Supreme Court: "Unlimited Use of Model Photos Not Allowed Without Specified Contract Period"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if no separate usage period is specified in a contract for advertising photo shoots, the model's photos cannot be used indefinitely.

On the 11th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Jo Jaeyeon) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed model A's appeal in a lawsuit against online shopping mall company B for injunction and prevention of portrait rights infringement, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.

Previously, A took photos wearing B's accessory products nine times in 2016 and received a total of 4.05 million KRW. While both parties specified in the shooting contract that the copyright and usage rights of the photos belonged to B, and the portrait rights belonged to A, no usage period was set. Later, in 2018, A requested that the use of the photos be stopped.

The first trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating, "Even if B is recognized to have commercial usage rights to the photos, it is unusual to set an unlimited usage period for advertising model photos." It added, "About 2 years and 10 months have passed since the last photo shoot, so the typical usage period for advertising model photos has already expired."

On the other hand, the second trial court ruled against the plaintiff. At that time, the court pointed out, "When a contract is made between an online shopping mall and a model to take photos of product wear, both parties proceed with the understanding that the photos will be used during the product's sales period," and "There is no evidence of a separate agreement limiting the usage period due to the long sales cycle of the products sold by the defendant."

It further added, "The defendant invested more than 20 million KRW in the photo shoots, and the plaintiff's recognition does not significantly affect product promotion."

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "If the contract is interpreted as granting usage rights to the defendant without any time limitation, it would impose a significant disadvantage on the plaintiff, who would effectively lose portrait rights regarding the photos," and "Such recognition requires explicit agreement or proof of equivalent circumstances."

It continued, "The lower court erred in its understanding of the law concerning portrait rights and contract interpretation, and failed to conduct necessary hearings, which affected the judgment."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.