SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
133
THE COLLISION OF IMAGE RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT IN
UZBEKISTAN: LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND REFORM PROPOSALS
Koryogdiev Bobur Umidjon ogli
Lecturer of Tashkent State University of Law
Email: boburkoryogdiyev@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16360283
Annotation.
Uzbek law currently affords individuals broad privacy and
personality protections – the Constitution guarantees “inviolability of private
life, personal and family secrets, [and] protection of honor and dignity” – and the
Civil Code lists the “right to an image” among non-property personal rights that
are inalienable. At the same time, Uzbekistan’s Copyright Law (LRU-42/2006)
grants photographers and other creators exclusive control over their visual
works. However,
no dedicated statute
clarifies how these interests interact. As
one analysis notes, Article 99 of the Civil Code declares the image right
“inalienable and inviolable”, but the law “does not stipulate whether a citizen’s
permission is required in order to photograph him/her” or how photos taken in
public may be used. In practice, this gap means a photographer might hold valid
copyright in a portrait while the depicted person claims a personal right to
control that image – a conflict left unresolved by current law.
Keywords:
copyright, personality rights, image right, dignity and autonomy
Constitutional and Civil Law Foundations
Under the Uzbek Constitution,
every person enjoys privacy rights
. Article
31 declares that “everyone shall have the right to inviolability of private life,
personal and family secrets, [and] protection of honor and dignity”. These
abstract guarantees form a human-rights backdrop for any image-use dispute.
The Civil Code elaborates on personal non-property rights: Article 99 expressly
includes “the right to an image” among inalienable personal benefits. This means
from birth an individual’s likeness belongs to them in a personal (not property)
sense. Beyond that recognition, however,
the Civil Code provides no detailed
rules
on image consent or use. In lieu of a specific “droit à l’image” regime, an
aggrieved person must resort to general remedies. For example, Article 100 of
the Civil Code allows a citizen to demand in court a refutation of “information
discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation” and to claim damages. If a
published photo of someone causes personal harm (e.g. is humiliating or
injurious to reputation), it might be challenged as a violation of honor or dignity
under Article 100. But absent defamatory context, a mere unauthorized
photograph does not easily fit that rubric, leaving victims with
no clear cause of
action
under existing Uzbek law.
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
134
In sum, Uzbekistan’s basic law acknowledges personal privacy and even the
“right to an image” in principle, but without any implementing provisions. As
legal commentators observe, this lacuna has generated uncertainty: “[t]he law
does not stipulate whether a citizen’s permission is required in order to
photograph him/her,” and similarly is silent on the use of photos taken at public
events. The Ministry of Justice has repeatedly concluded that current legislation
“does not provide full mechanisms for protecting [citizens’] right for image
privacy,” and has accordingly proposed amending the Civil Code to fill the gap.
Copyright Law and Public-Use Exceptions
Parallel to civil rights, Uzbekistan’s Law on Copyright and Related Rights
(2006) protects “works of science, literature and art” – including
photographic
works
– by granting authors exclusive exploitation rights. A photographer thus
owns the copyright in a portrait or landscape, with the power to authorize
reproduction, distribution, display, etc.. The law also entrenches Berne
Convention-style
moral rights
: the author must be named and the work shown
with integrity. Yet the Copyright Act does not mention the consent of depicted
people at all; its focus is solely on the author/creator.
The law does contain certain
exceptions
for public-interest uses of visual
works – but again these target the author’s rights, not a subject’s privacy. For
example, Article 29 (as codified) authorizes reproducing and broadcasting
works “seen or heard in the course of reporting current events,” to the extent
justified by the informational purpose. In practice, this means press
photographers may capture performances, speeches, or scenes at newsworthy
events without infringing the author’s copyright, so long as attribution is
maintained. Similarly, Article 30 allows free reproduction or exhibition of works
of architecture, photography, and fine art that are “permanently located in
public places” (a “panorama” exception), again so long as the work itself is not
the exclusive focus or used commercially. These provisions illustrate that Uzbek
copyright law
relaxes author control
for public‐interest uses (news,
architecture, etc.), but they say nothing about the
personality rights
of anyone
appearing in those images.
