Instagram photos: which rights remain and which permissions are needed?
A photograph published on Instagram does not become free of rights. The photographer’s rights, permissions relating to people depicted and the licence granted to the platform must be distinguished. Reposting, advertising and embedding on a website can require different agreements. A business should define the intended use before obtaining the file or launching a campaign, rather than rely on the image’s public availability.
Marketing teams regularly use photographs supplied by creators, customers and partners. An account mention, a hashtag or an informal agreement may not specify whether advertising, modifications or international distribution is authorised. A copyright assessment should connect each image with its rights holders and agreement. For international legal teams working with French campaigns, documenting permissions in advance reduces the risk of withdrawals and supports a response if another business reuses the photograph. This organisation remains useful even where the original account is public and the post has already been shared widely by other users.
Key points in 41 seconds
Expertise and the scope of the assessment
An intellectual property assessment identifies, for a photograph, the rights holders, the permissions already obtained and those still needed. The qualifications of Nathalie Dreyfus, a court-appointed expert, can be checked through the official directories: the Paris Court of Appeal 2026 directory (PDF), under trademarks and designs, the Court of Cassation directory, 2025 edition (PDF), and the CNCEJ directory. Listings relate to defined specialisms. A private opinion is distinct from a court-ordered investigation. The engagement is defined according to the matter and the skills required.
Publication does not extinguish copyright
A photograph is protected by copyright where it is original, meaning that it reflects the photographer’s free and creative choices (composition, lighting, staging). Publishing it on a social network does not alter that requirement. Article L.122-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code prohibits reproducing or communicating a work without the author’s consent, subject to exceptions provided by law. Paying for a shoot or holding the file is not enough to obtain all exploitation rights: a written assignment of rights is needed. The scope of the agreement matters as much as the delivery of the image.
Ownership should be checked: an independent photographer, agency, employer or other rights holder may be involved, depending on the circumstances. Existing grants and exclusivity commitments must also be identified. Permission for an organic post on one account may not cover a paid campaign, catalogue or reuse by distributors. A new use should be reviewed before production begins.
A platform licence is distinct from permission for third parties
Instagram’s terms of use govern the relationship between the user and the platform. A licence supporting the service should be distinguished from a transfer of ownership and a general permission granted to every business. The relevant contractual version and functions should be examined without inferring a universal right to reuse photographs.
Meta’s official copyright guidance explains that publication must respect third-party rights and that a licence may be needed. Crediting the photographer, making no direct revenue or finding the image online does not replace that assessment. Technical access to a file and legal permission to exploit it answer different questions, particularly where the image is used in a brand’s own commercial communication.
Reposting, downloading, embedding and advertising
Reproducing the file creates a separate use
Downloading a photograph and republishing it on another account or website is a distinct exploitation. The permitted channel, term and purpose should be checked. A screenshot does not remove rights in the image reproduced. Crops, filters and removal of credits need to be considered under the agreement and the author’s rights. Permission to access an account is not a substitute for this review.
Embedding does not provide automatic legal clearance
An “embed” displays content hosted elsewhere. Its assessment depends on matters including the origin of publication and any restrictions. In VG Bild-Kunst, C-392/19, decided on 9 March 2021, the CJEU ruled on “framing”: a technique that displays on one’s own website an image hosted on another site, without copying it, so that it appears to be part of the page. The Court held that framing requires the author’s authorisation where it circumvents technical measures adopted by the rights holder to prevent it. The judgment is neither a blanket ban on embedding nor a general permission for every use.
A business should therefore avoid basing a campaign solely on the existence of an embed button. The person who published the image, the context and the actual operation of the feature matter. Where commercial exploitation is uncertain, explicit permission provides a more verifiable basis than assumptions about platform functionality. The intended placement on the website should be described in the request.
Advertising should be expressly addressed
An image cleared for reporting an event on an account is not necessarily cleared for promoting a product. Paid campaigns, partner publications and derivative creative should be described. Media spend does not replace rights clearance. Teams should keep the agreement applying to the version of the photograph and message actually distributed, including any later adaptations.
