Court Rules Against Former Senator in Image Use Dispute

Director of the Institute of Parliamentarism and former senator Kanatbek Safinov has lost a legal case against a capital-based media outlet over the use of his image, Orda.kz reports.

The Astana court reviewed the case following Safinov’s claim that journalists unlawfully used his photo in a July 2024 publication. The article in question concerned a mansion owned by his brother, oligarch Murat Safin.

The plaintiff's image is posted online against the backdrop of a graphic collage of stacks of dollar bills and a large mansion. Similar material is published on the defendant's Instagram account. The claims are motivated by the plaintiff's lack of consent to use his own image, which, in his opinion, caused moral damage,
the court stated. 

Safinov argued that the publication led to financial losses, including the termination of a profitable contract by his business partners.

The court of first instance sided with the media outlet. Safinov filed an appeal, but the appellate court upheld the original decision. Judges noted that the image had been sourced from open platforms and showed the former senator during a public event while he was serving in office.

According to the court, image use without consent is prohibited except under specific legal circumstances, such as when it involves a public figure and the image was previously made publicly available.

The Constitutional Court has clarified that the right to one’s image is not absolute and can be limited when justified by public interest. The Ministry of Information also confirmed that no rights were violated in this instance.

The court concluded that there were no violations of the legislation on online platforms and online advertising. The defendant, acting as a media outlet, did not require the plaintiff's consent to prepare, publish, reproduce and distribute information related to the plaintiff's public activities. Since no violations of the plaintiff's personal non-property benefits and rights were established, the court also refused to recover damages and moral harm. 

The decision has entered into legal force.

Original Author: Zhadra Zhulmukhametova