Image rights, deepfakes and privacy under Polish law

Use of someone's image can be lawful in one context and unlawful in another. A photograph at an event, a private recording, a screenshot from social media or an AI-generated image may all raise legal issues if used without consent or in a harmful way. Polish law provides one of the strongest image protection frameworks in Europe — Article 81 of the Copyright Act establishes consent as the rule, with narrow statutory exceptions. Increasingly tested by AI-generated deepfakes, intimate content distribution, and cross-border platform issues.

→What this guide covers

1. 01Consent is the general rule
2. 02Three statutory exceptions
3. 03AI deepfakes — Article 191a CC
4. 04Intimate image distribution (revenge porn)
5. 05Private recordings and privacy
6. 06Available remedies

01.Consent is the general rule

Article 81 of Polish Copyright Act: distribution of person's image requires consent. Image broadly defined — photographs, videos, drawings, AI-generated images of identifiable individuals.

Consent must be conscious (person aware they are giving it), informed (knowing how image will be used), specific (covering specific use, not blanket), given by competent person. Consent for one use does not extend to others. Consent for editorial photo does not cover commercial advertising. Implied consent from circumstances (posing at public event) recognised, but courts increasingly require explicit consent for online and commercial uses.

02.Three statutory exceptions

Article 81 § 2 lists exceptions:

1. Commissioned photographs paid for by subject — portrait commissioned and paid for by depicted person.

2. Public figures in public functions — politicians, senior officials, public personalities, but only in connection with their public functions, not private life.

3. Persons in crowd/larger event — where they are not the main subject; documentary/journalistic purposes.

None extend to commercial use, humiliating contexts, intimate or sexual content, or AI-generated manipulations. A celebrity at concert — exception 2/3 may apply for news. Same celebrity in advertising without consent — clearly violates rights.

03.AI deepfakes — Article 191a CC

Deepfake intimate content was specifically criminalised. Article 191a CC — distribution of image of nakedness or sexual activity without consent — up to 5 years imprisonment. Applies to:

• real intimate photographs/videos distributed without consent;
• AI-generated intimate images of identifiable persons (deepfakes);
• face-swapping into existing pornographic material;
• nude photo manipulations.

Civil claims under Articles 23–24 CC parallel — typical compensation 50,000–300,000+ PLN for severe cases. Deepfake matters require fast action: evidence preservation, takedown to platforms, civil interim injunction, criminal complaint, GDPR erasure requests.

EU AI Act (in force from 2 August 2026 for general purpose AI) creates additional transparency and labelling obligations for deepfake content.

04.Intimate image distribution (revenge porn)

Article 191a CC criminalises distribution of intimate images without consent — addressing revenge porn, intimate image abuse, sextortion. Up to 5 years imprisonment regardless of original consent (consent to creation of intimate content does not authorise distribution).

Civil remedies: removal, compensation, prohibition of further distribution, donation to victim support charity. Compensation typically 30,000–200,000 PLN for moderate cases, higher for severe with provable harm. Cross-border distribution involves coordination with foreign platforms and counsel — but Polish courts can issue removal orders enforceable in EU.

Criminal proceedings often more useful than civil for intimate image cases — deters distributors, allows seizure of devices, reaches conspirators. Combined civil + criminal strategy typical.

05.Private recordings and privacy

Recording someone without consent in private setting violates privacy (Article 23 CC) even without distribution. Specific issues: voice recording laws (Article 267 CC criminalises unauthorised wiretapping); video recording in private spaces; secret recordings of conversations.

One-party consent (the recording person) is generally allowed for one's own conversations under Polish case law — but distribution of such recordings can still violate privacy of other participants if context implied confidentiality. Workplace recordings have specific labour-law issues.

06.Available remedies

Civil claims (Articles 23–24, 448 CC): removal of content; public apology; compensation for non-material harm; damages for material loss; prohibition of future use; donation to social cause as alternative.

Criminal: Article 191a CC (intimate images, up to 5 years); Article 267 CC (illegal recording, up to 2 years); Article 212 CC (defamation if harmful claims accompany image); Article 190a CC (stalking if persistent).

Administrative: GDPR complaint to UODO for personal data violations — penalties up to EUR 20M or 4% of global revenue against companies.

Court interim injunction within 1–4 weeks for urgent removal. Notarial certification of online content recommended for evidence preservation (200–500 PLN per page).

FAQFrequently asked questions

∎Summary and next steps

Polish image rights protection is comprehensive — Article 81 Copyright Act establishes consent as rule with narrow exceptions; Article 191a CC criminalises intimate image distribution including AI deepfakes (up to 5 years); civil remedies include removal, apology and substantial compensation. Speed matters — preserve evidence early, use court interim injunctions for urgent removal.