Recently, an Internet infringement dispute case between an Internet celebrity and netizens has caused a lot of discussion on social platforms. The
dispute case originated from a netizen named "Specializes in treating various dissatisfactions and difficult and complicated diseases". He posted on Xiaohongshu in May 2023, saying, "Don't be too outrageous at the Guangzhou Tea Party. Rank Welfare Ji seriously." In front of the "Chongcao Ji", and the Internet celebrity "Qianchuan Yixiao" whom she considers to be the "welfare Ji" directly published the avatar and ID in the post.
"Welfare Ji" is an Internet term, which mainly refers to people who shoot pornographic content and sell it for profit. Subsequently, "Qianchuan Yixiao" sued the netizen in the Guangzhou Internet Court, believing that his post was insulting and negative, seriously inaccurate, and had obvious derogatory meaning. He requested that the other party make a public apology and pay related mental damages, etc. cost.
▲Part of the evidence that Hu submitted to the court for the large-scale photo shoot of "Qianchuan Yixiao"
On September 12, the defendant Hu made public the first-instance verdict of the case. In the first instance, the court rejected all claims of "Qianchuan Yixiao".
html On the 215th, Hu said in an interview with a reporter from Red Star News: "Through this case, I hope everyone will understand that some Internet celebrities have some bad behaviors themselves. When we make an objective evaluation of her, we should not be afraid of being sued. As long as it is As long as the objective evaluation is true,"Hu told Red Star News that she was a college student. During a tea party in Guangzhou in 2023, the organizer used what she considered to be the promotional materials of the "Welfare Ji" Internet celebrity "Qianchuan Yixiao". , arranged in front of "Chong Cao Ji" (refers to Internet celebrity bloggers in the niche clothing circle who wear their favorite clothing and are suitable for taking photos, displaying clothing, and attracting others to buy the same style).
"Before Xiaohongshu published that post, I had seen comments from netizens in the comment areas of other accounts, saying that she had spread and sold large-scale photos." Hu went to "Qianchuan Yixiao" Weibo to check and found that there was no Few large-scale portrait photos. She then decided to expose herself on the internet, eventually making the post that led to her being sued.
Hu sorted out the timeline of the entire incident to reporters: After Hu posted relevant posts on May 28, 2023, the Xiaohongshu platform banned her posts on August 22, and she immediately canceled her account; On May 11, Hu received litigation information from the court. On May 15, the pre-litigation mediation failed. On May 29, the court officially filed the case. On August 28, the court's first-instance judgment announced that it rejected all the plaintiff's claims.
Hu said: "During the pre-trial mediation, I posted a text on the mediation platform to express my position. I don't think there is any fault in my behavior, and I am confident that I can win the case with the evidence collected. I hope the other party can stop the loss in time. The prosecution against me was withdrawn. But I am not afraid if the other party insists on prosecution." Hu said that the pre-trial mediation failed in the end.
Among the relevant evidence submitted by Hu to the court, there are many records of "Qianchuan Yixiao" spreading and selling his own photos on the Weibo platform, and many of these photos are quite large. As for the photos and videos, "Qianchuan Yixiao" once stated on the homepage of its Douyin account: The photos (with no leaks in the underwear scale) have never been denied, and they are all published on the Weibo of the same name.
In the judgment of this case, the Guangzhou Internet Court held that this case was a dispute over online tort liability, specifically a dispute over general personality rights. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the Xiaohongshu notes released by the defendant violated the plaintiff's personal dignity.
The court found that before the defendant released notes and comments about the case, the plaintiff had taken multiple sets of large-scale photos and videos, and disseminated and sold the above photos and videos on multiple platforms. The above behavior violated public order, good customs, and socialism core values requirements.
▲First-instance Judgment
The first-instance court held that the defendant’s use of the derogatory term “Welfare Ji” to refer to the plaintiff in his notes and comments related to the case was indeed inappropriate, but the defendant’s release of the notes and comments related to the case was an exercise of his rights as a citizen. The purpose of the behavioral manifestation of the right to supervise public opinion according to law is to maintain the cleanliness and purity of the "two-dimensional" environment in which he lives, rather than to demean the plaintiff's personal dignity. Therefore, the defendant's release of notes and comments related to the case does not infringe on the plaintiff's personality. The subjective intention of dignity.
The court also pointed out that the plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove that it had indeed suffered serious mental damage due to the defendant’s behavior of publishing notes and comments involved in the case. Therefore, the defendant’s behavior of publishing notes and comments involved in the case did not meet the constituent elements of general personality right infringement. The plaintiff The claim that the defendant's behavior violated his personal dignity lacked grounds and was not supported by the court. The plaintiff's other requests also lacked merit and were not supported by the court.
In the end, the court rejected all the lawsuit claims of the plaintiff "Qianchuan Yixiao".
In response to the verdict, "Qianchuan Yixiao" posted a video on September 12, saying: "The court did not identify me as 'Welfare Ji' and clearly stated that it was inappropriate for 'Welfare Ji' to call me . However, the court also believed that the injury was not serious, so it did not support my appeal in the first instance, which does not mean that she was right. In response to this situation, we have actually submitted it to the second instance and will try our best to improve the relevant evidence. "
Netizens left a message in the comment area: "What does it mean that the court found that those large-scale photos violated public order and good customs?" "Qianchuan Yixiao" replied: "At least the court did not find it illegal."
Red Star News reporter contacted "Qianchuan through private messages through multiple channels" Smile", but the other party did not respond.
