Image rights lawyer in Paris: employees, property and company brands.

The right a person has over their image derives from Article 9 of the French Civil Code (Code civil) and covers the capture, retention, reproduction and use of that image. The relationship of subordination does not give the employer a right to use its employees' faces for its communication. The Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation) quashed a judgment that refused any compensation to employees photographed with their team for the website, recalling that “the mere finding of an infringement of the right to one’s image entitles the person to compensation” (our translation) (Cass. soc., 19 January 2022, No. 20-12.420). No statute requires a written document, but it is the only reliable way to prove consent and to set its limits. An oral or tacit agreement remains open to dispute, and it is for the party publishing the image to establish it. The firm examines the date of the photograph, the use made of it and any exchanges, then advises whether a removal request or a regularisation is the most suitable route.

The Court of Cassation ruled on this precise situation on 13 May 2026 (Cass. soc., 13 May 2026, No. 24-19.117). An employee had signed in 2014 a document authorising their employer to use their image with no time limit, and their photograph had remained on the website after the contract ended. The Social Chamber upholds the court of appeal in finding that the limits of the authorisation had not been stipulated clearly enough as to its duration. It endorses the conclusion that “the said authorisation had to cease on termination of the employment contract” (our translation) (Cass. soc., 13 May 2026, No. 24-19.117). The later use therefore gave rise to compensation. The ruling does not condemn every broad authorisation: the Court recalls that the parties remain at liberty to set clearly the duration, territory, media and excluded contexts. The firm reads the signed document clause by clause and compares it with each publication after the departure.

No, taking part in a shoot does not by itself prove consent to all later uses. The court of appeal of Versailles held, for an employee photographed in a studio and later featured in brochures sent to clients, that “the fact that he accepted having the photographs taken is not sufficient to establish his tacit consent to their retention, reproduction and use” (our translation) (CA Versailles, ch. soc. 4-4, 15 January 2025, No. 24/01138). It noted that the employer had decided on the shoot in the exercise of its managerial authority and awarded 2,000 euros for each of the two campaigns. This appeal decision rests on specific facts and does not set a scale. It nevertheless shows that a brochure reserved for clients is still a use of the image. For the company, the practical consequence is simple: have an authorisation signed before the shoot that describes the intended uses and their duration.

The judgment of 13 May 2026 provides the framework: Article 9 of the Civil Code alone applies to the assignment of the right to one's image, to the exclusion in particular of the Intellectual Property Code, and falls within contractual freedom. The authorisation stands where the parties have stipulated clearly enough its duration, its geographical scope, the nature of the media and the exclusion of certain contexts. The Court adds that “a breach of that provision may be relied on where the publication in dispute is not connected with the performance of the contract” (our translation) (Cass. soc., 13 May 2026, No. 24-19.117). A useful clause therefore specifies the media covered (website, social networks, brochures, trade fairs), the duration, what happens to the image at the end of the contract and the possibility of removal. It must remain proportionate to the aim pursued, in accordance with Article L. 1121-1 of the Labour Code (Code du travail). The firm drafts or reviews these clauses so that they match the company's actual uses.

Article L. 1222-4 of the Labour Code prohibits collecting personal information about an employee through a system that has not been brought to their attention beforehand. CCTV not disclosed to employees therefore provides unlawful evidence, which does not automatically lead to its rejection. The Social Chamber requires the judge to carry out a multi-stage review: “the judge must first ask whether the monitoring carried out by the employer was legitimate and verify whether there were concrete reasons justifying the use of surveillance and its extent” (our translation) (Cass. soc., 8 March 2023, No. 21-17.802). The judge then examines whether a less intrusive means could have achieved the same result, and assesses the proportionality of the interference. In that case, the recordings were set aside because the employer had an audit that it had not produced. This concerns evidence and the employee's personal life, not the use of their image, but the question often arises in the same case.

The question no longer concerns the employee's image rights but their obligations towards the employer. In a case heard by the Social Chamber, an employee had published the photograph of a still-confidential collection on a private account with more than two hundred professional contacts in fashion (Cass. soc., 30 September 2020, No. 19-12.058). The contract contained a confidentiality clause. The Court upholds the court of appeal in finding that “this publication amounted to a breach of the employee's contractual obligation of confidentiality and constituted gross misconduct making it impossible to keep her in the company” (our translation) (Cass. soc., 30 September 2020, No. 19-12.058). The decision is unfavourable to the employee: publishing a product image may justify dismissal. It also admits evidence taken from a private account where its production is indispensable to the right to evidence and proportionate. The firm checks the confidentiality clause, whether the information was public or not, and how the evidence was obtained.

Not on the ground of privacy, and the answer is unfavourable to companies that try. The Court of Cassation quashed a judgment that had ordered the removal of a camera in the name of a bakery's privacy, holding that “only natural persons may rely on an infringement of privacy within the meaning of Article 9 of the Civil Code” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 17 March 2016, No. 15-14.072). It does recognise that legal entities have a right to the protection of their name, domicile, correspondence and reputation. The company therefore acts on other grounds: the right of ownership under Article 544 of the Civil Code for its premises, liability under Article 1240 for disparagement or parasitism, trade mark law or copyright for its signs and visuals. The choice of legal basis determines whether the claim is admissible and which court has jurisdiction. The firm settles it before any formal notice.

