You may feel disconcerted after realising that someone has taken a photo of you in public and has published it without your consent.

What you should practise is:

  • Go along the publication in which your photo appeared, if the photo was published in a concrete medium like a magazine, leaflet or poster;
  • Take a photograph of the publication in which your photograph appeared, if the photo was published in a physical medium but you are unable to or are non allowed to keep the publication with yous; or
  • Capture a screenshot of the webpage on which your photo appeared, if the photo was published online.

Next, yous should try your best to ascertain the identity of the person or visitor who took and published your photo.

Once y'all are able to practise then, you tin can request that the other party remove the photo expeditiously. Should that political party not comply with your asking and/or should you seek bounty from him as well, y'all may and so consider taking legal action.

View this post on Instagram

Your first line of action should be to screenshot the webpage on which your photo appeared as evidence, and to place who took and uploaded your photo. ?? Once you exercise so, you tin can bulletin the other party and request for them to remove the photograph. If the other party fails to comply, report their account and the post with your photo. ? – In more serious cases, publishing a photograph of someone without their permission tin can be considered every bit an deed of harassment or defamation if sure weather condition are met. ? For example, if the other party published your photo with "threatening, abusive or insulting words" that led to you feeling alarmed or distressed, it would count as harassment. If such harassment continues for an extended menstruum, consider applying to the Commune Court for a protection order. ⚖ – With Anime Festival Asia (AFA) happening at Suntec this weekend, there's bound to be tons of cosplayers around the expanse! Make sure to ask for permission before taking photos of them, no matter how good their cosplay looks, or how busy they may seem. ?? #SingaporeLegalAdvice

A post shared by SingaporeLegalAdvice.com (@singaporelegaladvice) on

Breach of Data Privacy

It will generally non be a alienation of the Personal Data Protection Human activity (PDPA) if:

  • The person who took the photo had done so in their personal or domestic chapters, i.due east. they were not taking the photo in the course of their employment with an arrangement; and/or
  • You were in a public area generally open to the public. This is because personal data that is publicly bachelor is non protected past the PDPA.

The situation may be unlike if the other party had taken and/or published the photo without your consent in his capacity as an employee of an organisation, while yous were attending a private consequence (fifty-fifty if the event had been held in a public infinite). In this case, y'all may be able to sue the other party'southward employer, i.e. the system, provided that you lot accept incurred whatever losses or damages directly arising from the employee's actions.

Alternatively, you may submit a complaint to the Personal Data Protection Commission, which may then investigate whether at that place was any non-compliance with the PDPA on the office of the system.

Harassment

Y'all may be able to make a police report or sue the other political party for harassment nether the Protection from Harassment Deed in the following circumstances:

  • If the other party had intended to cause "harassment, alert or distress" to you, and therefore published "threatening, calumniating or insulting words" (along with the photo), which led you lot to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed. This is unless he tin can prove that he had acted reasonably.
  • If the other party had caused "harassment, warning or distress" to you, through their "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" (such as by publishing the photo). This is unless he tin can show that he had acted reasonably.
  • If the other party published "threatening, abusive or insulting words" (along with the photograph), which led you to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed. This is unless he can show that he had acted reasonably or that he had no reason to believe that you lot would take heard, seen, or otherwise perceived the words in question.
  • If the other party published "threatening, abusive or insulting words" (along with the photograph), with the intention of causing you to believe that unlawful violence would be used against you lot or a third party, or whereby you are likely to believe that such violence would be used confronting you or a 3rd political party. This is unless he tin show that he had acted reasonably or that he had, in the latter scenario, no reason to believe that you would have seen, heard, or otherwise perceived the words in question.

Also, you may apply to the District Court for a protection order to stop the harassment.

Defamation

If the other party who took a photo of you published the photo together with written statements, you may exist able to found a claim in defamation against him due to the defamatory nature of those statements. This is provided:

  1. You can prove that the requisite elements of the tort have been fulfilled; and
  2. The other party is unable to rely on any defence recognised under the police force.

For more than details on these elements and defences, refer to our guide on defamation.

Passing Off

While image rights are non recognised under Singapore law, you lot may consider suing the other party for passing off if your photo was used without your consent by the other political party for commercial purposes. To establish a claim for passing off, you need to fulfil 3 requirements:

  1. You must have goodwill associated with whatever goods or services that you supply to the public.
  2. The other party must take made a misrepresentation that caused or was likely to cause the public to believe that his appurtenances or services were instead your appurtenances or services.
  3. Y'all suffered or are likely to endure harm because of the misrepresentation.

The Great britain case of Fenty and Others v Arcadia and Others [2015] EWCA Civ 3 provides some guidance as to how the Singapore courts may in time to come safeguard the commercial use of individuals' images via the tort of passing off.

For case, to fulfil the goodwill requirement, a claimant should have operated an extensive endorsement business such that he has acquired pregnant goodwill with regard to the types of goods or services that he has been endorsing.

Meanwhile, to satisfy the misrepresentation requirement, the claimant should take been misrepresented as having endorsed the defendant's products or as beingness responsible for the products' quality.

Obviously, this avenue of seeking redress, i.e., the tort of passing off, is more than appropriate for celebrities or well-known people who are known by the public (or a significant department of information technology) for doing endorsements for businesses. If you are someone who has previously authorised numerous businesses to use your image for such purposes, you may exist able to satisfy the goodwill requirement.

Also, provided yous fulfil the other 2 same requirements too, y'all may succeed in a claim of passing off.

—

Previously, if someone took a photo of y'all in public and published it, there was petty that you could do other than rely on the bases of harassment, defamation or passing off should the facts permit so.

Now, with the enactment of the PDPA, you may have a stronger claim confronting the other party on the ground of a breach of data privacy, provided that party had acted in the chapters of an employee of an system.