{"id":137,"date":"2026-07-19T03:39:32","date_gmt":"2026-07-19T03:39:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/a-getty-license-is-not-enough-why-using-a-persons-image-in-mexico-requires-direct-consent-under-the-lfda\/"},"modified":"2026-07-19T03:39:32","modified_gmt":"2026-07-19T03:39:32","slug":"a-getty-license-is-not-enough-why-using-a-persons-image-in-mexico-requires-direct-consent-under-the-lfda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/a-getty-license-is-not-enough-why-using-a-persons-image-in-mexico-requires-direct-consent-under-the-lfda\/","title":{"rendered":"A Getty License Is Not Enough: Why Using a Person’s Image in Mexico Requires Direct Consent Under the LFDA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Published: July 18, 2026 | Category: Image Rights & Production Law (Mexico)<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you produce audiovisual work that films \u2014 or airs \u2014 in Mexico, this is the misconception that gets brands and production houses sued: \u00abthe campaign is covered because we licensed the image from Getty Images.\u00bb Under Mexican law, a stock license does not legitimize the commercial use of a real person’s face. Articles 87 and 88 of the Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor (LFDA) require the express, specific, and informed consent of the person depicted \u2014 delimited by purpose, media, territory, and duration \u2014 and that right is personal\u00edsimo, of public order and social interest, meaning it cannot be waived or overridden by a private stock-license agreement. In February 2026, the Supreme Court (SCJN) reinforced this and tied the compensation floor to 40% of the sale price of the product or service involved. Here is exactly why a Getty license falls short in Mexico, and what audiovisual producers must do instead.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

There is a costly assumption inside production and marketing teams: if we licensed the image from a stock bank, we’re covered.<\/em> Under Mexican law, that assumption is wrong \u2014 and it is the most common reason producers, agencies, and their advertiser clients receive demand letters over the people who appear in their campaigns. A stock license governs one thing: the copyright in the photograph or footage<\/strong> (the creator’s economic rights). It says almost nothing about a completely separate right that the human being in the frame holds over their own face \u2014 the derecho a la propia imagen.<\/strong> In Mexico, those are two distinct rights, held by two different people, and paying a stock bank for the first does not buy you the second.<\/p>\n

For audiovisual producers who shoot in Mexico \u2014 where the talent, the footage, and often the airing all fall under Mexican jurisdiction \u2014 this distinction is not academic. It determines whether your delivered material is lawfully cleared or a latent liability that can be enforced years later, by the person depicted, against the producer, the agency, and the brand all at once. This article breaks down what the LFDA actually requires, why \u00abwe have a Getty license\u00bb is not a defense, how the SCJN raised the stakes in 2026, and the clearance workflow that keeps productions safe.<\/p>\n

\n

Two Separate Rights Live in Every Shot of a Person<\/h2>\n

The confusion comes from the fact that a single image carries two legal rights at the same time, and Mexican law treats them as independent:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Right<\/th>\nWho holds it<\/th>\nWhat a stock license does<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Derecho de autor<\/strong> (copyright) in the photograph\/footage<\/td>\nThe photographer \/ creator (or the stock agency)<\/td>\nThe license you buy grants this \u2014 the right to reproduce and display the work<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Derecho a la propia imagen<\/strong> in the person’s likeness<\/td>\nThe individual depicted (the talent)<\/td>\nThe license does not<\/strong> grant this \u2014 it requires the person’s own express, specific consent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Buying a Getty, iStock, or Shutterstock license clears the copyright. It does not<\/strong> clear the likeness. And critically, Mexican law makes the two rights separate on purpose<\/em>: under Article 88 of the LFDA<\/strong>, except by express agreement to the contrary, the exclusive right to reproduce a photographic or graphic work does not include<\/strong> the right to reproduce it in any type of article, nor to use it for commercial promotion. In other words, holding the reproduction rights to a photo does not, by itself, authorize putting the person in that photo into an ad.<\/p>\n

