Ms. Lin (pseudonym) in Hangzhou found out that the location of the TV series was her vacant villa in Ningbo. She subsequently sued the TV series producer, property company, and broadcasting platform to the court, demanding compensation of nearly 3 million yuan.

A few days ago, the Cixi City Court in Ningbo made a judgment of first instance: it ordered the producers of the two TV series to compensate Ms. Lin’s property losses and housing costs of more than 400,000 yuan, and rejected the plaintiff’s compensation for ” the act of shooting and broadcasting housing scenes violated the right to privacy.” The 2 million yuan litigation claims that the producer and broadcasting platform do not constitute a privacy infringement, because the house involved in the case was shown to the unspecified public as a model house before the purchase, and characteristic information such as its structure, decoration, and item placement has been disclosed. The plaintiff did not make any changes to the structure or decoration after the purchase, and there were no items involving the plaintiff’s personality characteristics and meaning , or reflecting private information related to the plaintiff’s personal and identity. “It used to be a model house for display, but it is not the private space of the property owner? We will appeal if we are not satisfied with the judgment.” On March 3, lawyer Wang Qinbao of Zhejiang Siwei Law Firm, the attorney representing the plaintiff, told The Paper news.

In October 2015, Ms. Lin bought a villa in a high-end real estate in Cixi’s hometown; in November 2015, Ms. Lin handed over the keys to the property for emergency needs; at the end of 2017 and early 2018, “My Children and Me 》Entering the villa for filming; in September 2019, Ms. Lin saw her villa become the home of the heroine in the TV series; in October 2019, Ms. Lin went home to negotiate with the property and count the losses. In November 2019, Ms. Lin asked a lawyer to send a lawyer’s letter to the property, film and television company, etc., but was rejected and sued. On March 18, 2020, the court opened a hearing and learned that other crews had entered the villa to film and temporarily added a defendant. On March 3, 2021, the court ordered the producers of the two TV dramas to compensate Ms. Lin for property losses and housing costs of more than 400,000 yuan, and rejected the plaintiff’s compensation of 2 million for “the act of shooting and broadcasting housing scenes violates the right to privacy.” Yuan’s claim.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
7 months ago

Let’s take a look at the cause of the matter first: In November 2014, Ms. Lin bought a villa from Ningbo Xiangyuan Hejing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., with a construction area of ​​820 square meters, and the price was nearly 30 million yuan. The house was originally a model house for the developer and was delivered in hardcover. Ms. Lin originally planned to use the villa as a wedding room for her son. Later, when her son went abroad, she also lived in Hangzhou. The villa remained vacant. Considering ventilation, maintenance, etc., in November 2015, she signed an entrusted custody letter with Ningbo New Shanghai International Property Company, the early stage property company of the community, and handed the keys to the property. In July 2018, Ningbo Wutong Property Service Co., Ltd. took over the community property, and the keys of Ms. Lin’s villa were handed over to Wutong Property. In the same year, Ms. Lin paid the property fee of RMB 64,000 to Wutong Property for the first three years, which was collected and stamped by Wutong Property. “From 2015 to 2017, Ms. Lin has occasionally visited the villa several times, but has not visited it after 2018.” Wang Qinbao told The Paper. On September 23, 2019, Ms. Lin watched the TV series “My Children and Me” at home, and suddenly realized that her villa had become the “home” of the characters in the play: the heroine was lying on the bed in her master bedroom, and the hero was sitting. On the sofa in the living room… “The master bedroom, dining room, kitchen, basement, stairs, courtyard, and gates were all photographed, involving more than 60 shots.” Wang Qinbao said that the words “thanks to xxxx villa” appeared at the end of the series. The community where the villa is located. Back to the villa, I found that there were many damages to the facilities in the house, including broken glass, carpet stains, damaged elevators, and worn furniture. In November of that year, Ms. Lin sued the TV series producer Ningbo Film and Television Art Co., Ltd., Ningbo Wutong Property Service Co., Ltd., and the broadcasting platform iQiyi in the Cixi City Court. Ms. Lin gave the key to the community property management, but the property was rented to the crew for filming without the owner’s permission. Then there are two possibilities. The property makes black-hearted money and deceives the crew, letting the crew rent out the filming without knowing it. The other is that the property tells the crew to reduce the cost of filming and renting without the consent of the owner. This happens when the two parties want to reach a consensus on the benefits, and then every day they meditate on 10,000 words that the owner can’t see. To this show. And the court’s decision is very interesting. Dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for compensation of 2 million yuan for “the act of shooting and broadcasting the house scenes infringes on the right to privacy”. It is believed that the producer and broadcasting platform do not constitute privacy infringement, because the house involved in the case was used as a model house before the purchase. Specific public display, its structure, decoration, item placement and other characteristic information has been disclosed, and the plaintiff has not made any changes to the structure, decoration and decoration after purchase, and there is no privacy related to the plaintiff’s personality and meaning, or reflect the plaintiff’s personal and identity related privacy Information items. I really can’t agree. When Ms. Lin described it, she said that she found multiple damages to the facilities in the house, including broken glass, carpet stains, damaged elevators, worn furniture, etc. These are not considered privacy, so which ones are considered privacy? Is it necessary to renovate after buying a house? If it is not renovated, it is not considered as “privacy”? It really subverted my perception of “privacy”. But no matter what, the penalty should not be only the crew, the property should also be fined, or even severely, and it is recommended to be blacklisted. Such a property, no matter how you can trust the community to be managed by them, it is possible to live and be sold. They are to spend money to manage, not speculation to make our money.

