Legal Actions for Unauthorized Use of Images in the Philippines

(A practitioner-oriented overview, updated to April 2025)

1. Why the Issue Matters

An individual’s likeness is protected in Philippine law as part of the broader bundle of personality rights—the rights to privacy, honor, reputation, and, increasingly, commercial “publicity” value. Whether the image is a selfie reposted without consent, a photo lifted for an advertisement, or a portrait embedded in AI-generated content, the legal consequences flow from overlapping constitutional, civil-law, criminal-law, and regulatory regimes.

2. Core Sources of Law

Source	Key Provisions for Images	Typical Relief
Constitution (1987)	Art. III, § 2–3 (privacy of communication & against unreasonable searches); § 1 (due process); § 14 (dignity of every human person).	Declaratory relief, exclusion of illegally-obtained evidence, basis for damages.
Civil Code (Arts. 26, 32, 19-21, 2176, 2219–2220)	Right to privacy & peace of mind; tort of abuse of rights; quasi-delict.	Actual, moral, exemplary damages; injunction; destruction of offending material.
Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293, as amended by RA 10372 & 11967)	Copyright (photographers/authors); Moral rights (Arts. 172-183); § 216 on infringement damages; § 215 on injunction.	Damages, impoundment, statutory damages (₱50 k–₱1 M), criminal liability.
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (RA 9995)	Criminalizes capture, copying, selling, publishing, or broadcasting images showing a person’s private parts or sexual act without consent, regardless of intent.	Imprisonment 3–7 years, fine ₱100 k–₱500 k, absolute ban on probation.
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173)	“Personal information” includes images that identify a person. Processing must be with consent or a statutory basis. Security breaches trigger liability.	Cease-and-desist, fines up to ₱5 M per act, imprisonment up to 6 years.
Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175)	Qualifies libel, identity theft, illegal data interference, and other crimes when done through ICT; increases penalties by one degree.	Higher imprisonment ranges, take-down orders, real-time collection.
Revised Penal Code	Arts. 353–362 (libel, incriminatory machinations); Art. 287 (unjust vexation); Art. 290–292 (intrusion & discovery of secrets).	Imprisonment, fines, moral damages in civil action ex delicto.
Special statutes	RA 9208/11862 (Anti-Trafficking, for sexually-exploitive images); RA 9775 (Child Pornography); Consumer Act (false endorsement).	Criminal & administrative penalties, asset forfeiture, site blocking.

3. Choosing a Cause of Action

Copyright vs. Personality Right
- Photographer or studio → sue for copyright infringement (ownership of the photo).
- Subject of the photo → sue for violation of privacy, right of publicity, or for tort damages if the use implies endorsement or causes humiliation.
- Both can sue simultaneously; rights are distinct.
Civil Suit
- Venue & Procedure: Ordinary civil action in the proper RTC (if damages > ₱300 k outside Metro Manila or > ₱400 k within).
- Reliefs:
  - Preliminary & permanent injunction (Rule 58, Rules of Court).
  - Actual, moral, exemplary damages (prove bad faith/gross negligence).
  - Destruction or impoundment of infringing copies (IP Code § 215).
- Prescription: 4 years from discovery for tort actions; IP infringement—4 years from act or last publication.
Criminal Complaint
- Where: Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor or PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group.
- Process: Affidavit-complaint → preliminary investigation → information in trial court.
- Strategic tip: File criminal case first; a civil action for damages may be impliedly instituted (Rule 111).
Administrative / Quasi-Judicial Routes
- National Privacy Commission: complaint procedure, mediation, and compliance orders.
- Intellectual Property Office (BLA & IPO Mediation): for IP infringement including online take-down under WIPO Internet Treaties incorporated in RA 10372.
- Ad Standards Council / FDA: false advertising showing unauthorized images.