\n

What the LFDA Actually Requires: Articles 87 and 88<\/h2>\n

Article 87<\/strong> is the heart of the matter. The portrait of a person may only be used or published with their express consent<\/strong>, or that of their representatives or the holders of the corresponding rights. The article carries several consequences that matter enormously for producers:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • The consent must be express<\/strong> \u2014 silence, a purchase receipt, or a third-party license is not consent.<\/li>\n
  • When a person is remunerated to be portrayed, consent is presumed \u2014 but only \u00abin the terms and for the purposes agreed.\u00bb<\/strong> This is the decisive limitation. Even a paid, signed authorization does not become an open, unlimited transfer. It is bounded by the specific purpose, media, territory, and time that were agreed.<\/li>\n
  • Consent can be revoked<\/strong> by whoever granted it (subject to responsibility for resulting damages), reinforcing that this is a living, personal right \u2014 not a one-time asset that changes hands.<\/li>\n
  • The right lasts the person’s lifetime and 50 years after death<\/strong>, so historical footage is not automatically free to exploit commercially.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Article 88<\/strong> then confirms that reproduction rights and commercial-promotion rights are distinct: owning the right to reproduce a work does not include the right to use it commercially unless separately agreed.<\/p>\n

    Together, Articles 87 and 88 mean a producer needs the person’s express, specific, and informed consent, delimited as to purpose, media, territory, and duration<\/strong> \u2014 for the concrete use actually being made. The derecho a la propia imagen<\/strong> is a personal\u00edsimo<\/strong> right whose protection is a matter of orden p\u00fablico e inter\u00e9s social.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    Why \u00abWe Have a Getty License\u00bb Fails: A Worked Example<\/h2>\n

    Consider a common scenario. A producer shoots or licenses footage of an actor \u2014 call the talent’s clearance status \u00abunknown.\u00bb The image is pulled through Getty Images and lands, ultimately, in a specific commercial campaign for a large global brand. When the actor objects, the brand replies: the campaign holds a valid Getty Images license.<\/em> Under Mexican law, that reply does not resolve the problem. Here is the reasoning, step by step:<\/p>\n

    1. A stock license does not equal image consent.<\/strong> Under Articles 87 and 88 of the LFDA, using a person’s image requires that person’s express, specific, and informed consent \u2014 delimited as to purpose, media, territory, and time. This is a personal\u00edsimo right whose protection is of public order and social interest. A Getty license clears the photographer’s copyright; it does not, and cannot, supply the person’s own consent.<\/p>\n

    2. Even a signed release with the stock bank is limited.<\/strong> Supposing \u2014 without conceding \u2014 that the talent had signed some document with Getty Images, that authorization operates in practice for the photographer’s use of the image (portfolio, defined purposes). It does not<\/strong> amount to an open assignment permitting third parties to exploit the image in their own specific commercial campaigns without the direct authorization of the image holder. Article 87’s presumption of consent extends only to \u00abthe terms and purposes agreed\u00bb \u2014 not to a different advertiser’s campaign.<\/p>\n

    3. A stock-platform license does not replace direct consent for each concrete use.<\/strong> The obligation to obtain the depicted person’s consent attaches to each specific form of exploitation.<\/strong> A general platform license is not a substitute for it.<\/p>\n

    4. Even a broad \u00abunlimited\u00bb authorization would be ineffective.<\/strong> In the hypothetical that someone tried to read the stock authorization as broad or unrestricted, any such stipulation would be ineffective against Mexican law<\/strong>, because these are provisions of orden p\u00fablico<\/strong> that cannot be waived or modified by the will of the parties.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion:<\/strong> the use of the image in that campaign continues to constitute unauthorized use<\/strong> under applicable Mexican law \u2014 regardless of the Getty license. In practice, the image holder’s counsel would seek to resolve the matter directly to avoid unnecessary escalation, but absent agreement on compliance, the controversy can be taken to the competent Mexican courts, with the corresponding actions brought against the advertiser for the improper use of the image.<\/p>\n

    (This is an illustrative scenario for producers, not a reference to any specific real dispute or company.)<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n

    The SCJN Raised the Stakes in 2026<\/h2>\n

    This is not a dormant area of law. In early 2026 the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Naci\u00f3n (SCJN)<\/strong> upheld the constitutionality of Article 87 (together with Article 231, section II, of the LFDA, which addresses commercial infractions) and reinforced the protection of the right to one’s own image against unauthorized commercial use.<\/strong> Two points from that line of decisions matter directly to producers and advertisers:<\/p>\n

    A hard compensation floor.<\/strong> The Court’s reasoning ties compensation for unauthorized commercial use to a minimum that cannot be less than 40% of the sale price<\/strong> of the product or service in which the image was used \u2014 without deducting costs<\/strong>, and without margin for reduction. For a national campaign, 40% of attributable sales is not a nuisance figure; it is a material exposure.<\/p>\n