In effect, a photographer can rely on copyright law to publish images of
public events or street scenes without fear of infringing another artist’s rights.
But at the same time that photograph may contain a private individual whose
consent was neither sought nor legally required by copyright statutes. If that
person objects, however, there is no reciprocal “exception” under the personal-
rights regime to shield the photographer. Conversely, a person could assert their
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
135
image right even if the image use would qualify under a copyright exception.
Thus, in the absence of a clear statutory rule, conflicts can arise between a
photographer’s legal rights and an individual’s personality rights.
The Current Uzbek Situation and Draft Reforms
Recognizing this tension, Uzbek authorities have recently drafted reform
proposals. In 2020 the Ministry of Justice published a model bill to amend the
Civil Code, explicitly requiring consent for using a person’s image. Under that
draft, “before taking a picture of someone (making videos and works of art) and
using it, individuals have to obtain the consent of that person,” failing which the
person could demand removal of the image and seek damages (including moral
harm) through the courts. The proposal carved out numerous exceptions:
consent would be waived for uses in state/public interest (e.g. news about crime
victims, missing persons, border control, public safety, etc.), for images of public
officials in the exercise of duty, or for photos of large public gatherings.
Importantly, it also sought to prohibit publishing images that harm someone’s
personal reputation, reinforcing existing defamation laws.
Most recently (March 2025), a new draft law would add Article 100-1 to the
Civil Code, making consent the default rule for any “photographing, filming, or
otherwise depicting” of an identifiable individual. The draft enumerates nine
categories of exception: for example, no consent would be needed for uses “in
the interest of society and the state” (including law-enforcement warrants and
official duties), for reporting on crimes or threats (so long as dignity is
respected), for photos of public officials performing duties, or for images taken
at public events or family ceremonies. Consent would also be waived if the
image was already public or paid for by the subject (provided use stays within
the agreed scope). Violating the proposed law would allow affected individuals
to demand removal of the image and compensation. These draft measures
confirm that Uzbek policymakers intend to fill the current legal void with a
civil-rights approach much like that in other jurisdictions.
In the meantime, without such laws in force, photographers, media and
citizens in Uzbekistan operate in a grey zone. The Copyright Law implies authors
may freely publish event photos or street scenes, but the Civil Code grants each
person a “right to an image” without saying how it is enforced. Practically, a
photographer who publishes an image of an unwilling subject could potentially
face civil lawsuits under privacy or honor laws (e.g. seeking a court refutation of
“discrediting” information and damages). Conversely, a newspaper using a photo
without consent might defend itself by noting the copyright exceptions. This
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
136
uncertainty creates legal risk for creative professionals and media. Individuals
likewise lack a clear remedy: absent a dedicated image-rights statute, a person
must shoehorn their complaint into existing privacy or defamation claims.
Comparative Perspectives: Russia, Germany, France
By contrast, many countries now recognize a distinct right to one’s image or
publicity.
Russia’s Civil Code
(Art. 152.1) expressly protects a person’s likeness:
it provides that “public disclosure and further use” of an individual’s image
(photo, video, or any visual art) is permitted only with that person’s
consent
.
Russia then carves out exceptions for the public interest. Under implemented
judicial guidance, consent is
not required
when the image is used “in the
interests of the state or in the public interest”, when taken at a public place or
event (unless the person is the main subject), or when the person was paid to
model. The Supreme Court has emphasized that using a public figure’s image in
connection with public-political news generally counts as public-interest use,
whereas a celebrity’s photo used purely for prurient curiosity or profit still
requires consent. Russia’s model is instructive: it treats the image right as a
personal privacy right (not intellectual property), enforceable by injunction and
damages, with fair-balance exceptions for journalism and security.
