Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Integritetskränkande fotografering ur ett rättighetsperspektiv

Gershagen, Charlotte LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Är tiden för privatliv förbi i och med de nya möjligheterna att fotografera med mobilkameror och installera privat övervakningsutrustning?

Diskussionen om personlig integritet och dess samband med bildupptagning är inte ny. Däremot har teknikens utveckling och nya snabba kommunikationsvägar via internet bidragit till att frågan är högaktuell och ett ökat skydd mot smygfotografering och filmning blivit allt viktigare. Tätt sammankopplat är frågan om pressens fotografering och publicering av fotografier av offentliga personer, även i synnerligen privata situationer.

Uppsatsens syfte är att mot den bakgrunden utreda om det finns ett tillräckligt starkt skydd i Sverige mot fotografering som sker utan den avbildades samtycke och... (More)
Är tiden för privatliv förbi i och med de nya möjligheterna att fotografera med mobilkameror och installera privat övervakningsutrustning?

Diskussionen om personlig integritet och dess samband med bildupptagning är inte ny. Däremot har teknikens utveckling och nya snabba kommunikationsvägar via internet bidragit till att frågan är högaktuell och ett ökat skydd mot smygfotografering och filmning blivit allt viktigare. Tätt sammankopplat är frågan om pressens fotografering och publicering av fotografier av offentliga personer, även i synnerligen privata situationer.

Uppsatsens syfte är att mot den bakgrunden utreda om det finns ett tillräckligt starkt skydd i Sverige mot fotografering som sker utan den avbildades samtycke och spridning av sådana fotografier, genom att jämföra skyddet för privatlivet enligt Europakonventionen med skyddet enligt svensk nationell rätt. Fotografering och filmning som sker av det allmänna utesluts från uppsatsen. När enbart fotografering nämns åsyftas även filmning.

Det är svårt att definiera personlig integritet och var gränsen för ett skyddsvärt område bör gå då det främst bygger på en subjektiv upplevelse. Man kan däremot finna två grundläggande tankar för skyddet inom den rättsliga litteraturen: individens självbestämmanderätt och välbefinnande respektive den sociala gruppgemenskapen och vikten av att kunna bestämma själv vilken bild som ska förmedlas och vad omvärlden får ta del av. Av hänsyn till individens självbestämmanderätt ingår en rätt att inte utan samtycke bli fotograferad av annan då det strider mot rätten att själv kontrollera användandet av den egna bilden. Därutöver innebär spridning av fotografier att andra människor och gruppgemenskapen får ta del av information om individen som inte var avsedd för dem.

I Europakonventionens artikel 8 skyddas bland annat rätten till privatliv. Olovlig fotografering omfattas av skyddet för privatliv och medlemsstaterna har en positiv förpliktelse att skydda enskilda vis-à-vis andra enskilda. Kraven på skyddsåtgärder beror på vilken aspekt av privatlivet som berörs och hur allvarlig kränkningen är. Det krävs inte nödvändigtvis straffrättsligt skydd, förutom då fundamentala värden och essentiella aspekter av privatlivet står på spel. I övrigt kan skadeståndsrättsliga regler eller andra metoder vara tillräckliga, så länge de är tydliga samt ger ett praktiskt och effektivt skydd.

Olika typer av handlingar vid olovlig fotografering kan enligt Europadomstolens praxis utgöra kränkningar: själva fotograferingen (även i uppsatsen kallat bildupptagning), innehav av tagna fotografier, och spridning av desamma. Avseende olovlig fotografering utgör nakna eller annars intima situationer som blottar en persons sexualliv eller sexuella läggning fundamentala värden och essentiella aspekter av privatlivet. Likaså fotografier tagna i hemmet eller på andra särskilt privata platser såsom toaletter och omklädningsrum. En mer svårbedömd situation är då en person fotograferas på en allmän plats i färd att utföra alldagliga sysslor. Europadomstolen har dock slagit fast att det inkluderas i rätten till privatliv och att en sådan situation ska vägas mot yttrandefriheten, för att pröva om det ryms inom statens ”margin of appreciation”, då en avgörande faktor är huruvida det finns ett allmänt intresse av sådan fotografering. Spridning av fotografier aktualiserar skydd för ryktet och rätten att inte bli beskådad, och en persons legitima förväntan av hur många som i en viss situation kan beskåda ens handlingar blir då avgörande. I dessa situationer ska en avvägning återigen göras mot yttrandefriheten enligt de fem faktorerna i Von Hannover mot Tyskland (Nr 2).

