The Reasons Why Celebrity Portraits Were Repeatedly Infringed
- Chaileedo Press
- Jun 30, 2022
- 3 min read
Recently, due to the infringement of CHICMAX Group, the court ordered it to compensate Chinese actor Liu Haoran for economic losses and rights protection costs totaling 30,000 US dollars. CHAILEEDO have learned that Liu Haoran has 32.45 million followers on Weibo and is the global makeup spokesperson of Charlotte Tilbury.
Recently, the Beijing Court Trial Information Network published the second-instance judgment on the dispute over portrait rights between Shanghai CHICMAX Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CHICMAX Group") and Chinese actor Liu Haoran. The court of the second instance dismissed the appeal and ruled that there was an infringement by CHICMAX Group and it shall compensate for economic losses and rights protection costs, which in total are 30,000 US dollars.
According to the document, the court of the first instance found that the plaintiff Liu Haoran endorsed the “One Leaf” mask, a product of CHICMAX Group, from September 1, 2016, to August 31, 2018 (China Standard Time). After the renewal of the contract, CHICMAX Group has agreed to have a two-month advertising clearance period. However, in May 2020, a supermarket in Beijing was still selling a One Leaf mask with Liu Haoran's portrait, made by CHICMAX Group.
The court of the first instance held that after the expiration of the advertising clearance period, there were still face masks with Liu Haoran's portrait and name on the market, and CHICMAX Group was at fault, which constituted infringements of Liu Haoran's portrait rights and name rights. Therefore, it ruled that CHICMAX Group publicly apologized and paid for Liu Haoran's economic loss which was 29,800 US dollars and the cost of rights protection was 0.2 million US dollars.
CHICMAX Group believed that the sale of the infringing facial mask was an act of a third party, and this was not its fault. Even if it was an infringement, the amount of compensation was too high, so it appealed.
The court of the second instance held that CHICMAX Group was a product manufacturer, and the advertising infringement also originated from it. The company should bear the tort liability, and the distribution of responsibilities with those outside the case could be resolved separately. The result of the first-instance judgment was not inappropriate, so the judgment rejected the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
According to the official website, CHICMAX Group was established in 2002. Its main businesses include skin care, maternal and child care, and personal care. It owns brands such as KANS, One Leaf, and Baby Elephant. As one of the core brands of CHICMAX Group, One Leaf was established in 2014 and focuses on facial mask products. In 2020, One Leaf’s retail sales exceeded 339 million US dollars.
CHAILEEDO searched the China Judgment Documents Network with the keywords of "endorsement, portrait rights". In just 6 months this year, there have been more than 40 related cases, most of which were celebrities being infringed.
In June this year, Chinese star Guan Xiaotong sued companies for commercial endorsement advertisements using her portrait and name on the outer packaging of the product without authorization. "Qingying" is the brand of the product, a type of face towel, produced by Suzhou Kefan Cosmetics Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Chang Sheng Wu Fang Technology Co., Ltd. The court ruled that the two companies immediately stopped the infringement, apologized publicly and compensated Guan Xiaotong 59,700 US dollars.
In addition to endorsement infringement, the medical beauty industry is also the hardest hit area for infringement. For example, Beijing New Oxygen Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese online medical beauty platform, was sued by more than 90 well-known Chinese stars for the unauthorized use of celebrity photos to promote medical beauty services.
According to CHAILEEDO, mostly, the results of the cases of celebrity portrait rights protection are that the artist wins the case, and the company apologizes and compensates. Then why do infringements still exist after repeated punishments and prohibitions?
First of all, the star effect has created huge commercial value, and star endorsements have extensive influence and appeal, making illegal companies very keen to use this influence to promote products or services and making many stars" endorsed " and "be under plastic surgery". This is one of the important reasons why celebrities' portrait rights are frequently violated.
Secondly, since celebrities are public figures, their photos and other related information are very easy to obtain. The cost of using celebrity portraits as advertisements is almost zero, and these companies have a certain flukey mentality, thinking that celebrities are very busy, and infringements have not been found so they can escape from punishments.
In conclusion, companies that arbitrarily use photos of celebrities will not only face compensation but also lose brand reputation and leave a bad impression on consumers. If an enterprise wants to go far, abiding by the law is what it must do.
Comentários