<Case Brief>

Court

Suwon District Court
Civil Division (Single Judge)


Presiding Judge

Yeon Un-hee


Case Number

2025Gadan509766


Decision Date

December 18, 2025


Disposition

– Partial victory for plaintiffs

– Photographer and wedding planner ordered to pay damages



—

Holding

Posting wedding photos online without the consent of the couple or their families, for commercial promotional purposes, constitutes a violation of portrait rights and gives rise to compensable emotional distress.


—

Key Facts

The plaintiffs, a married couple and their family members, held a wedding in May 2023.

The photographer (C) delivered edited wedding photos but later:

Posted 92 photos on his blog showing the couple, parents, and relatives without any masking.


The wedding planner (D):

Posted 8 wedding photos with the couple’s faces visible on blogs and online communities as part of a wedding review post.


None of the postings were made with the explicit consent of the couple or their families.

After complaints:

Some photos were deleted.

The photographer later re-uploaded blurred versions, which remained online for an extended period before final removal.



—

Court’s Reasoning

Portrait rights are constitutionally protected
The court emphasized that portrait rights derive from Article 10 of the Korean Constitution, protecting personal dignity and autonomy.

Consent must be proven, not assumed
The defendants’ claim that consent existed was rejected due to lack of evidence.

Commercial purpose matters
The postings were made for marketing and promotional purposes, not private or journalistic use.

Online exposure aggravates harm.

Photos were posted on blogs and cafes.

Content was available for a prolonged period.

Images were accessible to an unspecified number of third parties.


Blurred faces do not cure illegality retroactively
The photographer’s later decision to blur faces did not negate the initial violation, especially since the images remained identifiable and online.



—

Damages Awarded

Photographer (C):

– KRW 1.5 million each to the bride and groom

– KRW 300,000 each to 7 family members


Wedding Planner (D):

– KRW 500,000 each to the bride and groom




—

Why This Case Matters

Wedding photos are not free promotional material. Even professionals cannot assume usage rights.

Consent must be explicit and specific
Silence or industry custom is not enough.

“Blur later” is not a defense
Delayed mitigation does not erase liability.

Strong signal to wedding and creative industries. Portfolio building cannot override personal rights.



—

Takeaway

> A wedding may be public, but faces are private. In Korean law, consent is the price of publication—and blur does not buy retroactive permission.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/215095