Civil Case (Petah Tikva) 46525-11-22 Liat Miri Alon vs. Assaf Ben Zagmin

Judgment

1. I have before me a claim for monetary compensation, in the sum of ILS 173,188, by virtue of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: the "Prohibition of Defamation Law"), the Protection of Privacy Law, 5741-1981 (hereinafter: the "Protection of Privacy Law"), the Unjust Enrichment Law, 5739-1979 (hereinafter: the "Unjust Enrichment Law") and the Torts Ordinance (New Version), 5728-1968 (hereinafter: the "Torts Ordinance").
2. The cause of action is a commercial use made by the defendants of the plaintiff's picture, without her consent and without her knowledge, for the purpose of advertising an English course on an internet site.
3. Defendant 1 is the advertiser on the website owned by defendant 3, defendant 2 is a website designer who designed the website that is the subject of the lawsuit (hereinafter: the "Website" or the "Website").

Background and arguments of the parties

1. According to the plaintiff, the defendants took one of her personal photos that was published on her personal profile on the social network "Facebook", and made commercial use of it, by advertising it as recommending an English course offered on the website that is the subject of the lawsuit.

The use was made without the plaintiff's consent, in a manner that constitutes an infringement of her right to privacy, good name and copyright.

The plaintiff approached the defendants with the aim of removing the photo from the offending publication.  The photo was removed after a few days.  However, according to the plaintiff, the defendants refused to compensate her for the violation of her rights, causing her non-pecuniary damages and damage to her good name.

Therefore, the plaintiff petitioned that the court order the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, to pay her compensation in the amount of at least ILS 153,188, the amount set out in the Protection of Privacy Law and/or the prohibition of defamation without proof of damage; the sum of ILS 20,000 for unjust enrichment; and legal expenses and attorney's fees plus VAT.

1. According to defendants 1 and 3, the plaintiff's photo was accidentally and in good faith attached instead of a picture of a customer named Sharon Golan.  The photo was displayed on the website for a few days.  It was further claimed that the website was purchased from previous owners along with the photo, and as soon as the plaintiff requested to remove the photo, it was removed.

Defendants 1 and 3 argued that the publication of the photo in the circumstances at hand does not constitute an infringement of privacy and/or defamation, because it is not a publication that is degrading or humiliating, nor is it advertising for profit, and in any event, they have a good faith defense.