A phone in a pocket is enough today to capture a moment and broadcast it to thousands of accounts within minutes. That convenience has also created a wide opening for intrusion into other people's private lives. Under Kuwaiti law, a person's image is not treated as a mere digital file; it is an extension of their personality and private life. Capturing it, publishing it or exploiting it without consent may therefore give rise to both criminal and civil liability. What follows is a general outline of the governing principles, not legal advice on any particular case.
The Right to One's Image and the Protection of Private Life
The framework rests on a settled constitutional principle: personal liberty, the inviolability of private life, and the confidentiality of correspondence and communications are protected. From this it follows that a person's image is a right attached to their personality, like their name, honour and reputation. It is not property that another may appropriate merely because they held the camera or own the file.
Two practical consequences flow from that. First, the default position is that an image may not be taken or published without the subject's consent, and it is the exceptions that require justification. Second, an infringement of the right to one's image constitutes moral harm in its own right, which may be compensated even where no financial loss is proved.
Private Places and Public Places
Filming inside a private place — a home, a room, a closed office, or any location not ordinarily open to public view — is the gravest form of intrusion and may constitute an offence touching the sanctity of the dwelling and of private life. Its seriousness increases where a concealed device is used or the subject is unaware.
In public places, the common assumption is that being among people extinguishes privacy. That is inaccurate. Filming in a street, a mall or a restaurant may still be unlawful where:
- the person is the target of the filming rather than an incidental passer-by, being singled out, highlighted or identified;
- the footage exposes an aspect of their private life even in public — a medical condition, a family dispute, an embarrassing incident, or bodily or clothing details inside a gym or similar facility;
- the purpose is defamation, ridicule, abuse or commercial exploitation of the image;
- the location is one where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists despite public access, such as a clinic, a restroom or a waiting area.
Publication and Circulation on Social Media and Messaging Apps
The greater risk usually lies not in taking the image but in spreading it. Forwarding a photo or clip into a group chat, or posting it to a public account, multiplies the harm and makes removal far harder. Kuwaiti law addresses this from two directions: Law No. 63 of 2015 on Combating Information Technology Crimes, which criminalises — among other conduct — the use of the information network or IT means to intrude upon private life and to injure honour and reputation; and the Penal Code, through offences such as insult, defamation, threats and abuse. A single act, such as posting an offensive clip, may fall under both.
Importantly, a re-publisher is not excused by not having taken the footage. Forwarding or circulating material can create liability independent of the original photographer, and keeping an image or clip in order to threaten or pressure someone falls into a considerably more serious category of conduct.
Recording Calls and Conversations
Recording phone calls or private conversations without the consent of the parties stands on the same ground as filming — indeed, the confidentiality of correspondence and communications is expressly constitutionally protected. Covertly recording a conversation, or broadcasting a private recording, may therefore be an offence in itself, even where the person recording is a party to the conversation and even where the aim is to prove a right. A crucial practical point follows: whether a recording or an image is admitted as evidence is a matter for the court's assessment and depends on the lawfulness of how it was obtained. Evidence can turn against the party who produces it.
Restricted Locations and Special Situations
Some places are subject to additional restrictions by their nature or by regulation: government entities and sensitive facilities; courtrooms, where filming requires judicial permission; hospitals and health facilities, given the patient information they expose; schools; and workplaces, where neither employer nor employee may film or monitor in a way that intrudes on others' privacy or business confidentiality.
A frequent problem in practice is filming and posting accidents, the injured and the deceased. Beyond potentially obstructing rescue efforts, it is a stark violation of the dignity and private life of the injured person and of their family's sanctity, and labelling it "news" does not justify it.
Children enjoy heightened protection. Child Rights Law No. 21 of 2015 is built on the best interests of the child, the safeguarding of their privacy, and their protection from exploitation and abuse. Filming a child or publishing their image — particularly in the context of a family dispute, litigation, abusive content or commercial use — requires the consent of the person holding guardianship and is viewed with far greater sensitivity than in the case of an adult.
Valid Consent and Commercial Use
Consent is the key to lawfulness, but it is not inferred from silence or from a failure to object. Consent that works in practice is given by a person with legal capacity, clear, and specific as to scope, purpose, duration and channels of publication — preferably in writing. A classic error is obtaining permission for one purpose and then using the image for another: a photo taken at a private occasion appearing in an advertising campaign, or a client's picture used for promotion. That deviation from purpose returns the act to the realm of unlawfulness.
For commercial use in particular — advertising, business accounts, covers, marketing content — general consent is not enough. A written agreement or model release setting out the rights, the consideration, and the scope of distribution and editing is advisable. Using someone's image to promote a product or service without a licence combines an infringement of a personal right with enrichment at another's expense, and may attract both compensation and a removal order.
Journalistic and Public-Interest Use
Protection of the image does not mean an absolute ban on photography. Freedom of opinion and of the press is a recognised interest, and media coverage of public events and of public figures acting in their public capacity is not the same as prying into private lives. The approach the courts take is one of balance: the public's interest in being informed against the individual's right to their image and privacy, taking into account the person's status, the connection between the image and the subject matter, the necessity of publication, and the manner of presentation. Outcomes differ case by case and ultimately rest with the trial court's assessment.
Remedies for the Victim
- Preserve the evidence first: save screenshots with the link, date and time of posting and the account name; do not delete chats; record view and comment counts where possible.
- Criminal complaint: file with the competent authority in respect of offences against private life and the related IT offences.
- Urgent application: apply to the court to halt publication, remove the material and block the content, since time is decisive in limiting harm.
- Claim for compensation: seek damages for the moral and material harm caused, the amount of which the court assesses in light of the gravity of the act, the extent of dissemination and its effect on the victim.
- Platform reporting: use in-app reporting channels for takedown, without relying on them as a substitute for legal action.
Practical Guidance
Individuals: do not post another person's image — even a relative's or a friend's — without permission, and do not forward clips that touch on identifiable people; circulation carries responsibility. Photographers: make written releases part of your workflow, stay within the agreed scope of use, and respect location restrictions. Businesses: adopt a written policy on filming and surveillance at your premises, obtain usage permissions for employee and client images, and review marketing content before it goes out.
Conclusion
Protecting a person's image under Kuwaiti law is not a formality; it is one facet of protecting human dignity and private life. The safe rule is short: do not film without permission, do not publish without permission, and do not use an image beyond what was permitted. The above is general information, and outcomes vary with the facts of each case and the court's assessment.
If you have been harmed by filming or publication that intruded on your privacy, or if you are a photographer or a business seeking to put your practices on a sound footing, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm would be glad to review your situation and set out the appropriate legal steps to protect your rights.