    Commercial use gets no \u00abpublic interest\u00bb shelter.<\/strong> Mexican law allows narrow exceptions to the consent requirement \u2014 for example, when a person appears as a minor part of a group<\/strong>, or when a photograph is taken in a public place for informative or journalistic purposes.<\/strong> But the Court stressed that these exceptions only apply where there is a real public interest<\/strong> that adds value to democratic debate or community life. A commercial campaign does not qualify. You cannot rely on the \u00abpublic place \/ journalistic\u00bb carve-out to put a recognizable person into an ad.<\/p>\n

    \n

    The Editorial Trap Applies in Mexico Too<\/h2>\n

    Stock libraries split their people-images into two buckets, and confusing them is a fast route to liability under the LFDA.<\/p>\n

    Creative \/ commercial images<\/strong> come with signed model and property releases and are marketed as cleared for advertising and promotion. Editorial images<\/strong> carry no<\/strong> model release; they exist to illustrate news and factual reporting. Dropping an editorial image into a campaign means using a person’s face commercially with no release behind it \u2014 and, under Article 87, no express consent for that commercial purpose.<\/p>\n

    But producers filming in Mexico must go one step further than stock buyers elsewhere: even a \u00abcommercial\/released\u00bb stock file may reflect a release scoped to the photographer’s use \u2014 not an open authorization for a third party’s specific campaign. Because Article 87 limits presumed consent to the agreed terms and purposes, and Article 88 separates reproduction from commercial promotion, the safest posture is to obtain direct, use-specific image consent from the talent<\/strong> for the actual campaign, in addition to whatever license clears the copyright.<\/p>\n

    \n

    The Free-Platform Problem: \u00abRoyalty-Free\u00bb Is Not \u00abConsent-Free\u00bb<\/h2>\n

    Free and low-cost sources (Unsplash, Pexels, Creative Commons pools) are the highest-risk of all, because contributors routinely upload images of identifiable people with no model release and often without the subject’s knowledge. Under the LFDA, \u00abfree to download\u00bb says nothing about whether the person consented to appear in your campaign. For any commercial use of a recognizable person, treat free-platform images as unreleased and unconsented by default<\/strong>, and obtain direct consent from the person.<\/p>\n

    \n

    AI-Generated and \u00abEnhanced\u00bb Faces Are Not a Loophole<\/h2>\n

    Producers experimenting with AI-generated or AI-modified human images should not treat synthetic faces as a way around image rights. If AI output is readily identifiable<\/strong> as a real, existing person, using it commercially without consent raises the same derecho-a-la-propia-imagen exposure \u2014 Mexican courts have already engaged with image infringement by similarity<\/strong>. And where a campaign will also run in jurisdictions with AI-disclosure rules (for example, cross-border US placements now subject to synthetic-performer disclosure requirements), those obligations stack on top of Mexican consent requirements. Log every AI-generated or AI-modified human asset and never synthesize a recognizable real person without documented consent.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Pre-Production Clearance Checklist for Filming in Mexico<\/h2>\n

    Run every recognizable person in a deliverable through this before the material ships or airs:<\/p>\n

    1. Get direct, use-specific image consent from the talent.<\/strong> Written, express, and delimited by purpose, media, territory, and duration<\/strong> \u2014 matched to the actual campaign. This is the single most important step under Article 87.<\/p>\n

    2. Do not rely on a stock license alone.<\/strong> A Getty\/iStock\/Shutterstock license clears copyright, not the person’s image right. Confirm a real release exists and<\/strong> that it covers this<\/em> commercial use \u2014 or obtain fresh consent.<\/p>\n

    3. Kill editorial images in commercial cuts.<\/strong> Editorial files have no release. Do not use them in advertising or promotion without separate written clearance.<\/p>\n

    4. Treat free-platform people-images as unconsented.<\/strong> Obtain your own release from the subject before any commercial use.<\/p>\n

    5. Match consent scope to every placement.<\/strong> A release for one territory, medium, or term may not cover another. Re-clear when the campaign expands.<\/p>\n

    6. Document and retain the chain \u2014 indefinitely.<\/strong> Keep the copyright license, the signed image consent, and the source for every people-image. Image rights run 50 years past death; your paperwork must outlast the shoot.<\/p>\n

    7. Assign responsibility in every contract.<\/strong> State in writing which party \u2014 producer, agency, or advertiser \u2014 is responsible for clearing image rights, and who indemnifies whom.<\/p>\n

    8. Log every AI asset.<\/strong> Flag AI-generated or AI-modified human images, never synthesize a recognizable real person without consent, and apply any disclosure required in the markets where the campaign will run.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Key Takeaways for Audiovisual Producers<\/h2>\n

