03 9070 9810

Private Photos Published Without Your Consent

Urgent injunctions to stop publication. Damages claims for the harm already done. Australia-wide.

Book a Confidential Assessment

Max file size: 20MB

Your Photos. Your Rights. A New Legal Remedy.

If someone has posted your private photos online without your permission, Australian law now gives you a direct civil right of action. Since 10 June 2025, the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) allows individuals to seek urgent injunctions to stop publication and claim compensation for the harm caused.

This applies whether the photos were shared by a former partner, a disgruntled associate, a media outlet that does not qualify for the journalist exemption, or an anonymous account. The person who published the images does not need to be a corporation or government body. Any person or entity can be a defendant. Truth is not a defence: the fact that the photos are genuine makes no difference to your claim.

You do not need to prove financial loss. The tort is actionable without proof of damage. What matters is that the publication was intentional or reckless, that it involved information in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the invasion was serious. For most people whose private photographs have been distributed without consent, these elements are usually established.

The clock is ticking. You may have as little as 12 months from the date you became aware of the publication to commence proceedings.

Every Hour Matters When Private Photos Are Online

Once private images are published, they spread. Early legal intervention can limit the damage. We offer after-hours availability for urgent matters.

How We Act on Unauthorised Publication of Private Photos

Three distinct legal tools, used individually or together depending on the circumstances.

Urgent legal injunction services for privacy breaches

Urgent Injunctions: Stop the Spread

An urgent privacy injunction is a court order requiring the defendant to remove the images and restraining further publication. Courts can grant injunctions on short notice, including outside ordinary business hours. This is often the most important step: stopping the ongoing invasion before it causes further harm. The court will weigh the public interest in any publication, but for private photographs shared without consent, the balance will usually favour the plaintiff. We prepare and file injunction applications as a priority and can act on short notice for matters requiring immediate intervention.

Legal consultation about privacy damages and compensation

Damages Claims: Compensation for the Harm

Once the immediate publication is restrained, you may pursue a claim for damages. Non-economic loss (distress, humiliation, anxiety, loss of dignity) is capped at $478,550 (as of 1 July 2024), which is indexed annually. No proof of financial loss is required. In cases involving deliberate or malicious conduct, the court may also award exemplary damages, though these are included within the overall cap. The statutory tort was designed to compensate the kind of harm that flows from having your private images circulated without consent: harm that is real but not easily measured in financial terms.

Legal protection for privacy rights and personal information

Pre-Action Letters: Resolution Without Court

Not every matter requires court proceedings. A pre-action demand letter, sent by a solicitor and grounded in the statutory tort, can be effective in compelling removal of images and securing an undertaking not to publish further. Many defendants will comply when they understand the legal consequences of continued publication. We offer pre-action demand letters at a fixed fee of $990. This is often the fastest and most cost-effective first step where the situation does not require an urgent injunction.

The Law on Private Photos Published Without Consent

Who Can You Bring a Claim Against?

The statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy allows you to bring a claim against any person, corporation, or entity that published your private photographs without consent. This includes former partners who share intimate images, acquaintances who forward photos to third parties, websites and social media accounts that host or republish images, media organisations that do not qualify for the journalist exemption, and anonymous actors whose identity can be established through preliminary discovery or other legal processes. The defendant pool is broad. It is not limited to corporations or APP entities. This distinguishes the tort from the OAIC complaint pathway, which only covers entities regulated under the Australian Privacy Principles.

What Makes Publication of Private Photos Actionable?

The plaintiff must establish that the defendant's conduct amounted to a misuse of personal information (one of the two pathways under the tort, the other being intrusion upon seclusion). The invasion must have been intentional or reckless. Negligence is not sufficient. The plaintiff must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the photographs. And the invasion must have been serious. For private photographs, particularly intimate or personal images, these elements are usually straightforward. A person who takes or receives a private photograph in a context of trust and then publishes it to others without consent will, in most cases, have acted in a way that satisfies each element.

Truth Is Not a Defence

Unlike a defamation claim, it does not matter whether the photographs are authentic. Truth is not a defence to the statutory tort. The wrong is the invasion of privacy, not the falsity of any publication. This is an important distinction. A defendant cannot defeat your claim by arguing that the images are genuine. If the photographs were private and were published without your consent, that is the relevant conduct.

Overlap With Image-Based Abuse Laws and State Legislation

Several states and territories have criminal laws addressing image-based abuse (sometimes called "revenge porn"). These criminal provisions are separate from the civil tort. The statutory tort provides a civil remedy: injunctions, damages, and other orders. State criminal laws provide for prosecution and criminal penalties. The two can operate in parallel. A report to police does not prevent you from pursuing a civil claim under the tort, and a civil claim does not depend on a criminal prosecution being brought.

Similarly, the tort fills gaps left by state surveillance legislation. While state surveillance legislation primarily creates criminal offences, civil remedies under those Acts are often limited or unavailable. The Commonwealth statutory tort provides a clear civil cause of action where state legislation may not.

Preserving Evidence

If your private photos have been published online, preserve evidence immediately. Take screenshots that capture the full URL, the date, the account or username responsible, and the content itself. Record the platform. Note when you first became aware of the publication. If images have been shared across multiple platforms, document each instance. This evidence is important both for any injunction application and for the substantive claim. Courts will need to see what was published, where, and by whom.

