As Lubin police report:
The District Court in Lubin has issued a judgment in a case concerning the recording and publication of the image of an officer from the District Police Headquarters in Lubin.
The officers explain:
The widespread availability of devices that record images and sound now creates a sense that recording is generally legally permissible. This applies to various situations in everyday life, including the activities of services and the recording of official duties performed by police officers.
Many people believe that, because police officers are public officials while performing their official duties, recording them is legally permissible and justified. However, there are no legal provisions that allow such recording. This results from the legal protection afforded, among other things, to a person’s voice and image; recording them without consent, and sometimes even without the person’s knowledge, constitutes an infringement of these personal rights.
Therefore, a recording, as the material result of recording, is legally protected. A recording benefits from the protection of legality only when the person captured in it has given consent. Consequently, making such recordings public by placing them online constitutes a violation of the law, including an infringement of personal rights.
A 39-year-old resident of Lubin County found this out after recording an officer from the Lubin unit while the officer was performing official duties. KPP Lubin: – The man was repeatedly informed by the police officer that he did not consent to the publication of his image and personal data. The unit also displayed signs informing visitors that recording image and sound was prohibited. Despite the officer’s explicit objection, the video of the activities he was carrying out was broadcast live by the 39-year-old on a profile on one of the well-known social media platforms.
The officer therefore filed a civil lawsuit in the matter, and a final judgment has now been issued. Under the decision of the District Court in Lubin, the 39-year-old is now required to pay the police officer compensation of PLN 5,000.
The officers:
We remind you that, pursuant to Article 81(1) and (2) of the Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights, “Dissemination of an image requires the permission of the person depicted in it. In the absence of an express reservation, permission is not required if that person has received the agreed payment for posing. Permission is not required for the dissemination of the image of:
- a publicly known person, if the image was made in connection with that person performing public functions, in particular political, social or professional functions,
- a person who is merely part of a larger gathering, landscape or public event.”
Thus, disseminating an image or voice recorded in this way (that is, an image and voice, only an image or only a voice) constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Act and gives rise to civil liability, which is in fact equivalent to the liability provided for in Article 24 of the Civil Code: “Personal rights of an individual, including in particular health, liberty, honour, freedom of conscience, name or pseudonym, image, confidentiality of correspondence, inviolability of the home, scientific, artistic, inventive and rationalising works, remain under the protection of civil law regardless of the protection provided for in other regulations.”
They add: – The law protects police officers against the unlawful posting of their images, including recordings of interventions, on social media. There is no consent to the unpunished posting of images of Police officers online, without their permission, by third parties.