suffer an injury if their image is used without authorization for promotional purposes. Conversely, the mere existence of a publication does not allow predetermined amounts to be attributed: the unlawful act, the damage, the link with the conduct, and the quantification criteria must be clarified.
Photographer, Agency, and Advertiser: Different Roles
The ownership of the photograph does not coincide with the availability of the face. The photographer may have rights over the photo and the company may have purchased a license for it, but this does not necessarily eliminate the need to respect the recognizable person's right to their likeness. A contract between a photographer and a client cannot, by itself, prove consent that the person never gave.
For this reason, it is necessary to identify who decided on the campaign, who published the material, who supplied the file, and what authorizations circulated alongside the photograph. Liability is not presumed to be identical for all subjects in the supply chain: it can change based on the concrete role, the information received, and the conduct held after the dispute.
When the photograph or video identifies a person, promotional use may also involve the regulations on personal data protection. Image consent and the legal basis for data processing are planes that can overlap, but they should not be confused. Article 6 of EU Regulation 2016/679 requires a basis of lawfulness for processing, while Article 82 provides for compensation for material or immaterial damage caused by the violation of the regulation. Protections can concur, but prerequisites and remedies must be verified separately.
Before Challenging the Use, Identify the Truly Controversial Point
The central question is simple: did you authorize that exact use? To answer, one needs the advertising content, proof of dissemination, and any documents or messages relating to the shot and publication. If the company invokes a release, it is important to compare the text with the actual campaign; if no authorization exists, it is necessary to clarify who published the image and for what purpose.
A dispute must not turn into a generic demand for money. It is clearer to separate the demand for the cessation of use, any removal of materials, and the reasons why damage is believed to have accrued. Distinguishing objectives also helps understand whether an out-of-court settlement can be appropriate or whether it remains necessary to turn to a judge.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I object if the photo was taken in a public place?
Yes, a public place alone does not eliminate protection. The law contemplates exceptions for facts, events, or ceremonies of public interest or held in public, but a real connection with that purpose is required. If the image is isolated and employed to sell or promote a product, it must be verified whether specific consent exists for advertising use.
If the photographer owns the rights to the photo, can they use it in advertising?
Not necessarily. The photographer's rights over the photograph and the person's right over their portrait are distinct. A license on the file does not prove, by itself, that the recognizable person authorized the commercial publication of their face. It must be ascertained what the consent or release relating to the portrayed person provides for.
Does a signed release always prevent me from asking for removal?
It depends on the content of the release. The document may authorize certain uses and not others. The indicated purpose, permitted channels, duration, possible possibility of transfer to third parties, and clauses on modifications or revocation are all relevant. If the advertising exceeds these limits, the signature does not automatically close the matter.
Can I claim compensation even if the advertisement has already been removed?
Removal does not automatically erase past use. It can reduce future dissemination and affect the overall evaluation of the affair, but it remains to be established whether the past employment was devoid of consent or exceeded authorization, and whether it caused pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage linked to that conduct.
Do I have to prove I am a well-known person to obtain protection?
No, notoriety is not a general requirement. The right to likeness also protects those who do not have an economic value tied to fame. Notoriety can affect the economic evaluation of certain consequences, but it does not turn unauthorized advertising use into lawful behavior nor does it exclude possible personal damage.
The Point to Clarify Before Taking Action
Do not confuse the existence of the photograph with authorization for publication. It is this verification that often separates permitted use from contestable employment. If you need to define a removal request or evaluate the consequences of use that has already occurred, you can contact me with the published material and any documents relating to consent.