Similarly,
Germany
enshrines the “right to one’s own image” in the
Kunsturhebergesetz
(Art. 22 KUG): it states bluntly that images may be published
only with the consent of the depicted person. Only very limited exceptions apply
(Art. 23 KUG) – for example, images of people of “contemporary history” during
the course of reporting, incidental group shots in public, images of those
exercising public functions, or pictures “not focused on a specific person” taken
at events (see e.g. German doctrine). In practice, German law is stringent: an
unwitting onlooker in a photograph generally retains a veto right, unless a
narrow exception covers the photo’s context. Any unauthorized use can lead to
an injunction and damages.
France
likewise recognizes a person’s image as an inalienable attribute of
personality. Article 9 of the French Civil Code provides that “each individual has
the exclusive right to his or her own image […] and may oppose its
reproduction”. This “droit à l’image” is absolute in principle: consent must be
obtained before any identifiable use of a person’s portrait or voice, whether
filmed in public or private. French jurisprudence has defined exceptions
analogous to Russia’s – for instance, public figures in the exercise of their public
roles, news reporting focused on events (not the individual), or incidental
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
137
capture of people in a crowd – but absent such exceptions the default is strict
protection. A violator faces heavy civil (and even criminal) penalties.
In summary, unlike Uzbekistan’s current amorphous position, many legal
systems now treat images of persons as distinct rights. These systems typically
rest the image right in private-law (tort or civil code) rather than copyright law,
and they impose a
consent requirement as the general rule
. (Copyright law in
those countries then generally coexists separately, governing creativity in the
photo itself.) The comparative takeaway is clear: a dedicated framework can
reconcile personal privacy with public-interest uses, whereas a gap like
Uzbekistan’s produces ambiguity.
Practical Implications for Photographers, Media and Individuals
The absence of explicit Uzbek rules has real effects on stakeholders.
Photographers and filmmakers
lack clarity on when they need releases. A
news photographer may reasonably believe any image taken in a public setting
is publishable (as the Copyright Act’s news-use provision implies), yet if the
subject objects, the photographer currently has no statutory safe harbor.
Without a clear consent rule, studios or journalists may resort to obtaining
model releases in all cases, chilling spontaneous documentary work. Conversely,
they may publish images and risk after-the-fact legal claims for privacy or
dishonor, since the subject’s civil rights can be invoked through generic
defamation/honor protections.
For
media outlets
, the risk of litigating an unauthorized portrait is
heightened by Uzbekistan’s protections of personal honor and privacy.
Publishers must balance reporting needs against potential liability. While
existing copyright exceptions (e.g. Article 29’s event‐reporting clause)
technically permit news photos, outlets worry about a civil lawsuit under the
Civil Code. For example, publishing a photo of a non-public individual at a public
protest might be defensible under news doctrine but nevertheless trigger a
complaint under Article 100 or Article 99, which has no express exception. Thus
media may practice self-censorship (blurring faces, avoiding identifiable shots of
bystanders) pending legal clarity.
Ordinary
individuals
similarly face uncertainty. Technological ease of
photography and social media sharing have made unauthorized dissemination
common. Without an explicit image-rights law, a person whose photo appears
online without consent has no straightforward remedy. They cannot rely on
copyright (they are not the author) and can only demand redress via general
statutes (privacy, honor, personality rights). In practice this may mean bringing
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
138
civil suit for moral damages if the image is used offensively, or seeking deletion
as a privacy invasion – a cumbersome and unpredictable process. The lack of
clear rights may also discourage some victims from pursuing their case at all.
Conceptual Proposals for Harmonization
To resolve these conflicts, Uzbekistan may consider the following
conceptual reforms (to be developed through legislation or doctrine):
Explicit Recognition of Image Rights.
Treat a person’s portrait as a
distinct
personal non-property right
, akin to Russia’s approach. The Civil Code
could expressly require a person’s
consent
for any publication or use of their
recognizable image or likeness, subject to limited exceptions. This would
operationalize the existing dictum that the “right to an image” is inalienable.
Balanced Exceptions.
Carve out clear exceptions to the consent
requirement for instances where society’s interest prevails. For example, permit
photography of people at newsworthy events, public demonstrations, or on
public streets when the purpose is journalistic or informational (echoing Article
29 of the Copyright Law and Russia’s public-interest exceptions). Similarly,
allow images of officials performing duties, and so forth, as in the Justice
Ministry’s draft. In other words, ensure that
freedom of expression and press
are protected: journalists should not need consent to document events of public
interest, so long as they do not violate personal dignity.