heloword
7 months ago

This plot is more bloody than TV series! In fact, the main responsibility lies with the property company. Ms. Lin signed an entrusted custody agreement with the property, but the property opened the door for the two TV drama crews and allowed them to film in the house. This violated the agreement and caused this incident. Ms. Lin’s claim to infringe on privacy by shooting and broadcasting house scenes”’s claim for compensation of 2 million yuan was rejected. The court reasoned that the house was previously displayed as a model house. Items without related private information do not constitute a private space? This is debatable, and it is also a point that Ms. Lin is entangled. If you buy your own house, then it can’t be considered a private space? It is reasonable that Ms. Lin bought this private space. How can one’s own house not be regarded as a private space? There are also problems with the crews of the two TV dramas. They went to shoot the villa. Shouldn’t the person in charge of the contact see the real estate certificate before proceeding with the filming? This is cheated by the property. This property company is “robbery by fire”. While the owner was away, he made a small calculation and started a small business, which made a lot of money. The property company dared to cheat, and the TV drama crew dared to shoot. Now that it is all right, they are all sued in court. , Accept the sanctions.

helpyme
7 months ago

What does the result of this judgment mean? The house was previously public as a model room. After becoming the owner’s house, wouldn’t it be considered an infringement of privacy? This translation means that if personal privacy is exposed once, it will not be regarded as one’s own privacy in the future? Think carefully. I think that if you buy it, it belongs to the owner, so it’s not privacy. Isn’t it privacy if it hasn’t been changed? But if you don’t change it, I don’t think the Rain Girl has anything to do. Besides, if you don’t invade my privacy, how do you know that I have not changed it? It feels a bit irrational. However, this is not a matter of change at all. This is a matter of interest. It has not been sold before, and the property authorization is displayed as a model room, no problem. But now the house is owned by the owner, and the property does not have permission to authorize someone else’s house to the crew, which is too much for the sake of profit. If I were the owner, I would have to jump in a hurry when I saw the verdict. Anyone who encounters this situation will save energy. My house is my own private space, and the damage to the property plus the mental damage, 400,000 is still too little.