Recently, an Internet infringement dispute case between an Internet celebrity and netizens has caused a lot of discussion on social platforms. The
dispute case originated from a netizen named "Specializes in treating various dissatisfactions and difficult and complicated diseases". He posted on Xiaohongshu in May 2023, saying, "Don't be too outrageous at the Guangzhou Tea Party. Rank Welfare Ji seriously." In front of the "Chongcao Ji", and the Internet celebrity "Qianchuan Yixiao" whom she considers to be the "welfare Ji" directly published the avatar and ID in the post.
"Welfare Ji" is an Internet term, which mainly refers to people who shoot pornographic content and sell it for profit. Subsequently, "Qianchuan Yixiao" sued the netizen in the Guangzhou Internet Court, believing that his post was insulting and negative, seriously inaccurate, and had obvious derogatory meaning. He requested that the other party make a public apology and pay related mental damages, etc. cost.
▲Part of the evidence that Hu submitted to the court for the large-scale photo shoot of "Qianchuan Yixiao"
On September 12, the defendant Hu made public the first-instance verdict of the case. In the first instance, the court rejected all claims of "Qianchuan Yixiao".
html On the 215th, Hu said in an interview with a reporter from Red Star News: "Through this case, I hope everyone will understand that some Internet celebrities have some bad behaviors themselves. When we make an objective evaluation of her, we should not be afraid of being sued. As long as it is As long as the objective evaluation is true,"Hu told Red Star News that she was a college student. During a tea party in Guangzhou in 2023, the organizer used what she considered to be the promotional materials of the "Welfare Ji" Internet celebrity "Qianchuan Yixiao". , arranged in front of "Chong Cao Ji" (refers to Internet celebrity bloggers in the niche clothing circle who wear their favorite clothing and are suitable for taking photos, displaying clothing, and attracting others to buy the same style).
"Before Xiaohongshu published that post, I had seen comments from netizens in the comment areas of other accounts, saying that she had spread and sold large-scale photos." Hu went to "Qianchuan Yixiao" Weibo to check and found that there was no Few large-scale portrait photos. She then decided to expose herself on the internet, eventually making the post that led to her being sued.
Hu sorted out the timeline of the entire incident to reporters: After Hu posted relevant posts on May 28, 2023, the Xiaohongshu platform banned her posts on August 22, and she immediately canceled her account; On May 11, Hu received litigation information from the court. On May 15, the pre-litigation mediation failed. On May 29, the court officially filed the case. On August 28, the court's first-instance judgment announced that it rejected all the plaintiff's claims.
Hu said: "During the pre-trial mediation, I posted a text on the mediation platform to express my position. I don't think there is any fault in my behavior, and I am confident that I can win the case with the evidence collected. I hope the other party can stop the loss in time. The prosecution against me was withdrawn. But I am not afraid if the other party insists on prosecution." Hu said that the pre-trial mediation failed in the end.
Among the relevant evidence submitted by Hu to the court, there are many records of "Qianchuan Yixiao" spreading and selling his own photos on the Weibo platform, and many of these photos are quite large. As for the photos and videos, "Qianchuan Yixiao" once stated on the homepage of its Douyin account: The photos (with no leaks in the underwear scale) have never been denied, and they are all published on the Weibo of the same name.
In the judgment of this case, the Guangzhou Internet Court held that this case was a dispute over online tort liability, specifically a dispute over general personality rights. The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the Xiaohongshu notes released by the defendant violated the plaintiff's personal dignity.
The court found that before the defendant released notes and comments about the case, the plaintiff had taken multiple sets of large-scale photos and videos, and disseminated and sold the above photos and videos on multiple platforms. The above behavior violated public order, good customs, and socialism core values requirements.
▲First-instance Judgment
The first-instance court held that the defendant’s use of the derogatory term “Welfare Ji” to refer to the plaintiff in his notes and comments related to the case was indeed inappropriate, but the defendant’s release of the notes and comments related to the case was an exercise of his rights as a citizen. The purpose of the behavioral manifestation of the right to supervise public opinion according to law is to maintain the cleanliness and purity of the "two-dimensional" environment in which he lives, rather than to demean the plaintiff's personal dignity. Therefore, the defendant's release of notes and comments related to the case does not infringe on the plaintiff's personality. The subjective intention of dignity.
The court also pointed out that the plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove that it had indeed suffered serious mental damage due to the defendant’s behavior of publishing notes and comments involved in the case. Therefore, the defendant’s behavior of publishing notes and comments involved in the case did not meet the constituent elements of general personality right infringement. The plaintiff The claim that the defendant's behavior violated his personal dignity lacked grounds and was not supported by the court. The plaintiff's other requests also lacked merit and were not supported by the court.
In the end, the court rejected all the lawsuit claims of the plaintiff "Qianchuan Yixiao".
In response to the verdict, "Qianchuan Yixiao" posted a video on September 12, saying: "The court did not identify me as 'Welfare Ji' and clearly stated that it was inappropriate for 'Welfare Ji' to call me . However, the court also believed that the injury was not serious, so it did not support my appeal in the first instance, which does not mean that she was right. In response to this situation, we have actually submitted it to the second instance and will try our best to improve the relevant evidence. "
Netizens left a message in the comment area: "What does it mean that the court found that those large-scale photos violated public order and good customs?" "Qianchuan Yixiao" replied: "At least the court did not find it illegal."
Red Star News reporter contacted "Qianchuan through private messages through multiple channels" Smile", but the other party did not respond.
Red Star News reporter Zhong Mengzhe Luo Mengjie
editor Zhang Xun editor-in-chief Deng Haoguang
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-