Tanzania does not yet have a fully developed statutory framework for personality and image rights. Most business owners do not realise this is an issue at all – until they receive a demand letter, a takedown request, or in some cases, a court summons.
The legal exposure is real. The fact that the framework is still developing does not mean the principles are absent. They are emerging through general law, constitutional protections, and an increasing willingness by Tanzanian courts to recognise that individuals have rights in their own image, voice, likeness, and personal information.
This article explains where that line currently sits, where businesses most commonly cross it, and what changes are coming that will make these questions far more consequential than they have been to date.
What Image and Personality Rights Actually Cover
Image rights, in the broad sense, refer to a person’s legal interest in controlling how their identity is used by others.
This includes their photograph, video footage, voice, name, signature, and any other identifying characteristic that the public would associate with them — including catchphrases, mannerisms, or visual signatures unique to a recognisable individual.
The principle underlying these rights is straightforward. A person’s identity is theirs. Using it for commercial purposes — to promote a product, attract attention to a business, or generate revenue — without their consent is a use of something that does not belong to you.
In jurisdictions where these rights are well developed, the framework is detailed and codified. In Tanzania, the protection comes from a combination of sources: constitutional rights to privacy and dignity, general tort principles, the emerging data protection framework, and specific protections for particular categories such as children.
Where Businesses Most Commonly Cross the Line
Five situations recur frequently in practice.
Using wedding or event footage in marketing
A caterer, photographer, decorator, or venue operator covers a wedding or private function. The footage is high quality. The event is well attended. The temptation to use this material for marketing on social media, on a website, or in proposals to future clients is significant.
The legal issue is that the people in the footage did not consent to commercial use. They consented to being photographed at a private event. Those are different permissions. Using the footage to promote a business converts a private moment into a commercial asset, and the people whose image is being used have not authorised that conversion.
The defence that the business “paid for the photographer” or “was hired to be there” does not address this. The contractual relationship is with the host. The image rights belong to each individual depicted.
Sharing client stories in ways that allow identification
A professional a doctor, consultant, lawyer, or financial advisor – shares a client story publicly. The client is not named. The details are general. But the combination of facts is specific enough that the client, or people who know the client, can identify the situation being described.
This is increasingly common in podcast and social media content, where the line between professional commentary and breach of confidentiality has not been clearly drawn. The legal exposure exists regardless of intent.
Using a public figure’s identity to promote a product
A business uses a phrase, an image, or a visual reference associated with a well-known person to promote its goods or services. The implication is that the public figure endorses or is associated with the business. The public figure has not given permission for this use.
This is one of the clearer categories. Using identifiable elements of a recognisable person’s identity for commercial advantage is actionable, even where the use is brief or indirect.
Using employee or staff photographs after departure
A business uses photographs of staff members on its website, in proposals, and in marketing materials. When those staff members leave the business, the materials are not updated. Former employees may not consent to their continued use of their image to promote a business they no longer work for.
This is often overlooked but legally clean: the consent given during employment does not necessarily extend beyond it. Once the employment relationship ends, the basis for continued use of personal identifiers must be revisited.
This is no longer a theoretical risk. In Erastus Mtui v. Coca-Cola Kwanza Limited & Others (Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2023), the Court of Appeal held that a former employee’s photograph, used in a public notice announcing his departure, was personal data that could not be used without his consent — even though the company already possessed it. The Court noted that the circumstances under which the photograph was originally obtained had materially changed once the employment relationship ended. The company was found liable for defamation and ordered to pay damages exceeding TZS 124 million, alongside an apology and removal of the material. The case is a direct illustration of the principle above: possession of an image is not the same as ongoing permission to use it.
Capturing and using images of minors without proper consent
Children appear in photographs and footage routinely at events, in schools, in family situations. Using these images commercially without parental consent is a category of exposure that businesses underestimate. The protections for minors are stronger than for adults, and the consequences for breach are correspondingly more serious.
The Privacy Dimension
Image rights overlap significantly with privacy rights, but they are not identical.
Privacy concerns the right to control information about oneself – including personal data, communications, location, and other details that are not generally public. Tanzania’s Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, establishes a framework for how personal data must be collected, processed, stored, and used.
The Act applies to businesses operating in Tanzania, including small enterprises, and it imposes specific obligations around consent, purpose limitation, and data subject rights.
Where a business uses a photograph or video of an individual, it is typically processing that individual’s personal data. The image is identifying information. The Personal Data Protection Act applies, and the consent requirements under the Act must be met independently of any image rights considerations.
The intersection of image rights and data protection is where most businesses will find themselves exposed. Failing to obtain consent for commercial use of an image is one problem. Failing to comply with data protection obligations in how that image is collected, stored, and shared is a separate problem. Both can arise from the same facts.
What Has Changed Recently
Three developments have raised the practical relevance of these issues in Tanzania.
The first is the Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, which formalises individual rights over personal data and creates a regulatory authority – the Personal Data Protection Commission empowered to investigate complaints and impose penalties.
In practice, however, the implementation of the Act is still developing. The legislation has been raised before Tanzanian courts, but judicial appreciation of its practical application remains at an early stage. The protection the Act promises will only become operationally meaningful as cases under it produce binding interpretations.
The second is the growth of digital content as a business tool. Social media marketing, video content, and digital advertising have multiplied the situations in which images and personal information are used commercially. The volume of activity has increased the volume of exposure.
The third is a general shift in awareness. Individuals are increasingly conscious of their right to control how their identity is used. Complaints that would not have been raised five years ago are now being raised — and increasingly, being acted upon.
Tanzanian courts have already begun applying the underlying principle in practice, including in the Coca-Cola Kwanza case discussed above, where the unauthorised use of a former employee’s photograph formed part of a substantial damages award.
What Businesses Should Do
Three practical steps cover most of the exposure.
Obtain written consent before any commercial use of identifying material. This applies to client testimonials, event footage, staff photographs, and any content where individuals can be recognised. The consent should specify what the material will be used for and for how long.
Treat consent as time-limited and purpose-specific. Permission to use a photograph in one campaign is not permission to use it indefinitely or for other purposes. Where the use changes, the consent must be revisited.
Audit existing materials. Most businesses have a back catalogue of marketing assets — photographs, videos, testimonials, case studies — that were collected over years without formal consent processes.
Reviewing those assets and either obtaining retrospective consent or removing problematic content is a one-time exercise that significantly reduces ongoing exposure.
For businesses operating in industries where image and reputation are central — hospitality, professional services, real estate, media — these practices are not optional housekeeping. They are core to operating within an emerging but enforceable framework.
Why This Area Will Matter More
Three reasons.
The legal infrastructure is being built. The Personal Data Protection Act is in force, and the regulatory authority is operational. Cases under the Act will produce judgments that clarify how the framework applies in practice. Each judgment will narrow the room businesses currently have to operate informally.
Public awareness is rising. The next generation of consumers, employees, and clients does not assume their image is freely available for commercial use. They expect to be asked. The businesses that recognise this earlier will avoid the disputes that will arise for businesses that do not.
The cost of breach is real. Damages claims, takedown demands, regulatory penalties, and reputational consequences are all available remedies. The cost of compliance is significantly lower than the cost of being on the wrong side of any of them.
This is a quiet area of Tanzanian law that is becoming a loud one. The businesses that prepare for that shift in advance will find themselves at an advantage.
