Advanced

Rättsligt skydd vid olovlig fotografering

Törnell, Evelina LU (2011) JURM01 20111
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Att fotograferas av en annan, utan att ha givit sitt samtycke till detta, kan upplevas som mycket kränkande, särskilt om fotograferingen sker i smyg i privata situationer som man inte önskar dela med sig av till utomstående. Idag finns dock ingen direkt kriminalisering av olovlig fotografering i svensk rätt. Till följd av detta finns det därför även få möjligheter att begära kränkningsersättning för den kränkning som fotograferingen inneburit p.g.a. att det enligt 2 kap 3 § Skadeståndslagen (1972:207) (SkL) krävs att skadan orsakats av en brottslig gärning.

Enligt artikel 8 i Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (EKMR) har var och en rätt till skydd för respekten för sitt... (More)
Att fotograferas av en annan, utan att ha givit sitt samtycke till detta, kan upplevas som mycket kränkande, särskilt om fotograferingen sker i smyg i privata situationer som man inte önskar dela med sig av till utomstående. Idag finns dock ingen direkt kriminalisering av olovlig fotografering i svensk rätt. Till följd av detta finns det därför även få möjligheter att begära kränkningsersättning för den kränkning som fotograferingen inneburit p.g.a. att det enligt 2 kap 3 § Skadeståndslagen (1972:207) (SkL) krävs att skadan orsakats av en brottslig gärning.

Enligt artikel 8 i Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (EKMR) har var och en rätt till skydd för respekten för sitt privatliv. Europadomstolen har i flertalet avgöranden fastställt att i denna rätt innefattas bl.a. en rätt till sin bild samt en rätt för den enskilde att lämnas ifred. I det ledande fallet von Hannover mot Tyskland där prinsessan Caroline av Monaco i flera år förföljts och fotograferats av s.k. paparazzis, fastställde domstolen att artikel 8 innefattar inte bara en negativ skyldighet för varje konventionsstat att avhålla sig från att inskränka denna rätt, utan att staterna även har en positiv skyldighet att se till att inte enskilda kränker varandras rättigheter.

I januari 2011 lämnade Justitiedepartementet ett förslag till kriminalisering av olovlig fotografering. Förslaget, som endast omfattar själva fotograferingen och inte spridandet av bilder utan samtycke, kan ses som ett försök att göra svensk rätt förenlig med de krav Europadomstolen ställer på svenska staten, genom sin praxis.

Arbetet utreder vilka möjligheter det finns enligt gällande rätt att få ut kränkningsersättning vid olovlig fotografering, huruvida gällande rätt kan anses förenlig med EKMR, om det nya förslaget kan anses förenligt med EKMR, samt vilken kritik som kan framföras mot det nya förslaget.

Slutsatserna har blivit att det idag finns väldigt begränsade möjligheter för den enskilda att erhålla kränkningsersättning vid en olovlig fotografering och att detta rättsläge inte kan anses förenligt med artikel 8 EKMR. Det nya förslaget till kriminalisering av olovlig fotografering har enligt min mening vissa straffrättsliga och skadeståndsrättsliga problem vilka bör klargöras innan en kriminalisering genomförs. Det är min uppfattning dock att en kriminalisering bör komma till stånd. Genom en kriminalisering kan det nämligen anses att svensk rätt, till viss del blir mer förenlig med EKMR. Det finns dock, även med det nya förslaget, en lucka i förhållande till EKMR, i och med att ingen sanktion mot spridande utan samtycke av fotografier föreslås. Det är min uppfattning att även en sådan sanktion måste införas. (Less)
Abstract
To be photographed by another, without consent, can feel like a very serious violation of one’s personal integrity, especially if the photography is hidden and depicts private situations which one does not wish to share with others. In Swedish law today, there is no general criminalization of non-consensual photography. As a result there are very limited possibilities of receiving non-pecuniary damages for the violation of the personal integrity the photography has caused due to the requirement in chapter 2 section 3 The Tort Liability Act, that an injury must have been caused by a criminal act.

According to article 8 in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) everyone has the right to respect for his private life. The European... (More)
To be photographed by another, without consent, can feel like a very serious violation of one’s personal integrity, especially if the photography is hidden and depicts private situations which one does not wish to share with others. In Swedish law today, there is no general criminalization of non-consensual photography. As a result there are very limited possibilities of receiving non-pecuniary damages for the violation of the personal integrity the photography has caused due to the requirement in chapter 2 section 3 The Tort Liability Act, that an injury must have been caused by a criminal act.

