Shane said:
Perhaps not, but in the case of a piece of nude artwork which receives
wide circulation without comment from the actor, it could well be assumed that the actor had given their consent for it to be done, I doubt it, unless there was proof of actual knowledge on the actor's part or even posed for the picture (depending of course on the image's realism), especially since no disclaimers appear to mark the image as totally unauthorised and unsanctioned. Which would certainly fit the bill as to an image using the actor's (facial) likeness which caused the actor distress and may, if s/he didn't want to be seen as the sort of person who would pose for dirty pictures (or allow these to be distributed), be seen by him/her as career-damaging. Distress and damage to career are two quite separate issues
Maybe it hasn't been put to test in court but these days I wouldn't want to
be the first to try. It certainly has in the United States (I don't have the citations conveniently at hand). But there are many potential legal issues, including "false light" defamation and violations of the rights to privacy and publicity.
-(Y)