I svensk nationell rätt saknas ett generellt skydd för privatlivet. Det finns inte upptaget i regeringsformens rättighetskatalog eller skyddas på annat praktiskt sätt enligt grundlagen. Straffrättsligt är man hänvisad till ofredande och sexuellt ofredande, vilket dock erfordrar att den filmade ska ha uppfattat filmningen (vid sexuellt ofredande är det oklart om det gäller eller inte) samt förtal, vilket förutsätter att det spridda fotografiet är ägnat att utsätta någon för andras missaktning. Regeringen lade fram en proposition i februari 2013 om att kriminalisera “kränkande fotografering”, vilket åsyftar olovlig fotografering i hemmet eller liknande privata platser.

Det finns ett behov i svensk rätt att stärka integritetsskyddet vid fotografering då det i jämförelsen med Europakonventionen konstateras att Sverige inte lever upp till dess krav. En orsak är yttrandefrihetsgrundlagarnas starka skydd för publicering av fotomaterial och fotografers meddelarfrihet. Om propositionen antas fylls en del av bristen. Återstår gör dock det faktum att offentliga personer inte över huvud taget skyddas mot fotografering och publicering av fotografier av dem enligt svensk rätt, med undantag för enligt förtalsbrottet som kan tillämpas även på grundlagsskyddade medier. Det krävs någon form av förstärkning av skyddet mot fotografering på allmän plats, även om det är tillräckligt med civilrättsligt skydd.

Slutligen förespråkas att regeringens proposition antas och att det läggs fram förslag om ett privatlivskränkningsbrott som tar sikte på spridning/publicering i brottsbalken och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagarnas brottskatalog. Vidare skulle en skadeståndsgrund kunna utformas som ger rätt till ideellt skadestånd vid kränkning av privatlivet. (Less)
Abstract
Is the possibility for privacy long gone as a consequence of mobile cameras and easily attainable surveillance camera equipment?

The discussion on personal integrity and its correlation with photography is not a new one. However, recent inventions and new fast communication channels through the internet has elevated the actuality of the issue, and a stronger protection against secret photographing and filming (the technological “Peeping Tom”) has become increasingly important. Furthermore, the question is closely connected to media’s taking and publishing of photographs of public figures, also in utterly private situations.

The purpose of the essay is to examine whether the protection under Swedish national law against images taken... (More)
Is the possibility for privacy long gone as a consequence of mobile cameras and easily attainable surveillance camera equipment?

The discussion on personal integrity and its correlation with photography is not a new one. However, recent inventions and new fast communication channels through the internet has elevated the actuality of the issue, and a stronger protection against secret photographing and filming (the technological “Peeping Tom”) has become increasingly important. Furthermore, the question is closely connected to media’s taking and publishing of photographs of public figures, also in utterly private situations.

The purpose of the essay is to examine whether the protection under Swedish national law against images taken and spread (including through publishing) without consent is sufficient. The purpose is attained by comparing the protection for private life in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) article 8 to Swedish national law. Photographing by public authorities is excluded, and while only photography is mentioned in the text, filming is also included.

The task to define personal integrity and the limits for what should be considered a protected area is a difficult one, especially considering its subjective character. Two main characteristics can however be found in the legal doctrine: firstly, the individual’s right to his/her own body and the control thereof and further considerations of his/her well being; and secondly, the individual’s interaction with society/the group/other human beings and the importance of having control over what is communicated about oneself to others. The individual’s right to decide over his/her body includes a right not to be photographed without having consented to it, since it breaches the right to control the use of one’s image. Furthermore, the spreading of one’s image infringes the right to decide by whom it may be viewed, and consequently people, who were not intended to, receive private information about the individual.

