Today, the expansion of technology reaches such a level that it is common for children, young people and adults to have digital cameras or cell phones with cameras and any situation of daily life, no matter how unspectacular, still becomes photographable or filmable. Many resign themselves to the idea of becoming "extras" of how many images they appear in. Few know that Argentine law protects the right that each person has over their own image.
The lawyer Miguel Sumer Elías, an expert in Computer Law, details in this interview how the Internet has had an impact on a change in the customs of society around the confidentiality of images. And he points out that many times this new use of photos and filming on the network leads to lawsuits.
In Argentina, each person has the right to show himself to others as he wishes (as long as it does not affect legal norms, decorum and good customs). Everyone has the right to show themselves with the look they want, to choose their way of dressing, to comb their hair, to put on makeup. But beyond this right, there is also legal protection that prevents anyone from capturing or disseminating the image of another without their prior consent. If that image is finally reproduced, that person has the right to ask the justice system to order the cessation of the disclosure of his image as well as to request an economic compensation that he considers appropriate.
Thus, the right to one's own image has a double aspect. On the one hand, the right of each person to capture, reproduce and publish their own image as, where and when they wish, but it is also the right that each person has to prevent the obtaining, adaptation, reproduction and publication of their own figure by third parties, without their consent.
The right to the image is expressly regulated in article 31 of the Intellectual Property Law, 11.723, sanctioned in 1933:
As for the term "photographic portrait", the doctrine has established that it must be understood in a broad sense, so it includes photos, films, photomontages, etc. The same goes for the concept of "put in trade". For the jurisprudence, it is enough to capture the image of a person without his consent, so that this very personal right is violated. Something similar refers to the exceptions contemplated in the law, which details that the publication of photos is free when it is related to "scientific, didactic and generally cultural purposes, or to facts or events of public interest or that have been developed in public." Such caveats do not deal with unrestricted permission and in several such cases the courts have chosen to limit these exceptions."The photographic portrait of a person may not be placed in commerce without the express consent of the person himself, and the person himself, of his spouse and children or direct descendants of these, or in his absence of the father or mother. In the absence of the spouse, children, father or mother, or direct descendants of the children, publication is free. The person who has given his consent can revoke it by compensating damages. The publication of the portrait is free when it relates to scientific, didactic and generally cultural purposes, or to facts or events of public interest or that have been developed in public."
Likewise, the Civil Code also protects this right in article 1071 bis:
Source: Maep2010 and Informática Legal"Anyone who arbitrarily interferes in the life of others, publishing portraits, disseminating correspondence, mortifying others in their customs or feelings, or disturbing in any way their privacy, and the act is not a criminal offense, shall be obliged to cease such activities, if they have not previously ceased, and to pay compensation to be fixed equitably by the judge, according to the circumstances; in addition, the latter may, at the request of the aggrieved party, order the publication of the judgment in a newspaper or newspaper of the place, if this measure is appropriate for an adequate reparation."
