This article was originally written by Liu Yiqiao Joe. No commercial reproduction may be made without permission.
On June 6, the Beijing Court Trial Information Network announced the first-instance civil judgment of the portrait rights dispute between Fan Bingbing and Foshan Baolaibao Trading Co., Ltd. The Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing accepted the case in June last year.


In the case, Baolaibao Trading Co., Ltd. used three photos without Fan Bingbing's permission and placed them in the article of the official account, which affected Fan Bingbing's normal commercial endorsement work and caused certain economic losses to him. Therefore, Fan Bingbing asked the company to compensate for economic losses of 100,000 yuan and the cost of rights protection of 5,000 yuan.


However, the company opposed Fan Bingbing's lawsuit request, pointing out that Fan Bingbing's economic loss of 100,000 yuan was quite high, which seriously violated the "filling principle" in the Civil Law and should not be supported by the court.

It is reported that the principle of filling is one of the basic principles of civil compensation in my country. It requires the right holder to damage and the infringer to compensate. In real judicial practice, in order to avoid the parties involved in the case maliciously conducting profitable activities through litigation, compensation is limited to handling based on the principle of filling in.

Finally, the court also lowered the compensation requested by Fan Bingbing at its discretion, and ruled that the defendant Paulabao Trading Co., Ltd. publicly apologized for three consecutive days, compensated Fan Bingbing for economic losses of 25,000 yuan, and the cost of 5,000 yuan of rights protection was not supported, and other lawsuits were also rejected.


Netizens' views are also polarized. Some support Fan Bingbing to protect her rights in accordance with the law, while others believe that Fan Bingbing's right to protect her portrait rights is correct, but the economic loss of 100,000 yuan is indeed a bit too high. After all, only 3 photos were used and not directly used for commercial publicity, so she still sympathizes with the defendant.

[Disclaimer: The pictures in the article are quoted to the Internet. If there is any copyright owner, please contact us to delete]