Article 8 of the ECHR protects (inter alia) the right to private life, which extends to protection of a persons picture against the abuse of others. The member states have positive obligations to secure the right to private life also in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves. The obligation depends on witch aspect of private life that is at issue. Recourse to criminal law is not necessary, except when fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are concerned. For the rest, the right to damages or other measures may be employed, providing they are clear and provides a practical and effective protection.

According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), three different acts can be distinguished that may give rise to an infringement of the right to private life: the taking of photographs without consent, the possession of the taken photographs and thirdly the spreading of such photographs. Regarding the taking of photos, naked and intimate situations that show a persons sexual life or sexual orientation concern such fundamental values and essential aspects of private life as mentioned above. The same is true regarding a person’s home or other private places, such as toilets and dressing rooms. A more difficult situation to assess is when someone is photographed in a public place in a non-intimate situation. The ECtHR has established that those situations are included in the protection of private life, and in such cases private life shall be balanced against the freedom of expression in article 10 in order to decide whether the means used to protect it falls within the state’s margin of appreciation. The principles derived from Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) decide, and a decisive factor is whether the photos contribute to a debate of general interest.

The spreading of photos give rise to the protection of the reputation and the right not to be viewed by more people than what a person in that situation could legitimately expect. Also in these situation a fair balance shall be struck according to the Von Hannover-case above.

Swedish national law lacks a general right to privacy. It is not included in the Constitution's (Regeringsformen) catalogue of rights or otherwise protected in a practical way under the Constitution. As to criminal law, one is limited to the crimes of molestation and sexual molestation which, however, require that the victim must have perceived the filming (concerning sexual molestation this criterion is unclear); and defamation, which requires that the photograph is meant to expose someone for the contempt of others. The government proposed in a bill in February 2013 to criminalize "intrusive photography" (kränkande fotografering) which refers to unauthorized photographing in homes or other similar private places.

There is a necessity in Swedish national law to strengthen privacy protection in relation to photographs, since Sweden does not live up to the requirements of the ECHR. One reason is the strong constitutional safeguards in the Freedom of the Press Act (TF) and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (YGL), which protect inter alia free publication and the anonymity of photographers. An adoption of the government’s bill will bring the legislation one step closer to fill the gap. However, it remains a deficiency that public persons are not protected from the taking or publishing of their images under Swedish national law except for the few circumstances where the defamation offence may be applied, which also is a crime under TF and YGL. Furthermore, some kind of increased protection against photographing in public places is necessary, whereas in those circumstances private law provisions would be sufficient.

Finally, I advocate that the government’s bill is adopted, and that a privacy violation offense concerning the spreading of photographs could be included in the Penal Code and the catalogue of offences in TF and YGL. Furthermore, a ground for indemnity liability could be established for violations of someone’s right to privacy. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Gershagen, Charlotte LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Intrusive photography from a human rights perspective
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
statsrätt, straffrätt, Europakonventionen, mänskliga rättigheter, privatliv, personlig integritet, fotografering, bildupptagning, integritetskränkning
language
Swedish
id
3563697
date added to LUP
2013-04-17 13:52:10
date last changed
2013-04-17 13:52:10
@misc{3563697,
  abstract     = {Is the possibility for privacy long gone as a consequence of mobile cameras and easily attainable surveillance camera equipment?

The discussion on personal integrity and its correlation with photography is not a new one. However, recent inventions and new fast communication channels through the internet has elevated the actuality of the issue, and a stronger protection against secret photographing and filming (the technological “Peeping Tom”) has become increasingly important. Furthermore, the question is closely connected to media’s taking and publishing of photographs of public figures, also in utterly private situations.