Anonymous Publishers

Where images have been published by an anonymous account, legal processes exist to identify the person responsible. Preliminary discovery applications can compel platforms to disclose account holder information. The cost and viability of these steps depend on the platform and jurisdiction, and we assess this during the initial consultation.

The Overlap With Defamation

In some cases, the publication of private photographs may also give rise to a defamation claim, particularly where the publication carries a defamatory imputation. The two causes of action are distinct and can be pursued together or separately. Where your matter involves both privacy and reputational harm, our practice at defamationlawyer.au covers both fields. Defamation-related defences (absolute privilege, publication of public documents, fair report of proceedings of public concern) are also available as defences to the privacy tort where the invasion involved publication.

Disclaimer: This page provides general information about the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). It is not legal advice. The application of the law depends on your individual circumstances. You should obtain legal advice before acting on any information contained on this page.

Fixed Fee Initial Assessment: $770

A confidential review of your matter with a solicitor who practises in this area of law. You will receive a clear assessment of your position and your options.

Why Clients Instruct Us on These Matters

Urgent Injunction Capability

We prepare and file urgent injunction applications to restrain publication and compel removal of images, with after-hours availability for matters that cannot wait.

No Proof of Financial Loss Required

The statutory tort is actionable without proof of damage. Distress, humiliation, and loss of dignity are compensable. You do not need to show a dollar figure.

Fixed Fee Entry Points

Initial assessments at $770 and pre-action demand letters at $990. You know what the first steps cost before you commit.

Privacy and Defamation Practice

The statutory tort borrows heavily from defamation law concepts. Our defamation practice means we understand the legislative framework from the ground up.

Discretion and Confidentiality

Matters involving private photographs are inherently sensitive. We handle every enquiry with the discretion the subject matter demands.

Australia-Wide, Federal Jurisdiction

The statutory tort is Commonwealth legislation. We act for clients across Australia, with offices in Melbourne and capacity to appear in all states and territories.

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes. Since 10 June 2025, the statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy under Schedule 2 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) provides a civil cause of action for individuals whose private photographs have been published without consent. You can bring a claim against any person, corporation, or entity responsible for the publication. The invasion must have been intentional or reckless, you must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the photographs, and the invasion must have been serious. You do not need to prove financial loss.

Yes. An urgent privacy injunction can be sought on short notice. If granted, the court will order the defendant to remove the images and restrain further publication. Injunctions can be obtained early in the proceedings, well before any trial. In many cases, the injunction is the most important remedy because it stops the ongoing harm. See our page on urgent privacy injunctions for further detail.

No. Truth is not a defence to the statutory tort. The wrong is the invasion of your privacy, not any question of whether the images are authentic. This is a basic difference between privacy claims and defamation claims. A defendant cannot argue that because the photos are genuine, they were entitled to publish them.

In many cases, yes. Legal processes exist to identify anonymous publishers. A preliminary discovery application can compel a platform to disclose information about the account holder. The viability and cost of this step depends on the platform, the jurisdiction, and the information available. We assess this during the initial consultation.

Yes. The eSafety Commissioner handles complaints about intimate images under the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) and can issue removal notices to platforms. This is a useful administrative pathway and does not require a lawyer. However, the eSafety process does not result in compensation for the person affected. The statutory tort provides court-ordered remedies: injunctions, damages (capped at $478,550 as of 1 July 2024 for non-economic loss and exemplary damages combined, with the amount indexed annually), and other orders. The two pathways are not mutually exclusive.

The OAIC complaint process is a separate pathway under the Australian Privacy Principles (Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act). It only covers APP entities, which means it does not apply to most individuals or small businesses. If your private photos were published by a former partner, an acquaintance, or a small business, the OAIC pathway is unlikely to be available. The statutory tort under Schedule 2 applies to any defendant. See our comparison at OAIC complaint vs suing for invasion of privacy.

The limitation period is one year from the date you became aware of the invasion, or three years from the date the invasion occurred, whichever expires first. Extensions may be granted in certain circumstances, up to a maximum of six years. Do not delay. If you are aware that your private photos have been published without consent, seek legal advice promptly. See privacy tort time limits for further detail.

Yes. This is one of the clearest applications of the statutory tort. A former partner who shares intimate images without your consent has engaged in conduct that is intentional, involves information in which you had a clear expectation of privacy, and is, by any measure, serious. See our dedicated page on intimate images and doxxing and our page on privacy in relationships and family disputes.

A confidential initial assessment is $770 (fixed fee, inclusive of GST). A pre-action demand letter is $990 (fixed fee, inclusive of GST). These fixed fee entry points allow you to obtain a clear assessment of your position and, if appropriate, take the first formal step without committing to the cost of full court proceedings. Costs for injunction applications and full proceedings depend on the complexity of the matter and are discussed during the initial assessment.

Yes, subject to the journalist exemption. The exemption is narrow: it only covers professional journalists who are subject to a code of practice, and their employers or persons assisting them. Social media accounts, bloggers, influencers, and citizen journalists are not covered by the exemption. A media outlet that publishes private photographs outside the scope of the exemption is a potential defendant. Even where the exemption applies, it may be challenged if the publication was not genuinely in connection with journalistic activity.

The Limitation Period May Be as Short as 12 Months

If your private photos have been published without your consent, obtain legal advice now. Delay reduces your options.

Call