In todays commercial landscape, celebrity portrait rights disputes are increasingly common. In recent years, numerous companies have found themselves sued by third-party firms claiming authorization to use actors images under film and television copyright agreements. Recently, the Wuqing District Peoples Court in Tianjin concluded a landmark case involving renowned actor A and two companies (Company B and Company C). Our firms lawyers Wang De and Zhang Zhaotian represented Company B in this infringement case. Today, we delve the details of this landmark legal battle.
First, lets examine the background of this case. Actor A has earned widespread popularity and acclaim through his outstanding performances in numerous TV series and films, having won multiple awards and established significant public influence. Company B, a manufacturer specializing in tricycles and their components, legally registered the trademark "Xixi". From March 2023 to April 2024, authorized by Company C, Company B was permitted to use stills and promotional materials from a film featuring Actor A. Subsequently, Company C utilized these images under the "Xixi" brand electric tricycles packaging, vehicle body, and video platforms for commercial promotion, while distributing stills/materials containing Actor As portrait to Company B through the "Xixi" trademark licensing agreement.
However, actor A believed that Company B had used his portrait without his permission, which infringed upon his legitimate rights and interests, so he filed a lawsuit in the Peoples Court of Wuqing District, Tianjin, demanding that Company B immediately destroy all the infringing publicity materials, stop all the infringing acts, and compensate for economic losses of 1 million yuan and reasonable expenses for rights protection.
The dispute in this case mainly focuses on the following aspects:
First, does Company Bs actions constitute an infringement? Actor A maintains that Company Bs unauthorized commercial use of his ness without consent or authorization constitutes a serious violation of his right to portrait. Company B, however, argues that its use of Actor As image was based on the "Film and Television Copyright Usage License Agreement" with Company C. According to the agreement, Company C provided stills, posters, and related materials for a film to Company B, which was authorized to use these materials for promotional activities within the scope of the agreement. Therefore, Company B maintains that its usage was lawful and compliant, and does not constitute infringement.
Secondly, should Company C bear primary liability? Even if Company Bs actions were deemed tortious, the primary responsibility should still fall on Company C. This is because when signing the contract with Company C, Company B had fulfilled its reasonable duty of care as a civil entity. Moreover, Company C explicitly guaranteed that the materials provided would carry valid usage authorization and licensing rights. However, during the trial, Company C failed to provide sufficient evidence proving its legitimate right to use actor As ness, demonstrating clear malicious intent in contractual fraud. This resulted in Company B being dragged this thorny infringement dispute.
During the trial, the court conducted a comprehensive and thorough review of both parties claims. The court held that citizens legally enjoy portrait rights, and any commercial use of a citizens image without consent is prohibited. As a widely recognized celebrity, actor As image carries significant market value in commercial promotion. Company B, without obtaining consent or authorization, improperly used actor As portrait on the packaging of "Xixi" brand electric tricycles, vehicle body, and video platforms, with the phrase "endorsement" marked. This clearly constitutes commercial promotion and profit-seeking, severely infringing upon actor As portrait rights. Regarding Company Bs defense arguments, the court found that although it had signed a "Film and Television Copyright Usage License Contract" with Company C, neither party provided sufficient evidence to prove Company Cs legitimate ownership of actor As portrait rights. Moreover, the photos used by Company B were not stills from any film, and the company should have exercised greater due diligence and verification before usage. Therefore, Company Bs defense arguments lack merit.
Furthermore, the court noted that although Company B had been defrauded by Company C, since the plaintiff actor A, as the aggrieved party, did not file a claim against Company C, the court rejected B Companys request for C Company to bear tort liability. Ultimately, the court ruled that Company B must immediately cease infringing on the plaintiffs right of portrait and compensate actor A with economic damages amounting to 100,000 yuan.
Through an in-depth analysis of this case, we can get the following important implications:
The scope of protection for portrait rights is both clearly defined and extensive. As a fundamental personality right enjoyed by natural persons, portrait rights encompass various aspects including the creation, use, and public disclosure of ones ness. No individual may exploit a persons portrait for profit without their consent. In this case, Company Bs unauthorized commercial promotion using actor As ness without obtaining proper authorization or consent unequivocally constitutes an infringement of the actors portrait rights.
Secondly, contractual authorization must have clearly defined boundaries. Although Company B signed a "Film and Television Copyright Usage License Agreement" with Company C, this contract cannot serve as a shield to evade liability for infringement. The scope of contractual authorization should be strictly limited to the terms explicitly agreed upon by both parties, and must never infringe upon third-party legitimate rights. In this case, while Company B obtained usage rights for certain film materials from Company C, they did not acquire legal authorization for actor As ness. Therefore, Company Bs use still constitutes an infringement.
In conclusion, this portrait rights dispute case not only provides a highly valuable reference model for adjudicating similar cases, but also serves as a wake-up call for businesses on how to legally and compliantly use public figures portraits in commercial promotions. In pursuing business interests, enterprises must always remember to abide by laws and regulations and respect others legitimate rights. Only by doing so can they steadily advance in the fierce market competition and establish a positive corporate image.