    A stock license clears the copyright, not the person.<\/strong> In Mexico the derecho a la propia imagen is separate. Article 88 confirms reproduction rights do not include commercial-promotion rights.<\/p>\n

    Article 87 requires express, specific, informed consent \u2014 bounded by purpose, media, territory, and time.<\/strong> Even a paid, signed release presumes consent only for the agreed terms and purposes, not for a different advertiser’s campaign.<\/p>\n

    A Getty license is not a defense.<\/strong> A stock-platform authorization does not substitute for the depicted person’s direct consent to each concrete use \u2014 and any attempt to read it as broad or unlimited is ineffective against Mexican provisions of orden p\u00fablico.<\/p>\n

    The 2026 SCJN line of decisions has teeth.<\/strong> It upheld the image-rights framework and anchored compensation for unauthorized commercial use at no less than 40% of the product or service’s sale price, without cost deductions \u2014 and confirmed that commercial uses get no public-interest exception.<\/p>\n

    When in doubt, get fresh, use-specific consent from the talent.<\/strong> The cost of a proper image release is trivial next to a 40%-of-sales compensation claim, an injunction, and a pulled campaign.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n

    Q: We licensed the image from Getty. Why isn’t that enough to use it in a campaign in Mexico?<\/strong>
    \nBecause a Getty license clears the photographer’s copyright, not the person’s derecho a la propia imagen. Under Articles 87 and 88 of the LFDA, commercial use of a person’s image requires that person’s own express, specific consent for the actual use. A stock license cannot supply it.<\/p>\n

    Q: What if the talent signed a release with the stock bank?<\/strong>
    \nEven then, Article 87 presumes consent only \u00abin the terms and for the purposes agreed.\u00bb A release for the photographer’s portfolio or defined uses does not become an open assignment letting a third party exploit the image in its own specific commercial campaign. Direct authorization for that concrete use is still required.<\/p>\n

    Q: Could a broad \u00abunlimited use\u00bb clause solve it?<\/strong>
    \nNo. The right to one’s own image is personal\u00edsimo and of orden p\u00fablico. Stipulations that try to waive or expand it beyond what the law permits are ineffective against Mexican law, because these provisions cannot be waived or modified by private agreement.<\/p>\n

    Q: How much can unauthorized commercial use cost in Mexico?<\/strong>
    \nFollowing the SCJN’s 2026 decisions, compensation for unauthorized commercial use cannot be less than 40% of the sale price of the product or service involved, without deducting costs \u2014 plus injunctions and legal exposure. It is a material figure for any real campaign.<\/p>\n

    Q: We filmed people in a public place \u2014 doesn’t that make it usable?<\/strong>
    \nOnly for genuinely informative or journalistic purposes, or where a person is a minor part of a group. The SCJN emphasized these exceptions require a real public interest and do not extend to commercial advertising. You cannot use the public-place carve-out to put a recognizable person into an ad.<\/p>\n

    Q: Does the editorial-vs-commercial distinction matter here?<\/strong>
    \nYes. Editorial stock images carry no model release. Using them in advertising means commercial use with no consent behind it. Use only properly released creative content \u2014 and, for Mexico, ideally obtain direct use-specific consent from the talent as well.<\/p>\n

    Q: What single step reduces the most risk?<\/strong>
    \nObtain the talent’s direct, written, use-specific image consent \u2014 delimited by purpose, media, territory, and duration \u2014 for every recognizable person in a commercial deliverable, and keep the documentation on file.<\/p>\n

    \n

    This article is general information, not legal advice. Image-rights, privacy, and copyright rules are fact-specific and evolve through legislation and SCJN decisions \u2014 consult a qualified Mexican IP or entertainment attorney before relying on any position described here.<\/em><\/p>\n

    For more information and official resources:<\/em>
    \n– Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor \u2014 full text (Orden Jur\u00eddico Nacional): ordenjuridico.gob.mx<\/a><\/em>
    \n– LFDA \u2014 Art\u00edculo 87 (text):     juristas.mx\/en\/laws\/ley-federal-del-derecho-de-autor\/articulo-87<\/a><\/em>
    \n– SCJN \u2014 Criterios sobre el derecho a la propia imagen e identidad:     scjn.gob.mx<\/a><\/em>
    \n– Getty Images \u2014 Rights & Clearance:     gettyimages.com\/rights-and-clearance<\/a><\/em>
    \n– Getty Images \u2014 Model Release:     gettyimages.com\/model-release<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Published: July 18, 2026 | Category: Image Rights & Production Law (Mexico) If you produce audiovisual work that films \u2014 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anfepa.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}