sina156
7 months ago

Did not see the full text of the verdict, as far as news reports are concerned. The producers of the two TV series were ordered to compensate Ms. Lin’s property losses and housing costs of more than 400,000 yuan, and the plaintiff’s request for compensation of 2 million yuan for compensation of “the act of shooting and broadcasting the house scene infringes the privacy rights” was rejected. , The broadcasting platform does not constitute a privacy infringement, because the house involved in the case was shown to the unspecified public as a model house before the purchase, and its structure, decoration, item placement and other characteristic information have been disclosed, and the plaintiff did not make any adjustments to the structure, decoration and decoration If any changes are made, there are no items that involve the plaintiff’s personality characteristics and meaning, or reflect private information related to the plaintiff’s personal or identity. 1. Supported compensation for Ms. Lin’s property loss and housing cost of more than 400,000 yuan. 2. Dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for compensation of 2 million yuan for “the act of shooting and broadcasting housing scenes infringes on the right to privacy”. , But supported the compensation of 400,000 yuan and rejected the 2 million of the right to privacy. Regarding the right to privacy: Article 1032 of the Civil Code Natural persons have the right to privacy. No organization or individual may infringe the privacy rights of others by spying, harassing, divulging, disclosing, etc. Privacy refers to the tranquility of the private life of a natural person and the private space, private activities, and private information that are unwilling to be known to others. Here we consider whether the interior view of the house belongs to the issue of personal privacy. Generally speaking, the interior view of a house with traces of personal life is a “private space” and is protected by privacy rights. However, in this case, the house has not been inhabited for a long time, and it is not known whether the owner has packed up all his belongings and sealed it up. If the homeowner’s personal items are still placed in the house, it should be considered an infringement of personal privacy. If the homeowner’s personal items have been collected and the remaining parts are consistent with the model room, it should no longer be regarded as personal privacy. However, it should be noted that even if it is determined as personal privacy, because it is not subjectively profiting from the privacy attributes of personal privacy, it is generally not awarded as much as 2 million. So Ms. Lin can only get 400,000 compensation? Not necessarily. Because the property rents out the house privately, the property may violate the contract with the head of the household, and the property can be sued for breach of contract. Taking a step back, even if it has nothing to do with the property, it is possible to sue for compensation with unjust enrichment.

yahoo898
7 months ago

The content of the judgment did not mention the responsibility and compensation for the occupation of the property at all. The property is like a okay person. This is the most unreasonable place. The model house is used as a sample for commercial promotion and display by developers. Its display objects are natural persons facing the whole society. The display forms include atlas, web pages, video promotion, and on-site visits by intended purchasers. The main display content is interior decoration. However, this kind of public display is time-sensitive, and the time-effectiveness is before the owner purchases the house, and the house decoration features are not retained for the display object, and the display object has no right to retain it. When the owner purchases a house, he has the ownership of the model house, and he also owns all the private rights to the house structure, decoration, and display of items. In the act of recording film and television works by the TV drama producer, the decoration and decoration characteristics of the house are taken through video The limitation of form reservation is almost permanent, which in itself is a non-temporal violation of the owner’s right to privacy. Unless the producers of the two TV series permanently destroy all video products in the TV series that show the characteristic information of the owner’s house, I will admit that you have not violated the owner’s privacy. In addition, after the owner obtains the private rights to the house characteristics, the owner replaces the identity of the developer. At this time, the only person who has the right to disclose the house decoration information again is the owner. Without the owner’s consent, the film and television producer adopts the form of film and television drama , The house decoration features are once again disclosed to natural persons in the society, for commercial profit, the owners have not benefited from this, what does it mean to infringe on the owners’ privacy? How can it be said that the owner’s house has been publicly displayed before and has been visited or seen by others, and the owner will lose his right to privacy? As for the property, unauthorized use of the owner’s private property without the owner’s consent for profit-making use also constitutes an infringement of the owner’s house ownership, and the owner shall also be liable for the infringement and compensate the owner. The property lends the owner’s villa to the crew to make a TV series. Has the producer violated the owner’s right to privacy?