Image rights and other protected elements in the photograph
The photographer’s consent does not automatically resolve the rights of recognisable people. Image rights, based on Article 9 of the French Civil Code, in principle allow any person to object to the capture, reproduction or distribution of their image without consent. An image rights and privacy assessment should reflect the intended exploitation, with particular attention to minors and advertising. These permissions must be distinguished from copyright in the photograph itself.
A work, protected setting or distinctive sign appearing in the image may raise further questions. The file should identify those elements and relevant exceptions, without assuming that every incidental detail requires permission. A review suited to the content and its role in the campaign is more useful than a general approval concerning only the file delivered by a supplier.
Give teams permissions they can actually apply
Article L.131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code requires each right assigned to be mentioned separately, with its scope, purpose, territory and duration defined. For a professional use, the agreement should identify the channels, purposes, territories and term. Permitted adaptations, any sublicensing and credits should be specified. Written exchanges may document an agreement, but they should answer these questions rather than leave the campaign scope undefined.
A simple rights register connects the photograph, agreement, people concerned and authorised campaigns. It should be accessible to teams scheduling publication. When a licence expires or the use changes, the workflow should require a new check. Evidence of permission then becomes part of production rather than a document sought only after a complaint. This also helps international teams avoid reusing a French campaign under a narrower licence.
The role of the IP adviser
The IP adviser assesses permissions, applicable exceptions and the appropriate response. It helps qualify creations, signs and associated commercial uses. A private opinion does not become a court-ordered investigation, and each contributor’s rights should be distinguished before action is taken. This review also helps determine whether further permissions would resolve the issue.
Illustrative case study
A fictional brand receives a customer’s photograph showing its product. The customer agrees to a share on the brand’s Instagram account. The marketing team then plans to use the image in advertising distributed in several countries. It discovers that a professional photographer created the image and that the initial agreement does not mention that new exploitation.
The assessment would begin by identifying the author, the person depicted and permissions already given. The correspondence would be compared with the campaign: channels, targeting, term and crops. The brand could seek additional permissions before publication instead of assuming the customer’s approval covers the photographer’s rights and every advertising use. A written record would identify the final creative version.
If distribution had already begun, the adviser would assess corrective steps and document the versions and periods involved. The aim would be to correct the use and prevent repetition. This is an illustrative scenario, not a matter attributed to the firm or a prediction of a litigation outcome.
A five-step permission workflow
- Identify rights holders. Connect each file to relevant rights.
- Review licences. Check conditions and restrictions.
- Obtain permissions. Record necessary IP licensing agreements.
- Define distribution. Set media, term, advertising and adaptations.
- Archive and monitor. Address digital content uses and preserve versions.
FAQ on photographs published on Instagram
Is tagging or crediting the photographer enough?
No. It identifies an account or author but does not establish permission for the intended use. Author attribution and the right to exploit the image should be treated separately, even where both are required.
Is an agreement in a direct message unusable?
It may help prove an agreement if its author, object and conditions are identifiable. A simple “yes” without a description of the use leaves ambiguity, particularly for advertising or reuse by partners.
Can US fair use be relied upon in France?
No. It belongs to a different legal system and does not replace assessment of French and European exceptions. US judgments concerning particular facts should not be presented as a general rule applying to a campaign in France.
What should be done about an unauthorised reuse?
Preserve evidence of creation and distribution before requesting removal. Identify the use, account and any permissions. A platform report may help, but it does not replace assessment of the rights and alleged loss.
Why work with Dreyfus
Dreyfus assists businesses and their counsel with identifying rights, obtaining permissions and assessing digital uses. A workflow suited to content production connects communication plans with documented permissions and supports a consistent response to complaints. International teams can use that record to distinguish the scope of each campaign.
Conclusion
Publishing or sharing a photograph does not define all users’ rights in it. To secure a campaign, content library or response to an unauthorised reuse, contact Dreyfus for an initial confidential discussion.
Dreyfus & Associés works with a global network of lawyers specialising in intellectual property.