Imagine changing jobs. You return your laptop, sign the exit documents, say goodbye to colleagues. Months or even years later, your face is still there: on the “Our Team” page, in a recruitment brochure, or in a training video used by your former employer. In everyday organisational practice, this is almost routine. From a legal perspective, however, it is becoming an increasingly serious issue.
This very situation is examined by Joanna Buchalska, from the Department of Civil Law at Kozminski University, in her article “The Use of an Employee’s Image After the Termination of Employment”, published in Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne. The article clearly demonstrates that a photograph in an email signature or a video from a company event does not lose its legal relevance on the last day of an employment contract.
Employer branding meets data protection
In recent years, the use of employees’ images has become one of the core tools of employer branding. Photographs on corporate websites and social media, expert profiles, videos from events, training recordings, webinars and case studies are now standard elements of organisational communication. As Buchalska points out, this applies not only to external promotional materials, but also to internal and semi-internal resources: intranets, training presentations, internal newsletters and correspondence, which often remain in circulation long after an employee has left the organisation.
The key issue is that the termination of employment does not automatically revoke consent to use an employee’s image. If such consent was previously granted, whether in a separate declaration, a contractual clause or an HR form, it remains legally valid. To end its effects, a former employee must submit a clear and explicit withdrawal of consent. Only from that moment does the employer face a concrete obligation to reassess where and how the image is still being used and what legal consequences this may entail.
Buchalska shows that an employee’s image exists at the intersection of several legal regimes. On the one hand, it is a personal right protected under civil law, alongside name or reputation. On the other, once fixed in a photograph or recording, it may fall within the scope of copyright law. At the same time, under the GDPR, an image that allows a person to be identified constitutes personal data.
This overlap has tangible consequences. An employer cannot assume that once consent is obtained, it authorises unlimited or perpetual use of an image in any context. After consent is withdrawn, the former employee may rely on a wide range of legal remedies: civil law claims for the protection of personal rights, including demands to cease infringement, remove its effects or pay compensation, as well as complaints and claims under data protection law.
Organisational archives and a lesson for employers
One of the most practical observations in Buchalska’s analysis concerns organisational reality. In many companies, no one has a full overview of where employees’ images actually appear. Materials are created over years, copied into successive presentations, repositories and databases. Withdrawing consent therefore means much more than removing a profile photo from a website. It may require a review of archived marketing materials, training platforms and internal communication systems.
At the same time, the article is not merely a warning addressed to employers. It is also an important contribution to the broader discussion on balancing organisational interests with an individual’s right to control their own image. Promotion, employer branding and the pursuit of a “human face” of organisations are not disappearing. On the contrary, they are intensifying. Buchalska argues, however, that this development must be accompanied by greater legal awareness: precisely drafted consents, transparent information for employees about the scope and duration of image use, and genuine responsiveness to withdrawals of consent, including after employment has ended.
From the employee’s perspective, the article highlights a right that often remains implicit: the ability to decide whether, after leaving a job, one still wishes to lend their face to the activities of a former employer. From the employer’s perspective, it is a reminder that ignoring such decisions may result not only in reputational risk, but also in legal disputes at the intersection of civil law, labour law and data protection.
In a world where the boundary between “working for a company” and “appearing in its communication” is increasingly blurred, Buchalska’s article acts as a necessary pause. It reminds us that behind every image used in corporate communication stands a specific individual, with rights that do not end when the employment relationship does.
