'Before and After' Customer Photos Posted Without Permission by Skin Shop… Court Rules "Portrait Rights Violation, 1 Million Won Compensation"

A court ruling has recognized the liability for damages of a skin care shop that posted before-and-after photos of a skin treatment on social networking services (SNS) without the customer's consent.

According to the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (Chairman Lee Jong-yeop) on the 5th, Jeong Seon-oh, chief judge of Jeonju District Court, ruled in favor of plaintiff A in a damages claim lawsuit filed against skin care shop owner B, ordering "B to pay A 1 million won and interest."

Daehan Legal Aid Corporation, Gimcheon-si, Gyeongbuk.
[Photo by Yonhap News]

A woman in her mid-40s, A received a KakaoTalk message in August 2022 from a local acquaintance C along with a photo saying, "Isn't this OO's mom?"

The Instagram photo sent by C showed only the area below the nose and chin with the eyes not visible, but A immediately recognized it as her own photo.

The Instagram post was an advertisement showing before-and-after photos of a skin treatment, claiming dramatic effects on nasolabial folds and double chin after the procedure. It also included the phrase, "If possible, I'd rather be a younger-looking ajumma than an old ajumma."

A had undergone a skin treatment at a nearby skin care shop about 20 months earlier. At that time, owner B took before-and-after photos each time the treatment was performed. When A asked why, B said, "The purpose is to show the difference before and after the treatment, and these photos will be sent only to you."

When A contacted B to question why her photos were posted without permission, B retorted, "Didn't you agree to the photo posting?" When A asked to see the consent form, B blocked contact. Despite A's objections, the problematic advertisement photos remained posted for about six more months.

Eventually, A sought help from the Korea Legal Aid Corporation.

The corporation filed a lawsuit claiming 1 million won in damages, viewing B's unauthorized posting of A's photos as an infringement of A's portrait rights.

In court, B claimed, "I obtained consent for promotion and discarded the consent form after the one-year retention period required by the Personal Information Protection Act." Furthermore, B argued, "Other customers did not raise issues, so why is A being particularly difficult?"

The corporation rebutted, "It is hard to believe the excuse that the consent form was discarded after one year and that B was unaware of the advertisement posting for over two years."

The court ruled in favor of A.

Nayoung Hyun, a public interest legal officer from the corporation who represented A in the lawsuit, said, "As commercial use of SNS increases, disputes over portrait rights infringement are also rising," adding, "Social sensitivity toward portrait rights will become increasingly acute."

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