"My Photo Down" Student Files Lawsuit Over Eyebrow Tattoo Academy Promotion Post [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

A student who took an eyebrow tattooing technique class filed a civil lawsuit against a beauty academy. The student claimed that the academy used their photo in a promotional post on an internet blog without consent.

The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

Previously, in October 2020, Mr./Ms. A paid over 3 million won to the academy to take a ‘semi-permanent makeup’ class. The academy asked if they could film a testimonial interview for a promotional YouTube video.

Mr./Ms. A agreed to the academy’s request and gave the interview while wearing a mask during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the academy captured images of Mr./Ms. A from the YouTube video and posted them on the academy’s internet blog along with their real name. Mr./Ms. A requested the academy to remove their name from the post, and the academy partially pixelated or blurred the captured photos. This promotional post was published from January to August 2021.

Mr./Ms. A claimed, "My portrait rights were violated because the photo was posted on the academy’s blog without consent, causing mental distress," and demanded a ban on the photo’s publication and 1 million won in damages. The academy argued, "Mr./Ms. A consented to the YouTube video filming, so it can be assumed they also consented to the posting of the captured photos on the blog," denying any violation of portrait rights.

The first trial sided with the academy. The court stated, "After the face and name were pixelated or blurred, Mr./Ms. A could not be identified. It is difficult to consider this a violation of portrait rights. Also, since Mr./Ms. A consented to the YouTube video filming, it should be regarded as consent to posting the captured photos on the blog." The court also pointed out, "Mr./Ms. A initially only requested the removal of their name and did not object to the post itself."

On the other hand, the second trial ruled in favor of Mr./Ms. A. According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Seoul High Court Civil Division 13 (Presiding Judge Moon Kwang-seop) recently ruled that the academy must pay Mr./Ms. A 700,000 won, stating, "Since the photo was posted on the blog with the real name for about seven months without consent, mental damages must be compensated."

The second trial court also acknowledged that when Mr./Ms. A consented to the video filming, it implied consent to posting captured photos on the blog. It added, "Both posting the YouTube video and the blog’s captured photos ultimately serve the academy’s promotional purpose targeting prospective students. Considering YouTube’s openness and spreadability, if Mr./Ms. A agreed to be filmed for the interview video to be posted there, it was reasonably foreseeable that the footage could be captured and used similarly."

However, the court noted, "There is no evidence that the academy informed Mr./Ms. A about the editing or publication methods that would reveal their real name or obtained related consent. Mr./Ms. A even requested the removal of their name after seeing the video, saying it was frightening. They did not expect their face and real name to be fully disclosed."

Furthermore, "Mr./Ms. A appears to have passively complied with the academy’s interview request as a student and did not receive any special compensation for the filming. Compared to simply posting a portion of the video showing a masked student’s interview, capturing a scene where the student prominently appears as a single photo, including their real name and posting it with explanatory text on the blog, has a greater impact on the individual’s privacy and personality rights in terms of identification and emphasis," the court added.