Surveillance cameras positioned across residential neighborhoods, commercial properties, traffic infrastructure, and other public spaces document the daily movements of millions of people globally. Beyond formal security recording, ordinary people often end up as unintended background subjects in personal photos or selfies. In other scenarios, individuals may intentionally capture images of strangers—for casual entertainment, or in more harmful cases, to record awkward or compromising moments that are later spread across social media. This widespread reality leads to a critical, often misunderstood legal question: does entering a public space automatically mean an individual surrenders their right to control their own image? The answer, under Jamaican law, is firmly no.
Jamaica’s judicial system has a long-standing precedent for protecting individuals against unauthorised use of their personal image. Two landmark Supreme Court cases laid early groundwork for these protections: the 1994 dispute between the Robert Marley Foundation and Dino Michelle Limited, centered on the unapproved use of Bob Marley’s likeness on mass-produced apparel, and the 2004 case Georgia Messam v Morris and Williams, which addressed the unauthorised inclusion of Messam’s image in a commercially distributed publication. In both rulings, the court formally recognised the tort of misappropriation of personality, a legal claim that applies when a person’s image or identity is exploited for commercial gain without their explicit permission, alongside the related tort of passing off. Importantly, Jamaican law also recognises that privacy violations related to unapproved image use can occur even when no commercial motive is involved.
These protections are rooted in Jamaica’s foundational law: the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, enshrined in the national constitution, explicitly guarantees every person the right to respect and protection of their private and family life. The 2019 case Julian Robinson v The Attorney General of Jamaica [2019] JMFC Full 04 reinforced this right, citing reasoning from a prominent Indian privacy ruling that established every individual holds the right to control how their own image and personal identity are presented to the world, including how those elements are used for commercial purposes. Control over the distribution and publication of one’s own image is a core component of the broader right to privacy, and this right is enforceable not only against the state but also between private citizens. Even with this clear foundation, conflicts between competing rights do arise: every person holds both a right to privacy and a right to freedom of expression. When one individual’s exercise of free expression violates another person’s privacy, Jamaican legal framework requires courts to assess whether the violation is clearly justifiable in a free and democratic society, with particular weight given to the principle of proportionality.
To further clarify the application of privacy rights in image use, courts often reference persuasive precedent from other common law jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom. A defining UK ruling, Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22, established a foundational objective test for determining if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists: the standard asks whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances, facing the same level of public exposure, would expect their image and activity to remain private. The ruling clarified that all people, whether public figures or ordinary private citizens, must accept that they may be observed and photographed without consent when they are out in public, just as they accept being seen by other members of the public. Disliking an unapproved photograph taken in a public space does not automatically require the photographer to delete the image under law. Even so, the ruling warned that anyone capturing images of others must exercise caution—especially when the image captures a humiliating moment, when the subject explicitly withholds consent, or when the subject requests the image be deleted.
In the Campbell case itself, the majority of the Law Lords ruled in favor of the claimant, a prominent international fashion model who had been photographed on a public street leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting. The publication of the photograph contradicted the model’s previous public statements that she did not use drugs, outing her private struggle with addiction. The court found that she did hold a reasonable expectation of privacy in this scenario, and that this privacy right outweighed the publisher’s claim to freedom of expression. The ruling also drew a critical, often overlooked distinction between simply taking a photograph or video recording, and publishing that material to a wider audience. For example, when a CCTV camera captured a man in an embarrassing moment and that footage was repeatedly broadcast on television, UK courts ruled that the level of exposure far exceeded anything the man could reasonably have anticipated when he was in public. A CCTV camera that incidentally captures passersby for security purposes may be entirely acceptable, but that does not grant the camera owner the right to publish any and all recordings it captures.
When assessing whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, courts consider all relevant circumstances of a given case, including eight core factors: the personal characteristics of the claimant bringing the case; the nature of the activity the claimant was engaged in when the image was captured; the location where the recording or photography took place, including whether the location is a private space open to the public with its own photography rules; the nature and purpose of the intrusion into the individual’s privacy; whether consent was not given, and whether the person capturing the image knew consent was withheld or could have reasonably inferred it; the specific harm or impact the image use caused the claimant; whether the image relates to a matter of legitimate public interest; and the circumstances and purpose that led the publisher to obtain the image.
In the digital age, capturing and sharing images and videos has never been easier, but this accessibility comes with legal responsibility. To avoid potential legal liability for privacy violations, anyone capturing or sharing images of other people without their explicit consent must exercise careful judgment. Acting in good faith and with basic respect for others’ rights is the most reliable step to avoid violating privacy laws.
This analysis is written by Kimberley Brown, an associate in the commercial department at the law firm Myers, Fletcher and Gordon. The article is intended for general educational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice.