"The Richest Man in Xihong City" was spoofed to be afraid of getting into a lawsuit?

A movie named "The Richest Man in Xihong City" came out, which swept more than N billion yuan at the box office and became a topic after dinner. The plot of the film is relatively simple: Wang Duoyu (Shen Teng's sketch), a poor amateur goalkeeper, inherited a large fortune, but only if he had to spend one billion yuan in one month. What the film tells is just a series of twists and turns and funny stories that he produced in the whole process of saving money crazily.

In addition to the dramatization of the short story itself, another joke of the film is the various funny elements that often appear. In the movie, Wang Duoyu, the protagonist, plays against a "Top Football Team in China" named "Factory State Hengtai", which is obviously funny for Chinese Super League champion Evergrande. What makes people laugh and cry even more is that the football player 16 of the "Factory State Hengtai" team in the film, whether in the number of jerseys or the design of characters, has imitated the behavior of Zheng Zhi, the captain of Hengzong. As everyone knows, this fake "Zheng Zhi" played a name similar to Hu Erke, another player of Guangzhou Evergrande, which made the audience confused.

It is not only athletes who are famous for their antics. There is also a scene in the movie: after Wang Duoyu got the huge sum of 10 billion RMB, he immediately went to cut a hairstyle called "the true identity of a billionaire". After the hairstyle was finished, everyone was surprised to find that this hairstyle was exactly the same as that of Wang Sicong, a well-known rich second generation ... There were countless similar funny classic clips in the film, and the "laugh" was excellent. But as legal persons, we should not just laugh it off, but should see the legal disputes hidden behind the antics. What's more, before it was released, the richest man in Xihong City had already caused a big "infringement incident" because of his funny personal behavior.

In the movie preview, Serie A giant AC Milan suddenly became "AV Madrid", which caused great opposition. Some AC Madrid football fans feel that this kind of funny without a bottom line is insulting and ask the producers to apologize. Thanks to the producer's timely response, sincere apology and quick deletion of relevant film content, which avoided higher controversy.

The question of what is damaged dominance seems simple, but it is not easy to answer. If you think that the film infringes on the right to name, then the problem comes: after all, the role in the film is called "Ran Ran", not Hu Erke, so it can't be immediately classified into the category of safeguarding the right to name; If you think that the film infringes on the right to portrait, then the problem comes again: the "suddenness" in the film is not "so similar" to the real Zheng Zhi. Besides, many fans think that "Ran Ran" looks more like Hu Erke than Zheng Zhi. People's bright eyes can't tell who "suddenly" is more like. What makes you say that movies infringe on Zheng Zhi's portrait rights?

If you think that movies infringe on personal privacy, then the problem comes: laws and regulations protect the personal privacy of star public figures far less than that of general partners, and personal behaviors such as "funny head" and "imitating posture" can hardly be criticized as infringing on personal privacy. Although the above analysis is biased towards the result of "non-infringement", the simple concept of fairness and justice reminds everyone that it is unreasonable for celebrities to connive at all movies and even advertisers to imitate celebrities without approval. In other words, some interests of celebrities may indeed be harmed by such personal behavior.

For example, in a large-scale event, if the organizer finds a special actor to play lay, the whole process is silent except "skr, skr", and the organizer does not respond to anything. The audience will definitely think that they are amateurs. Under such circumstances, the organizer has improperly obtained the economic benefits that should belong to amateurs. If laws and regulations can't control this kind of personal behavior, it is obviously very unreasonable for laymen.

Brand image publicity right in English law "brand image publicity right" refers to the general partner's right to make profitable applications according to his name, portrait, noise or other characteristics related to his personal safety. In foreign countries, the first judicial interpretation that established this dominant position was the case of 1953, Blue Ocean Enterprise v. Topsy Enterprise (Haelan Laboratories Inc v. Topps, Inc.). In this case, the plaintiff Blue Ocean Enterprise obtained the exclusive ownership of the portraits of many famous baseball players, and the defendant Topsy Enterprise used the portraits without permission. What is unusual about this ruling is that it separates the economic value of public portraits from the interests of personality traits and maintains them as an independent ruling type. As a result, celebrity public figures have the right to approve others to use their portraits for commercial services and get paid for them.

With the development trend of British judicial interpretation rules and regulations, the scope of maintaining the "right to publish brand image" has already expanded from simple portraits to all identifiable features such as appearance, body shape, noise and clothing. In the case of Midler v. Ford, the civil judgment that the defendant's personal behavior of inviting people to imitate the plaintiff's noise in advertisements constitutes infringement; In the case of White v. Samsung Electronics Company, the defendant Samsung Company was convicted of infringement for making an intelligent robot with a brand image and behavior similar to that of the plaintiff. In the case of Mosenbach v. R.J. Relo Tobacco Bureau, a sports car that resembled the plaintiff's driving appeared in the defendant's advertisement and was finally found to be infringing.

To sum up, in foreign countries, the most important analysis index value is identifiability to distinguish whether a certain personal behavior infringes the right to publish brand image. To put it simply, if the defendant uses some personal characteristics that can make the masses identify him as the plaintiff, and then mistakenly thinks that such applications are carried out by the plaintiff, it is likely to infringe on the plaintiff's "right to publish brand image."