Zhao: I did not authorize the publisher: there is no malicious "positive propaganda" lawyers point of view -
I am not permitted by the "book" that the mountain infringement
● Click on Star News
A book called "entrepreneurs Zhao," the book angered the "Uncle" before he was to the right of portrait and damage to reputation and other rights grounds, the book's author, publisher, seller, etc. to court, claims 2.05 million yuan.
Zhao claimed that, "entrepreneurs Zhao," a book of writing and publishing are without his permission and authorization, but without the cover and inside pages of the book's heavy use of his name and likeness, and even personal issues involved. Extensive use of the book, "Zhao said," and other words that readers might think that with the authority of the book.
Zhao is not the real content of the book that seriously damaged his reputation and public image of the community, a violation of his portrait, name, reputation.
Meanwhile, Zhao that the Beijing Zhongguancun Book Building on the book whether he is not legally authorized to verify such facts, the book will be on sale, constitutes infringement.
In this regard, a representative of that publication, the book did not write Zhao authorize the publication, the quoted text and photos are already posted on the website or newspaper before, and did not make up and distort the truth. And the book is a Business Review, books, the whole book talking about how successful Zhao is not malicious "positive propaganda."
Bookstore agent said, on the sale of books is related to infringement, did not review the obligations. And after the incident, has stopped the sale of the book, so I do not agree to compensation.
Legal Aspect
1. "Positive propaganda" if you can book without my permission?
(2) use the public over the photo, not侵犯肖像权it?
3. Bookstores have books for sale on the audit of the obligation?
● Law Interpretation
I did not agree to "biography" violation of right to a name
Law Office in Beijing Guan Lee Castle Counsel contends that even "Zhao entrepreneur" is "positive propaganda", but its use Zhao's photos, the disclosure of their personal privacy, you need to obtain the consent of Zhao. People can not just boast boast, otherwise, it is infringement.
In addition, if the "entrepreneur Zhao," a book widely used, "Zhao said," words, but said that Zhao did not any, then the author is fraudulent, "Zhao", Zhao's name violated the right.
At the same time, even if the book is about how the success of Zhao, but if there fabricating facts, the facts of the fictional content, but also violation of Zhao's reputation.
Photo stolen by "The Hill" does not guarantee the right of portrait
Beijing Pacific Century Sun lawyer law firm that the portrait is an infringement of civil rights, often depends on two things: that is, whether her consent, whether for commercial purposes.
According to relevant regulations, for commercial purposes, without their consent with its portrait of advertising, trademarks, etc., should be recognized as 侵犯肖像权. In judicial practice, books, newspapers cover, inside pages in portrait without the consent of use of other people's behavior, is also considered for commercial purposes, the same composition 侵犯肖像权.
Publishes "Entrepreneur Zhao," a book for authors and publishers and other economic benefits, the use of Zhao's photo should be identified as having commercial purposes.
Whether you are using photo is public or not public, should obtain the consent of Zhao, otherwise 侵犯肖像权.
As long as the sale of bookstore can distance themselves from responsibility for timely
Lee lawyer said, sales of books in the bookstore, simply review the books are sold as a legal publication, the book is the regular publication, the State management agencies were allowed to publish the book published.
For the book is related to infringement, bookstore is not obligated to review. Received the relevant notice, immediately stop selling the book as long as the bookstore, do not constitute infringement, do not bear responsibility, do not compensate.
● Review
Zhao past claims
In May 2010, due to its cartoon image of the sketch lines are horizon-line and Google and other unauthorized use of online media, Zhao sued the two companies claim 4.05 million yuan. Awarded $ 120,000.
August 2009, due to Pieces "not bad money," cartoon fragment content is changed to "special fares I call the shots," Zhao prosecution Lanzhou, Shenzhen, Xining three Wanshun through ticketing company claims 200 million. Awarded $ 100,000.
June 2009, because the image is made into an animated comedy for game promotion, Zhao prosecution Sina tide line and the Beijing Cultural Development Co., Star claims 2.05 million yuan. Reconciliation solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment