No abstract

Relevance. The article analyzes the problems of civil law protection of human images. Despite the attention to this topic of the scientific community, in law enforcement practice there are many discussion issues related to the application of the provisions of Article 152.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on the protection of the right to image inviolability. The article sets out the results of the analysis of court decisions on claims for declaring the use of the image illegal, collecting funds and compensation for moral damage, on the protection of honor and dignity, courts in accordance with Art. 152.1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, allowing to conclude that there are different approaches to assessing the same grounds for the illegality of using the image of a citizen. The purpose of the study is to identify and clarify the grounds for the misuse of the image of a citizen, according to which the courts decide on the existence of a violation of the right to defend it. Objectives: to analyze the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, leading explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Russian judicial practice in cases on the protection of the right to an image of a citizen and to update the content of the grounds for the unlawful use of an image of a citizen that have developed in judicial practice. Methodology. In the process of working on the study, dialectical-materialistic, formal-legal, system-analytical methods, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis were used. The results of the study are applied in nature with elements of scientific novelty in the conclusions obtained and are aimed at improving the quality of law enforcement practice and achieving uniformity of decisions when considering claims for the protection of the right to inviolability of someone else's image. Conclusion. The study makes it possible to assert that there was no uniform practice in cases of protecting the right to portray a citizen. The same basis for the misuse of someone else's image by the courts is interpreted in two ways, which requires clarification of such cases by the highest court.

No abstract