Unauthorised behind-the-scenes images of actors: permission, personality rights and removal requests

Full topic-specific Information Guide ↓

A posed photograph between takes, rehearsal recording or behind-the-scenes image may later appear on a producer’s, agency’s or brand’s promotional account. Looking at the camera, receiving a fee or attending the shoot does not establish permission for every publication. First distinguish the material, publisher, purpose and scope of permission. Consent to taking a photograph, consent to a promotional campaign and permission to use a performance are different legal questions.

1. Is the material a portrait or a recorded performance?

Article 86 of the Copyright Law (FSEK) regulates public presentation of pictures and portraits by reference to the depicted person’s consent, even where the image is not a work of authorship. Failure to qualify as an artistic work therefore does not leave the depicted person unprotected. For a photograph of an actor between takes, examine this framework alongside personality-rights protection under Civil Code (TMK) Articles 24–25. The photographer’s ownership alone does not establish the subject’s permission for every use.

A scene or rehearsal in which the actor gives an original interpretation of a work may also engage performers’ rights under Article 80 FSEK. Not every conversation behind the scenes or pose is automatically a performance. Showing someone in a video differs from using a protected performance. Where several layers exist, examine photographic, personality and performance permissions separately; do not begin by assuming the actor is always an author.

2. Consent to recording may differ from consent to later promotion

Read the acting agreement, release, publicity clause and additional protocols together. Behind-the-scenes material, press promotion, social media, paid advertising, third-party brands, duration and re-editing are distinct matters. Permission to promote a production does not automatically cover another brand’s product campaign. The converse also matters: later discomfort does not automatically make every use unauthorised where a publicity permission exists. Examine permission and lawfulness against the whole situation.

Do not substitute the existence and limits of portrait consent for Article 80’s written-permission requirement. An actor’s smile or repost on their own account is not unlimited authority across all media and commercial purposes. Keep the complete correspondence; an isolated approval should not be interpreted without identifying its image, purpose and period. If a representative or manager gave permission, separately verify the extent of that person’s authority.

3. The distinction illustrated by a judgment on limited consent

The Court of Cassation’s 11th Civil Chamber judgment of 16 November 2015, E.2015/5089, K.2015/12061 concerns a mother-and-child photograph taken for an interview and later used on municipal promotional billboards. The trial court did not treat implied consent for the interview as permission for every use. The Court of Cassation rejected both sides’ appeals and affirmed. The facts must not be retold as though they involved an acting agreement or behind-the-scenes release.

The question relevant to an actor’s file is whether the original recording purpose matches the later publication purpose. The judgment does not declare every behind-the-scenes post unlawful or prescribe identical compensation. An express publicity clause, the material and the chain of use may produce different outcomes. Rather than treating the award as a tariff, document the particular use to which consent related.

4. Public recognition and news exceptions are not unlimited permission

Article 86 contains exceptions concerning persons with a role in political or social life, specified ceremonies or public meetings, and reporting daily events. Labelling a post as news or pointing to an actor’s public recognition does not end the inquiry. Examine subject matter, currency, context and presentation purpose. A closed working set is not automatically equivalent to a public meeting; substantiate the basis for any exception.

The provision expressly preserves Article 24 TMK even where publication falls within an exception. Consent, overriding private or public interest, or statutory authority therefore need separate assessment in the personality-rights analysis. A close-up selected for promotion may differ from reporting a current event. Conversely, appearance on a commercial account alone does not settle every news-related assessment; do not derive a conclusive result from a single indicator.

5. Which evidence should be preserved before requesting removal?

Preserve the publication URL, account or site identity, visible date, complete image, caption and accompanying text together. If paid promotion is visible, record the available indicators without guessing reach or advertising spend. A screenshot may be inadequate if it fails to identify the account or publication context. Delay over stories or removable content may make the existence and extent of publication harder to establish later.

Compare the original recording and published version against the permission document. Cropping, a new caption, product association or altered voiceover may be recorded separately; alteration alone does not establish infringement. Evidence preservation does not require unauthorised access to private accounts or publicly republishing the material. Where loss is threatened, consider preservation under Article 400 HMK and an appropriate recording method; acceptance is not automatic.

6. How should respondents and remedies be distinguished?

The person recording, first publishing, using material for a brand and reposting may differ. Do not assume a letter to the producer reaches a third-party brand. Identify the content and URL, the disputed use and the specific request, such as removal, prevention of further use or clarification of scope. Preserve replies and receipt records. Sending a notice creates neither a court order nor an automatically recoverable debt.

Article 25 TMK provides for prevention of a threatened interference, cessation of an ongoing interference and a declaration of unlawfulness where effects continue after it ends; correction or communication/publication of the decision may also be sought. Separately establish the conditions for non-pecuniary compensation under Article 58 TBK, financial loss or gains-related claims. Removal does not automatically remedy past harm, but not every removed post necessarily generates compensation. Assess FSEK protection separately if a performer’s right exists.

7. Court competence, venue and urgent protection are different questions

For proceedings arising under FSEK, examine the specialised competence rule in Article 76 and the courts to which it refers; for claims based solely on personality rights, examine Article 2 HMK’s general rule. Where performance, portrait, contract and personality grounds are combined, determine competence according to the claim’s legal character. Neither the claimant’s acting profession nor the presence of a photograph selects a single court automatically. Verify the court acting in the specialised capacity where no specialised court exists.

For protection of personality rights, Article 25 TMK permits proceedings at the claimant’s or defendant’s domicile; that venue rule does not replace assessment of subject-matter competence. If continued publication threatens serious harm, assess interim relief under Article 389 HMK and Article 77 FSEK as appropriate to the legal basis. Platform reporting and civil proceedings are separate. Clicking a report button establishes neither removal of all copies nor judicial protection in Türkiye.

8. Keep compensation timing separate from removal correspondence

For tort-based compensation, Article 72 TBK sets a framework of two years from learning of the harm and liable person, and in any event ten years from the act, with a separate exception for criminal conduct carrying a longer limitation period. Do not automatically copy that period to contractual or other claim bases. Continued publication, reposts, knowledge and respondent records require individual assessment. No personal final date can be calculated here.

Do not read that limitation framework as permission to wait before addressing ongoing publication. Negotiations, notices or awaiting a platform response do not automatically protect every legal period. Identify the material and permission, preserve URLs and evidence, frame each respondent’s request separately, then assess the court and protection route against the file. The full interactive guide organises preparation; it requests no personal data, removes nothing automatically and determines no conclusive infringement or compensation.

Sources

General information; individual documents, facts and procedures need separate review.

Behind-the-scenes images: permission and removal preparation guide

Answer the topic-specific questions, select your records, then view your tailored preparation summary and office-branded PDF.