leexin
7 months ago

To add more information about this matter for all friends: Ms. Lin (pseudonym) in Hangzhou found that the TV series was actually set in her vacant villa in Ningbo when she was reading the series. Then she released the TV series producer, property company, and broadcasting platform. When the lawsuit went to the court, he demanded compensation of nearly 3 million yuan. A few days ago, the Cixi City Court in Ningbo made a judgment of first instance: it ordered the producers of the two TV series to compensate Ms. Lin’s property losses and housing costs of more than 400,000 yuan, and rejected the plaintiff’s compensation for “the act of shooting and broadcasting housing scenes violated the right to privacy.” The 2 million yuan litigation claims that the producer and broadcasting platform do not constitute a privacy infringement, because the house involved in the case was shown to the unspecified public as a model house before the purchase, and characteristic information such as its structure, decoration, and item placement has been disclosed. The plaintiff did not make any changes to the structure or decoration after the purchase, and there were no items involving the plaintiff’s personality characteristics and meaning, or reflecting private information related to the plaintiff’s personal and identity. “It used to be a model house for display, but it is not the private space of the property owner? We will appeal if we are not satisfied with the judgment.” On March 3, lawyer Wang Qinbao of Zhejiang Siwei Law Firm, the attorney representing the plaintiff, told The Paper news. Ms. Lin lives in Hangzhou and her hometown is Cixi. In November 2014, she bought a villa with a construction area of ​​820 square meters for nearly 30 million yuan. The house was originally a model house and was delivered in hardcover. Because the villa has been vacant, considering ventilation and maintenance, Ms. Lin signed a letter of entrustment with the community property in 2015 and handed the keys to the property. In September 2019, Ms. Lin watched the TV series “My Children and Me” at her home in Hangzhou, and suddenly discovered that the heroine was actually sleeping on the bed of the master bedroom of her villa. According to the inventory, the play involved more than 60 shots of his villa, including the master bedroom, dining room, kitchen, basement, stairs, etc. After rushing back to the villa to check, Ms. Lin found many damages to the facilities in the house, including broken glass, stained carpets, damaged elevators, and worn furniture. In November 2019, Ms. Lin sued the TV series producer-Ningbo Film and Television Art Co., Ltd., property company, and broadcasting platform. At the first court hearing in March last year, Ms. Lin learned that another series “About Love” was also filmed in her villa. In December last year, the case opened again after the defendant was added. According to the judgment of the first instance, the court held that the production companies of the two TV series in this case entered the house involved in the case for filming without the consent of the owner of the house, Ms. Lin, and caused damage to the house and the contents of the house. Therefore, it should pay corresponding occupancy and use fees and compensate for the corresponding losses. According to the assessment of a third-party company, the total losses of house decoration and items were determined to be more than 350,000 yuan, and the court ruled that the producers of the two TV series should bear half of each. In addition, based on the length of the shooting, it was determined that the producers had to pay 28,800 yuan and 18,500 yuan for house occupancy. Regarding whether the action of the crew entering the house involved in the case to shoot a TV series and whether the act of disclosing the scene of the house involved in the case after the completion of the TV series is authorized to broadcast infringes the plaintiff’s right of privacy, the court held that the characteristics of the house’s spatial layout, decoration, and item placement The information cannot be directly identified as the plaintiff’s privacy. First of all, the house involved in the case was used as a model house before the purchase and was shown to the unspecified public. The internal structure, decoration, decoration, item placement and other characteristic information have been disclosed, which is not private; secondly, the plaintiff did not review the structure after purchasing the house. , Make any changes to the decoration, and there are no items in the house that involve the personality characteristics and meaning of the plaintiff or reflect the private information related to the plaintiff’s personal and identity. Therefore, although this villa has the attribute of private space, there is no private content related to the plaintiff, and there are no personal interests related to the plaintiff’s personal freedom and personal dignity, and it does not constitute a private space. Subjectively, there is no intention of obtaining, spying, harassing, divulging, or disclosing the plaintiff’s privacy by the crew, and objectively it has not violated the plaintiff’s personal freedom and personal dignity, and does not constitute an infringement of the right to privacy. The court also found that the property company opened the door for the two TV drama crews, allowed them to film in the house, and charged the venue rental and compensation fees of the crew of “About Love”, to provide assistance for the crew’s infringement and deal with the producers of the two TV dramas. The liability of compensation shall be jointly and severally liable.

greatword
7 months ago

As a model house to display to the unspecified public, its structure, decoration, item placement and other characteristic information has been disclosed. The plaintiff has not made any changes to the structure, decoration and decoration after purchasing, and there is no relationship with the plaintiff’s personality characteristics and meaning, or reflect the plaintiff Personal and identity-related private information items. Then I have been to the bathhouse as a human body to show to the unspecified public. Its structure, decoration, item placement and other characteristic information have been made public. After the plaintiff was born, he did not make any changes to the structure, decoration and decoration, and there was no involvement of the plaintiff. Personality characteristics and meaning, or items that reflect private information related to the plaintiff’s personal or identity. Can anyone publish my nude photos?

