You may experience disconcerted later on realising that someone has taken a photograph of you in public and has published it without your consent.

What yous should do is:

  • Proceed the publication in which your photograph appeared, if the photo was published in a physical medium similar a mag, leaflet or poster;
  • Accept a photo of the publication in which your photo appeared, if the photograph was published in a physical medium just you are unable to or are not allowed to keep the publication with you; or
  • Capture a screenshot of the webpage on which your photo appeared, if the photo was published online.

Adjacent, you should effort your all-time to define the identity of the person or visitor who took and published your photo.

One time you are able to do so, you can request that the other party remove the photo expeditiously. Should that political party non comply with your request and/or should yous seek compensation from him likewise, you may then 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 show, and to place who took and uploaded your photo. ?? Once you lot exercise so, you lot can message the other party and request for them to remove the photo. If the other party fails to comply, report their business relationship and the post with your photo. ? – In more serious cases, publishing a photo of someone without their permission can exist considered equally an deed of harassment or defamation if certain conditions are met. ? For example, if the other party published your photograph with "threatening, abusive or insulting words" that led to y'all feeling alarmed or distressed, it would count as harassment. If such harassment continues for an extended menstruation, consider applying to the District Court for a protection order. ⚖ – With Anime Festival Asia (AFA) happening at Suntec this weekend, there's leap to exist tons of cosplayers around the surface area! Make sure to ask for permission earlier taking photos of them, no matter how adept their cosplay looks, or how busy they may seem. ?? #SingaporeLegalAdvice

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

Breach of Data Privacy

It will by and large not exist a breach of the Personal Data Protection Human action (PDPA) if:

  • The person who took the photo had done and so in their personal or domestic capacity, i.e. they were not taking the photo in the course of their employment with an arrangement; and/or
  • You lot were in a public surface area more often than not open to the public. This is considering personal data that is publicly available is not protected past the PDPA.

The situation may exist different if the other party had taken and/or published the photograph without your consent in his capacity as an employee of an organization, while you were attending a private upshot (fifty-fifty if the event had been held in a public space). In this instance, y'all may be able to sue the other party'southward employer, i.e. the system, provided that y'all have incurred whatever losses or damages straight arising from the employee's actions.

Alternatively, you lot may submit a complaint to the Personal Data Protection Commission, which may then investigate whether there was any non-compliance with the PDPA on the part of the organisation.

Harassment

You may be able to make a constabulary report or sue the other party for harassment nether the Protection from Harassment Act in the following circumstances:

  • If the other party had intended to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to y'all, and therefore published "threatening, abusive or insulting words" (along with the photo), which led you to experience harassed, alarmed or distressed. This is unless he can show that he had acted reasonably.
  • If the other party had caused "harassment, alarm or distress" to you, through their "threatening, calumniating or insulting words or behaviour" (such as past publishing the photo). This is unless he can show that he had acted reasonably.
  • If the other party published "threatening, abusive or insulting words" (forth with the photo), which led you to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed. This is unless he tin can testify that he had acted reasonably or that he had no reason to believe that you lot would have 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 lot to believe that unlawful violence would be used against yous or a third party, or whereby you are likely to believe that such violence would exist used against you or a third party. This is unless he can 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 use 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, y'all may be able to institute 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 political party is unable to rely on whatever defence recognised under the law.

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

Passing Off

While image rights are not recognised under Singapore law, you may consider suing the other party for passing off if your photo was used without your consent by the other party for commercial purposes. To establish a claim for passing off, y'all need to fulfil three requirements:

  1. You must have goodwill associated with any goods or services that y'all supply to the public.
  2. The other party must have fabricated a misrepresentation that caused or was likely to cause the public to believe that his goods or services were instead your goods or services.
  3. You suffered or are likely to suffer harm considering of the misrepresentation.

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

For example, to fulfil the goodwill requirement, a claimant should accept operated an all-encompassing endorsement business organization such that he has caused significant goodwill with regard to the types of goods or services that he has been endorsing.

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

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

Also, provided you fulfil the other 2 aforementioned requirements as well, you may succeed in a claim of passing off.

—

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

Now, with the enactment of the PDPA, you may have a stronger claim against the other party on the basis of a breach of information privacy, provided that party had acted in the capacity of an employee of an organisation.