The principle works against the owner: the plenary assembly holds that “the owner of a thing has no exclusive right over the image of it” (our translation) (Cass. ass. plén., 7 May 2004, No. 02-10.450). The owner may only object to the use of that image by a third party where it causes an abnormal disturbance. In that case, a listed mansion appeared on a developer's leaflet to illustrate the surroundings of a neighbouring programme, and the claim was dismissed because no disturbance was established. The court of appeal of Aix-en-Provence, by contrast, ordered in urgent proceedings the removal of five photographs presenting a neighbour's park as part of the hotel put up for sale, holding that “more than an infringement of the image of the park, the unlawfulness of the disturbance results from the use of images showing the park as an integral part of the hotel” (our translation) (CA Aix-en-Provence, ch. 1-2, 6 November 2025, No. 24/14250). It refused the removal of the facade views and a ban on any future use. The disturbance is therefore proved by confusion or concrete interference with enjoyment of the property, not by the mere reproduction.

Yes, subject to conditions. The First Civil Chamber holds, on the basis of Article 544 of the Civil Code and Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that an owner may object to the publication of a video made on their property. It specifies: “The publication of a video shot inside its premises without its authorisation may constitute such a disturbance, whether or not it was shot during an intrusion and whether or not its author is identified” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 10 July 2024, No. 22-23.170). The appeal to the Court of Cassation by the association that made the video was dismissed. The urgent applications judge may put an end to a manifestly unlawful disturbance or prevent imminent damage, provided there is a record of the publication and proof that the images were indeed taken on the premises without consent. The judge must nevertheless weigh this right against freedom of expression, as this judgment already recalls and as the Court clarified in 2026. The firm prepares the record, the plans and the chronology before the application is made.

Freedom of expression protects the publication of information on a subject of general interest, and the judge must reconcile it with the right of property. On 14 October 2026, the First Civil Chamber clarified that the removal of a video shot in livestock premises is justified only if, after balancing the interests, that measure meets a pressing social need (Cass. 1re civ., 14 October 2026, No. 25-16.277). It nevertheless quashed the judgment that had dismissed the company's claims, because the court of appeal had ruled “without addressing the matters raised as to the repercussions of the publication of the video” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 14 October 2026, No. 25-16.277). Those repercussions consisted of violent online reactions and leaflets targeting the company and its employees. The case is sent back to the court of appeal of Rennes: nothing has yet been decided on the merits. For a company, the lesson concerns evidence: document precisely the consequences of the publication for the business, the employees and security.

An advertising campaign does not fall under image rights within the meaning of Article 9, but it may be protected by civil liability. The Commercial Chamber admits an action for parasitism, based on Article 1240 of the Civil Code, whatever the status or activity of the parties, “where the author places itself in the wake of the victim by unduly taking advantage of its efforts, know-how, reputation or investments” (our translation) (Cass. com., 16 February 2022, No. 20-13.542). In that case, posters of an animal protection association had been misappropriated a few days after their launch for the benefit of other causes, and the judgment against the defendant was upheld. The evidence concerns the investments made, the reputation of the campaign, the date of the copying and the weakening of the message. If the visuals are original, copyright may be added, as may trade mark law where the conditions of an infringement of the mark are met, which the mere reproduction of the sign is not enough to establish. The firm combines these grounds without confusing them.

Two rights may coexist over a building: the owner's, limited to abnormal disturbance, and the architect's where the structure is an original work still under protection. Article L. 122-5, 11°, of the Intellectual Property Code (Code de la propriété intellectuelle) permits reproductions of architectural works permanently located on a public road, but only where made by natural persons and excluding any commercial use. A company that places the photograph of a recent building at the centre of an advertisement therefore does not benefit from this exception. It must check the architect's identity, the date of the work and the role of the image in the medium. A merely incidental presence in an urban landscape does not raise the same questions as a central reproduction. The firm also examines the photographer's licence, which is often separate from the rights in the building depicted. A photograph bought from an image library covers only the rights the seller actually held, which requires reading the licence terms before any campaign. If the image also shows recognisable persons, their consent remains a separate question.

An action for compensation for an infringement of image rights falls in principle under Article 2224 of the Civil Code: five years from the day the holder knew or should have known the facts. The starting point depends on knowledge of the publication, which does not always coincide with the date it went online. The Versailles judgment compensates separately two distinct uses, in 2012 and in 2015, without deciding on limitation or on the effect of continued online display on its starting point (CA Versailles, ch. soc. 4-4, 15 January 2025, No. 24/01138). The company must therefore reconstruct the date of each use, the date the contract ended and that of the first claim. The time limit is checked according to the basis of the action: publication in a medium alone does not subject an infringement of image rights to the regime of the Law of 29 July 1881, as the judgment of 10 July 2024 shows for an action based on ownership (Cass. 1re civ., 10 July 2024, No. 22-23.170). The firm establishes this chronology before replying to a formal notice or bringing an action. On the company's side, removing the image as soon as the claim is made limits the duration of the use in dispute, without erasing earlier publications.