According to article 8 in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) everyone has the right to respect for his private life. The European Court of Human Rights has in several judgments established that this right includes inter alia the right to one’s picture and the right to be left alone. In the precedent case of von Hannover v. Germany, where Princess Caroline of Monaco had been persecuted and photographed by so-called paparazzi for a long time, the court established that article 8 includes not only a negative obligation for each convention state to refrain from interfering in this right, but also includes a positive obligation for the states to make sure that individuals do not interfere in each other’s private life.

In January 2011 the Ministry of Justice presented a proposition to a criminalization of non-consensual photography. The proposition, which only encompass the photography as such and not the dissemination of photographs without consent, can be viewed as an attempt to make Swedish law compatible with the demands on the national law that the European Court has established under article 8 ECHR.

This essay investigates which possibilities a person that has been exposed to non-consensual photography has to receive non-pecuniary damages, if Swedish law can be viewed as compatible with article 8 ECHR, whether the new proposition of a criminalization of non-consensual photography can be viewed as compatible with the ECHR and which criticism can be put forward against the new proposition.

As a conclusion I found that there are very limited possibilities for a person that has been exposed to non-consensual photography to receive non-pecuniary damages and that this cannot be considered compatible with the requirements put up under article 8 ECHR. The proposition for a criminalization of non-consensual photography has, in my view, some ambiguities which need to be cleared up before the proposition can be implemented. It is my belief though, that a criminalization should be implemented as it, in my view, would make Swedish law more compatible with the ECHR. There is though, even with the new proposition, a gap between Swedish law and the ECHR, as there is no proposal for a sanction against the dissemination of photographs without consent. In my view, such a sanction needs to be implemented. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Törnell, Evelina LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Legal protection against non-consensual photography
course
JURM01 20111
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skadeståndsrätt, straffrätt, kränkningsersättning, europakonventionen, olovlig fotografering
language
Swedish
id
1971331
date added to LUP
2011-05-31 13:29:15
date last changed
2011-05-31 13:29:15
@misc{1971331,
  abstract     = {To be photographed by another, without consent, can feel like a very serious violation of one’s personal integrity, especially if the photography is hidden and depicts private situations which one does not wish to share with others. In Swedish law today, there is no general criminalization of non-consensual photography. As a result there are very limited possibilities of receiving non-pecuniary damages for the violation of the personal integrity the photography has caused due to the requirement in chapter 2 section 3 The Tort Liability Act, that an injury must have been caused by a criminal act.

According to article 8 in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) everyone has the right to respect for his private life. The European Court of Human Rights has in several judgments established that this right includes inter alia the right to one’s picture and the right to be left alone. In the precedent case of von Hannover v. Germany, where Princess Caroline of Monaco had been persecuted and photographed by so-called paparazzi for a long time, the court established that article 8 includes not only a negative obligation for each convention state to refrain from interfering in this right, but also includes a positive obligation for the states to make sure that individuals do not interfere in each other’s private life.

In January 2011 the Ministry of Justice presented a proposition to a criminalization of non-consensual photography. The proposition, which only encompass the photography as such and not the dissemination of photographs without consent, can be viewed as an attempt to make Swedish law compatible with the demands on the national law that the European Court has established under article 8 ECHR.

This essay investigates which possibilities a person that has been exposed to non-consensual photography has to receive non-pecuniary damages, if Swedish law can be viewed as compatible with article 8 ECHR, whether the new proposition of a criminalization of non-consensual photography can be viewed as compatible with the ECHR and which criticism can be put forward against the new proposition.

As a conclusion I found that there are very limited possibilities for a person that has been exposed to non-consensual photography to receive non-pecuniary damages and that this cannot be considered compatible with the requirements put up under article 8 ECHR. The proposition for a criminalization of non-consensual photography has, in my view, some ambiguities which need to be cleared up before the proposition can be implemented. It is my belief though, that a criminalization should be implemented as it, in my view, would make Swedish law more compatible with the ECHR. There is though, even with the new proposition, a gap between Swedish law and the ECHR, as there is no proposal for a sanction against the dissemination of photographs without consent. In my view, such a sanction needs to be implemented.},
  author       = {Törnell, Evelina},
  keyword      = {skadeståndsrätt,straffrätt,kränkningsersättning,europakonventionen,olovlig fotografering},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Rättsligt skydd vid olovlig fotografering},
  year         = {2011},
}