THE COLLISION OF IMAGE RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT IN UZBEKISTAN: LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND REFORM PROPOSALS

Аннотация

guarantees form a human-rights backdrop for any image-use dispute. The Civil Code elaborates on personal non-property rights: Article 99 expressly includes “the right to an image” among inalienable personal benefits. This means from birth an individual’s likeness belongs to them in a personal (not property) sense. Beyond that recognition, however, the Civil Code provides no detailed rules on image consent or use. In lieu of a specific “droit à l’image” regime, an aggrieved person must resort to general remedies. For example, Article 100 of the Civil Code allows a citizen to demand in court a refutation of “information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation” and to claim damages. If a published photo of someone causes personal harm (e.g. is humiliating or injurious to reputation), it might be challenged as a violation of honor or dignity under Article 100. But absent defamatory context, a mere unauthorized photograph does not easily fit that rubric, leaving victims with no clear cause of action under existing Uzbek law. 133 SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM International scientific-online conference In sum, Uzbekistan’s basic law acknowledges personal privacy and even the “right to an image” in principle, but without any implementing provisions. As legal commentators observe, this lacuna has generated uncertainty: “[t]he law does not stipulate whether a citizen’s permission is required in order to photograph him/her,” and similarly is silent on the use of photos taken at public events. The Ministry of Justice has repeatedly concluded that current legislation “does not provide full mechanisms for protecting [citizens’] right for image privacy,” and has accordingly proposed amending the Civil Code to fill the gap. Copyright Law and Public-Use Exceptions Parallel to civil rights, Uzbekistan’s Law on Copyright and Related Rights (2006) protects “works of science, literature and art” – including photographic works – by granting authors exclusive exploitation rights. A photographer thus owns the copyright in a portrait or landscape, with the power to authorize reproduction, distribution, display, etc.. The law also entrenches Berne Convention-style moral rights: the author must be named and the work shown with integrity. Yet the Copyright Act does not mention the consent of depicted people at all; its focus is solely on the author/creator. The law does contain certain exceptions for public-interest uses of visual works – but again these target the author’s rights, not a subject’s privacy. For example, Article 29 (as codified) authorizes reproducing and broadcasting works “seen or heard in the course of reporting current events,” to the extent justified by the informational purpose. In practice, this means press photographers may capture performances, speeches, or scenes at newsworthy events without infringing the author’s copyright, so long as attribution is maintained. Similarly, Article 30 allows free reproduction or exhibition of works of architecture, photography, and fine art that are “permanently located in public places” (a “panorama” exception), again so long as the work itself is not the exclusive focus or used commercially. These provisions illustrate that Uzbek copyright law relaxes author control for public‐interest uses (news, architecture, etc.), but they say nothing about the personality rights of anyone appearing in those images. In effect, a photographer can rely on copyright law to publish images of public events or street scenes without fear of infringing another artist’s rights. But at the same time that photograph may contain a private individual whose consent was neither sought nor legally required by copyright statutes. If that person objects, however, there is no reciprocal “exception” under the personal- rights regime to shield the photographer. Conversely, a person could assert their 134 SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM International scientific-online conference image right even if the image use would qualify under a copyright exception. Thus, in the absence of a clear statutory rule, conflicts can arise between a photographer’s legal rights and an individual’s personality rights. The Current Uzbek Situation and Draft Reforms Recognizing this tension, Uzbek authorities have recently drafted reform proposals. In 2020 the Ministry of Justice published a model bill to amend the Civil Code, explicitly requiring consent for using a person’s image. Under that draft, “before taking a picture of someone (making videos and works of art) and using it, individuals have to obtain the consent of that person,” failing which the person could demand removal of the image and seek damages (including moral harm) through the courts. The proposal carved out numerous exceptions: consent would be waived for uses in state/public interest (e.g. news about crime victims, missing persons, border control, public safety, etc.), for images of public officials in the exercise