Commercial and Privacy Uses.
Require consent (preferably written) for
commercial exploitation
of someone’s image (advertising, endorsement,
merchandising) without exception. Also generally require consent for private
uses (e.g. online posting, photography in a private setting), unless an overriding
public-interest defense is clearly met. This aligns with European practice: an
ordinary individual’s photo may not be used commercially at all without
permission.
Interplay with Copyright.
Clarify that compliance with one regime does
not imply compliance with the other. In practice, a photographer would need to
respect both the copyright (their own) and the subject’s consent (if required).
For instance, a portrait taken at a news event might be copyright-free under
Uzbek law but still subject to image rights; conversely, requiring consent for the
image does
not
extinguish the photographer’s copyright over the creative work.
Courts could balance these rights: allowing image use if it falls under a statutory
exception, or otherwise requiring permission despite the copyright exceptions.
Remedies and Enforcement.
Establish remedies for violation of image
rights, such as injunctions, removal orders, and compensation for moral harm.
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
139
The proposed draft (Article 100-1) envisages that an affected person can
demand deletion of an unauthorized photo and claim damages. Conceptually,
any resolution system should provide such relief. This would put the individual’s
control on par with the author’s control (who likewise can enjoin infringing uses
of the work).
Practical Guidelines and Awareness.
In addition to legal changes,
guidelines for media and photographers could be promulgated. This might
include model release forms for commercial shoots, and official clarification (e.g.
via judicial resolution or ministry directives) of when news coverage is exempt.
Education on the new rules would help minimize litigation and foster respect for
privacy.
These proposals aim for a
balanced framework
: one that honors personal
dignity and privacy (in line with Uzbek constitutional values) while preserving
legitimate creative and informational uses. By explicitly recognizing image rights
and
delineating their boundaries, Uzbekistan can align with international norms
(as seen in Russia, Germany, and France) without unduly hindering photography
and free expression. The key is to enshrine the fundamental principle that
individuals own their likeness, yet allow their images to appear in service of
public knowledge and cultural expression under clear safeguards.
Conclusion
Uzbekistan’s present law treats a person’s image as an unquantified
personal right, but lacks any rule on how that right interacts with the copyright
in an image. This gap generates uncertainty and potential conflict between
photographers and subjects. Other legal systems address the tension by
codifying consent requirements with well-defined exceptions. Uzbekistan is
moving in that direction, as seen in recent draft legislation. Conceptually, a
harmonized solution would weave image consent into the Civil Code (or a
dedicated privacy law) while adjusting copyright exceptions accordingly. Such a
framework would protect individuals’ personality rights under the Constitution
and Civil Code, yet preserve freedom of the press and creative arts. In the
meantime, stakeholders must navigate the uncertainty: photographers and
media should obtain releases whenever possible, and individuals should be
aware that their remedies lie in general privacy and honor laws until specific
image-right provisions are enacted.
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM
International scientific-online conference
140
List of references:
1.
Kosta, E. (2013). Consent in European Data Protection Law. Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers.
2.
European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data
Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union.
3.
Dreier, T. (2004). “The Right to One’s Image: Publicity and Privacy Rights.”
In: European Intellectual Property Review.
4.
Von Bar, C. (1998). The Common European Law of Torts: Volume II.
Oxford University Press – discusses image and personality rights under civil
codes.
5.
Noto La Diega, G. (2020). “Artificial Intelligence and the Right to One’s
Image: A European Perspective.” European Journal of Law and Technology,
11(2).
6.
Koops, B. J., et al. (2011). “A Typology of Privacy.” University of
Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 38(2), 483–575.
7.
Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press.
8.
Ubertazzi, B. (2017). “The Right of Personality in European Civil Law.” In:
International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), 48(5),
533–552.
9.
Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel
Entanglements of Law and Technology. Edward Elgar Publishing.