loveyou
7 months ago

In this case, the judge found that the film crew violated the right of privacy, which is also worth discussing. Dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for compensation of 2 million yuan for “the act of shooting and broadcasting the house scenes infringes on the right to privacy”. It is believed that the producer and broadcasting platform do not constitute privacy infringement, because the house involved in the case was used as a model house before the purchase. Specific public display, its structure, decoration, item placement and other characteristic information has been disclosed, and the plaintiff has not made any changes to the structure, decoration and decoration after purchase, and there is no privacy related to the plaintiff’s personality and meaning, or reflect the plaintiff’s personal and identity related privacy Information items. “So does the conclusion of the argument stand? I hold a negative attitude. Before we visit a friend’s house for the first time, can we know in advance the furnishings and decorations of this friend’s house? The answer is no. Can we follow the dealer The model house model launched to introduce the furnishings of our friend’s house? The answer is no. There is a famous theory for this phenomenon to generalize the cat called Schrödinger, which means that you didn’t know the cat before you opened the box. Whether it’s dead or alive. So the judge’s statement in this regard is untenable, unreasonable, and unfounded. The law punishes unauthorized entry, and does not require argumentation whether the internal content is already Public and symbolic. Of course, if the person who enters the house for the first time has known the homeowner’s arrangement from public sources, the act does not constitute an infringement. Article 1032   Natural persons enjoy the right to privacy. Any organization Or individuals may not infringe on the privacy of others by spying, harassing, divulging, disclosing, etc. Privacy is the tranquility of a natural person’s private life and the private space, private activities, and private information that others do not want to know. Article 1033 Except as otherwise provided by law or with the express consent of the right holder, no organization or individual may perform the following actions: (1) Intrusion into the private life of others by telephone, text messages, instant messaging tools, emails, leaflets, etc.; (2) Enter , Shooting, peeking into private spaces such as other people’s residences and hotel rooms; (3) Shooting, peeking, eavesdropping, and disclosing the private activities of others; (4) Shooting and peeking into the private parts of other people’s bodies; (5) Processing other people’s private information; (6) Infringing on the privacy of others in other ways. This part of the follow-up does not support the argument: the symbolic meaning of personality, after the implementation of the Civil Code, this conclusion cannot be established. Because this is an express provision of the Civil Code, There is no need to argue whether the room layout constitutes a symbol of personality. But with regard to compensation for tort damage, the party’s request for damages of 2 million is obviously too high, and this part of the excessive amount can be rejected.

strongman
7 months ago

The court rejected the right of privacy on the grounds: “The house was shown to the unspecified public as a model house before the purchase, and its structure, decoration, item placement, and other characteristic information has been disclosed. The plaintiff did not make any changes to the structure, decoration and decoration after the purchase. , There are no items related to the plaintiff’s personality characteristics and meaning, or reflecting the private information related to the plaintiff’s personal and identity. This reason is indeed limited by the definition of privacy, but I think: this judgment exudes a bad direction, that is , The property can use the owner’s house for profit without the owner’s consent, and privately rent it out to the crew for filming? And who are these profits ultimately given to? Secondly, there are some people who enter the house without the owner’s consent. Suspect, China’s constitution also stipulates the right to inviolability of private houses. At the same time, according to the “Civil Code”, no matter from the perspective of property rights or the perspective of privacy, I think it has constituted a tort and actually caused the homeowner Damage. The Civil Code defines the connotation of “privacy”, that is, “the tranquility of the private life of a natural person and the private space, private activities, and private information that are unwilling to be known to others. “Obviously, the house is a private space that is unwilling to be known to others. Although this room is a model room open to the public and has not been changed after purchase, the model house is generally only open to home buyers, and it is unlikely that it will be open nationwide, but Now it is a film and television drama that can be played all over the world, and the scope of disclosure is obviously different? So there is a suspicion of infringement of privacy. Once again, I think the crew may also belong to the victim. At present, the legal awareness of many film and television crews is not It’s not strong. I thought it would start the auction after getting the property’s permission. In this case, the property is the most to be punished, but unfortunately, the property in this case only bears joint and several liability, and it is about the rent collected. I didn’t see the solution for the unjust enriched money. But fortunately, the plaintiff in this case has already applied for an appeal. We will analyze it for you when the result of the second instance comes out! Finally, about private houses, I remembered a British proverb: “Wind You can enter, rain can enter, but the king can’t enter! “If you encounter such a thing, how would you deal with it? Please leave a message, and your message will be seen. Welcome to like, comment or follow me, and learn about fun and entertainment together.