The purpose of the essay is to examine whether the protection under Swedish national law against images taken and spread (including through publishing) without consent is sufficient. The purpose is attained by comparing the protection for private life in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) article 8 to Swedish national law. Photographing by public authorities is excluded, and while only photography is mentioned in the text, filming is also included. 

The task to define personal integrity and the limits for what should be considered a protected area is a difficult one, especially considering its subjective character. Two main characteristics can however be found in the legal doctrine: firstly, the individual’s right to his/her own body and the control thereof and further considerations of his/her well being; and secondly, the individual’s interaction with society/the group/other human beings and the importance of having control over what is communicated about oneself to others. The individual’s right to decide over his/her body includes a right not to be photographed without having consented to it, since it breaches the right to control the use of one’s image. Furthermore, the spreading of one’s image infringes the right to decide by whom it may be viewed, and consequently people, who were not intended to, receive private information about the individual.

Article 8 of the ECHR protects (inter alia) the right to private life, which extends to protection of a persons picture against the abuse of others. The member states have positive obligations to secure the right to private life also in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves. The obligation depends on witch aspect of private life that is at issue. Recourse to criminal law is not necessary, except when fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are concerned. For the rest, the right to damages or other measures may be employed, providing they are clear and provides a practical and effective protection.

According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), three different acts can be distinguished that may give rise to an infringement of the right to private life: the taking of photographs without consent, the possession of the taken photographs and thirdly the spreading of such photographs. Regarding the taking of photos, naked and intimate situations that show a persons sexual life or sexual orientation concern such fundamental values and essential aspects of private life as mentioned above. The same is true regarding a person’s home or other private places, such as toilets and dressing rooms. A more difficult situation to assess is when someone is photographed in a public place in a non-intimate situation. The ECtHR has established that those situations are included in the protection of private life, and in such cases private life shall be balanced against the freedom of expression in article 10 in order to decide whether the means used to protect it falls within the state’s margin of appreciation. The principles derived from Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) decide, and a decisive factor is whether the photos contribute to a debate of general interest.

The spreading of photos give rise to the protection of the reputation and the right not to be viewed by more people than what a person in that situation could legitimately expect. Also in these situation a fair balance shall be struck according to the Von Hannover-case above.

Swedish national law lacks a general right to privacy. It is not included in the Constitution's (Regeringsformen) catalogue of rights or otherwise protected in a practical way under the Constitution. As to criminal law, one is limited to the crimes of molestation and sexual molestation which, however, require that the victim must have perceived the filming (concerning sexual molestation this criterion is unclear); and defamation, which requires that the photograph is meant to expose someone for the contempt of others. The government proposed in a bill in February 2013 to criminalize "intrusive photography" (kränkande fotografering) which refers to unauthorized photographing in homes or other similar private places.

There is a necessity in Swedish national law to strengthen privacy protection in relation to photographs, since Sweden does not live up to the requirements of the ECHR. One reason is the strong constitutional safeguards in the Freedom of the Press Act (TF) and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (YGL), which protect inter alia free publication and the anonymity of photographers. An adoption of the government’s bill will bring the legislation one step closer to fill the gap. However, it remains a deficiency that public persons are not protected from the taking or publishing of their images under Swedish national law except for the few circumstances where the defamation offence may be applied, which also is a crime under TF and YGL. Furthermore, some kind of increased protection against photographing in public places is necessary, whereas in those circumstances private law provisions would be sufficient. 

Finally, I advocate that the government’s bill is adopted, and that a privacy violation offense concerning the spreading of photographs could be included in the Penal Code and the catalogue of offences in TF and YGL. Furthermore, a ground for indemnity liability could be established for violations of someone’s right to privacy.},
  author       = {Gershagen, Charlotte},
  keyword      = {statsrätt,straffrätt,Europakonventionen,mänskliga rättigheter,privatliv,personlig integritet,fotografering,bildupptagning,integritetskränkning},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Integritetskränkande fotografering ur ett rättighetsperspektiv},
  year         = {2013},
}