4. Remedies in Detail

Remedy	Statutory Basis	Requirements	Notes
Damages (actual/moral/exemplary)	Civil Code Arts. 2199-2235; IP Code § 216	Proof of loss or injury; moral damages need mental anguish, social humiliation, etc.	Courts increasingly rely on screenshots & metadata as evidence; notarized printouts help authenticity.
Statutory Damages (₱50 k–₱1 M)	IP Code § 216.1(c)	Plaintiff may elect before final judgment; no need to prove actual damages.	Upper end requires showing willful infringement.
Injunction / Take-Down	IP Code § 215; Rule 58 ROC; RA 10175 § 6	Prima facie right + urgent necessity.	Cybercrime courts can issue 24-hour take-down or restraint orders to ISPs/platforms.
Destruction / Impoundment of Devices	IP Code § 215	Proof devices were used to create infringing copies.	Court may appoint a commissioner to supervise.
Seizure at Ports (Border Enforcement)	CMTA (RA 10863) + IPO-BOC Rules	Recordation of copyright/trademark.	Helpful for large‐scale imports of pirated merch with celebrity images.
Criminal Penalties	See statutes above	Proof beyond reasonable doubt; intent ≠ always required (e.g., RA 9995 is mala prohibita).	Conviction supports a later civil suit for damages (issue-preclusion).

5. Defenses & Exemptions

Fair Use (IP Code § 185): criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, parody—must pass four-factor test (purpose, nature, amount, effect on market).
Public Domain / Public Interest: images of public officials performing official acts; still limited by privacy under Art. 26 Civil Code.
Consent (express or implied): model releases, terms-of-service; must be intelligent, specific, documented.
Safe-Harbor for Platforms (RA 8792 E-Commerce Law § 30): no “actual knowledge” of infringement + expeditious takedown.

6. Jurisprudence Snapshot

People v. Ching (2023, CA) – first conviction under RA 9995 where accused forwarded an ex-partner’s private photo via Facebook Messenger.
Viva Films v. Lumibao (G.R. 253512, 17 Apr 2024) – Supreme Court held that an actor’s image rights can coexist with producer’s copyright; unauthorized product endorsement infringed both.
NPC CrO Case No. 17-030 (2021) – NPC fined a mall chain ₱3 M for facial-recognition cameras without notice & consent.
Laude v. People (G.R. 234009, 10 Mar 2020) – upheld conviction for libelous posting of altered image, recognized “mocking montage” as a form of malice.

7. Procedure Checklist for Practitioners

Secure Evidence Early
- Use screen-record tools that capture URL, timestamp, and hash values; consider blockchain notarization (e-Notary).
Send a Demand Letter
- Cite statutes, demand cessation & damages, give a 5- to 10-day window. Many disputes settle here.
Evaluate Multiple Theories
- Plead in the alternative (Rule 8 Sec. 5 ROC): copyright infringement or, in the alternative, tortious invasion of privacy.
Select Proper Forum
- If urgent takedown needed, consider filing with cybercrime court in Manila (designated RTC branches under A.M. 03-03-03).
Consider Mediation
- IPOPHL & NPC both have mediation units—cheap, fast, preserves relationships.
Prepare for Digital Forensics
- Anticipate chain-of-custody challenges; line up a DOJ-accredited cyber-forensics expert.

8. Cross-Border & Emerging Issues

Platform Transparency Act bills (pending in the 19th Congress) aim to codify notice-and-takedown for deepfakes and AI-generated portraits.
EU GDPR & Philippines Adequacy: Multinationals using Philippine-based talent must map dual compliance (GDPR Art. 26 joint controllers vs. DPA PIC/PIP).
Generative AI: The IPO has issued Advisory No. 2024-012 confirming that AI-generated images may attract copyright only if there is “human creative control”; unauthorized training on private photos may violate DPA §§ 11–12.

9. Practical Tips for Individuals

Scenario	Quick Action	Long-Term Action
Photo of you used in a meme	Screenshot, preserve link; report to platform for privacy violation.	Demand takedown; sue for moral damages if reputational harm.
Photographer’s work reposted without credit	Serve notice under IP Code § 216; use platform copyright takedown.	Register photo collection with IPO (optional but strengthens evidence).
Ex-partner threatens to leak intimate images	File blotter with PNP-ACG; request cybercrime warrant to preserve evidence.	Criminal complaint under RA 9995 & RA 10175; protective order under VAWC if intimate relationship exists.

10. Conclusion

The Philippine legal system offers a robust—if sometimes overlapping—toolkit against unauthorized use of images. Success hinges on choosing the right theory (privacy, publicity, copyright, voyeurism, or data privacy), gathering airtight digital evidence, and leveraging both civil and criminal tracks strategically. With courts and agencies increasingly comfortable issuing rapid online takedowns and awarding meaningful damages, victims now have practical recourse, while photographers and content creators enjoy clearer pathways to protect their work and their subjects.