In the Internet age where everything can be broadcast live, everyone needs to abide by the boundaries of their rights and respect the feelings of others. This is an infringement dispute caused by online live broadcast. According to reports, recently, the People’s Court of Wujiang

In the Internet age where everything can be broadcast live, everyone needs to abide by the boundaries of their rights and respect the feelings of others

This is an infringement dispute caused by online live broadcast. According to reports, recently, the People’s Court of Wujiang District, Suzhou City announced a case of infringement of portrait rights. A hotpot restaurant owner broadcast live online in his store, hoping to attract business. A customer went into the store to make a purchase. When passing through the store channel, he found that he was in the live broadcast room. The customer was very angry, so he went to the boss to argue. The two had a dispute, and the customer was furious and sued the boss to court.

After hearing, the court held that exposing the customer's portrait in the live broadcast without the customer's consent constituted an infringement of other people's portrait rights. In the end, the court ruled that the hot pot restaurant owner posted a video through his live broadcast account to apologize to his customers, and the apology video should be kept on top for no less than three days. At the same time, the owner of the hot pot restaurant was sentenced to pay 500 yuan in solace for mental damage to the customer.

This litigation dispute gives me a sense of deja vu. Back then, in the law school class, everyone discussed a classic case. In the early 1990s, the movie " Qiuju's Lawsuit " adopted social documentary artistic techniques during the actual shooting process, that is, many of the shots were "secretly shot" from the streets of Baoji City, Shaanxi Province. This life-style movie was a huge success when it came out, but it also attracted lawsuits. Jia, a passerby caught in the camera, demanded compensation from the film studio for financial losses on the grounds of infringement of portrait rights and causing trouble to his life and spirit. After trial, the court determined that the filming behavior of the relevant parties did not constitute an infringement of Jia's portrait rights and rejected the plaintiff's claim.

So, here comes the question. The other party was also recorded and broadcast without permission. Why did the litigation dispute more than 30 years ago not constitute an infringement, but today's online live broadcast was found to be infringing and ordered to pay a solitary payment for mental damage. Woolen cloth?

Whether it is the General Principles of the Civil Law of that year or today's Civil Code, the principle of protecting portrait rights has been established. The use of another person's portrait without the permission of the right holder constitutes infringement. In judicial practice, the most critical point in grasping the boundaries between legality and illegality is to see whether there is a direct causal relationship between the portrait being used and the purpose of profit-making. In the dispute over the portrait rights of "Qiu Ju's Lawsuit", passers-by "came into the camera" and "had no independent economic and artistic value". However, in the online live broadcast, customers "came into the camera" but became the "background wall" for the store to attract business. ". In this case, the court found that the store’s live broadcast constituted infringement, which was justified.

In real life, online live broadcast has become a hot national feast. When you turn on your mobile phone, live broadcasts are everywhere. Walking in the streets, we often see live broadcasters who give lively performances and sell products hard. In the catering industry, online live broadcasts by stores have also become a means of attracting customers and attracting traffic.

On the one hand, it is citizens’ rights to Internet freedom and the live broadcast economy that has been spawned by it. On the other hand, it is citizens’ basic rights, including portrait rights, privacy rights, , etc. What should the law be? It is obviously not advisable to favor one over the other. We cannot ignore the protection of citizens’ personality rights for the sake of Internet freedom and live broadcast economy. Of course, we cannot infinitely expand the scope of protection of portrait rights, privacy rights and other rights, and treat online live broadcasts as a scourge. A balance should be found between the two, and judicial trials can go a long way on this issue.

We can see that the above-mentioned judgment made by the local court has further drawn a clear legal "red line": first, online live broadcast commercial activities are regarded as having profit-making purposes, and the store's online live broadcast is not within the exemption scope of the law; second, the Internet Live broadcasts should protect citizens' portrait rights, and customers must not expose their portraits in live broadcasts without their consent, otherwise it will constitute infringement; third, online live broadcasts infringe on citizens' portrait rights and other personality rights, and you can apply for mental damage compensation.

looks at a court judgment, which not only protects the infringed, but also denies the infringers, and is a warning to all online live broadcasters. In the Internet age where everything can be broadcast live, everyone needs to abide by the boundaries of their rights and respect the feelings of others . Only by appreciating their own beauty and acting in accordance with the law can there be a more peaceful and healthy online world.

Red Star News Special Commentator Liu Yuting

Editor Wang Yintao

Red Star Comment Submission Email: [email protected]