stockin
7 months ago

Everyone’s home is his own castle, the wind can enter, the rain can enter, the king can’t enter. I am in charge of my house. Without the consent of the house controller, no one is allowed to trespass illegally, violate the will of the landlord, and trespass into another’s house without authorization. In serious cases, criminal offences may be involved. Article 39 of the Chinese Constitution stipulates that the residences of citizens of the People’s Republic of China are inviolable, and illegal searches or illegal intrusions into the residences of citizens are prohibited. This provision is the constitutional origin of Article 245 of the Criminal Law. The crime of illegally trespassing into a house refers to the act of refusing to withdraw upon request after entering a citizen’s house or entering a citizen’s house against the wishes of the members of the house or without legal basis. Illegal, manifested as contrary to the wishes of the members of the house or without legal basis. Therefore, regarding the situation of this case, we can consider that if the crew and even the property did not obtain the landlord’s consent and entered the house involved in the case without authorization, there would be no legal basis. This is a kind of encroachment on other people’s residences and breaking others’ control over the houses involved in the case. And the tranquility of residence. This is a crime. There are many ways of intrusion, such as breaking in, breaking in forcibly, etc., and it can also be open or secret. Even if there is no violence, violence is not necessarily a prerequisite for a crime. Therefore, in terms of litigation strategy in this case, consideration can be given to criminals before the citizens or to file a private prosecution against the criminal act. In response to similar cases, @北刘馨远 real estate lawyers used legal tools to search for the crime of illegal intrusion into the house and Cixi City People’s Court as keywords. There were 116 criminal legal judgments. For different types of crimes, the cases have been determined. Without the landlord’s consent or against the landlord’s wishes, the illegal trespass to the house involved, or the entry without any basis, has been involved in the crime of illegal trespassing into the house. The ontology. Therefore, you can choose the criminal direction or the civil compensation direction. If it is determined to be a criminal offense, then the social impact and the results of the punishment are different. This is a matter of strategy. From a civil point of view, there is no problem, but the issue of qualitative loss is a very important and key point in this case. Because loss is divided into direct loss and indirect loss. Direct loss is the most direct loss of people or things caused by the actions of the offender. For example, during the filming process, the crew caused damage to the landlord’s personal belongings, famous play and calligraphy, his own house cannot be rented out, and the possession that should be paid by others Usage fees, this is a direct loss. Indirect losses refer to other hidden losses that may be caused by the actions of others, the depreciation of the house value caused by the reduction of social influence after others live, and the losses caused by the privacy issues mentioned in the house in this case. As far as this case is concerned, the court mainly supports direct losses, but there is no direct support for indirect losses, because indirect losses are not easy to qualitative, evaluate, or appraise. Regarding the result of the rejection of the loss due to privacy, there is not a big problem, but the court’s argument, I think, is a bit unsatisfactory. Regarding the qualitative nature of privacy, I think the court’s argumentation is relatively simple and not particularly convincing. Even if the house purchased by the landlord is a model room, the model room is owned by the developer before the sale, and the internal form of the displayed house is publicly public, but after the landlord purchases the house, the form of the model room is transformed into the landlord’s own ownership and belongs to the landlord’s own law. His personal belongings enjoy full ownership. The internal and external form, style and layout of the house involved in the case are under the complete control of the landlord. It belongs to the landlord’s expression of will. This belongs to the landlord’s own castle, which of course belongs to the category of privacy. . Therefore, I don’t think it is natural for the court’s argument. Therefore, two points can be summarized: First, the case can be reported to the public security organs from a criminal perspective, or a criminal private prosecution can be conducted to investigate the criminal offense of the relevant responsible party, and to compensate for their civil losses while identifying. Second, in civil appeals, it is necessary to focus on the direct loss and social harm to the point of view, strengthen the evidence to obtain the support of the judge of the second instance, increase the qualitative loss and the amount of loss, to increase the amount of compensation. This is the pursuit of the best interests of civil litigation.

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x