China News Service, February 1 (Reporter Yin Liqin) According to the WeChat public account "Shanghai No. 1 Middle Court" on February 1, on February 1, 2021, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court sued the appellant Ju Jingyi The appellee Shanghai Qinyu Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Qinyu Company"), Wang Xintong, and Beijing Micro Dream Technology Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Micro Dream Technology Company") in a public hearing Trial.

　　On June 1, 2020, Ju Jingyi used Qinyu Company and Wang Xintong in articles published on the "Cauliflower King" WeChat public account and Weibo account of the same name without his permission, on the grounds of infringing on his portrait rights. A lawsuit was filed in the court of first instance, requesting an order to order Qinyu Company and Wang Xintong to stop infringing on their portrait rights and bear corresponding liabilities. Weimeng Chuangke, as the operator of the Weibo website, shall bear joint and several liability for compensation.

　　The court of first instance found that Ju Jingyi was a singer and actor.

On December 13, 2019, the WeChat public account "The King of Cauliflower" published an article titled "Technology Flow/Do not move the knife to add points to Ju Jingyi's same cranial top hairstyle operation guide", which uses Ju Jingyi Attended "iqiyi screaming night" and three photos posted on his personal Weibo as a picture, and analyzed the characteristics of his makeup and hairstyle.

Before the trial of the first instance, the relevant articles published by the official account involved in the case have been deleted.

The court of first instance also found that the WeChat public account "Cauliflower King" was registered and used by Qinyu Company, and the Weibo account of the same name was registered by Wang Xintong.

　　The court of first instance held that the "Cauliflower King" WeChat official account published the articles involved in the case not for profit, nor was it to use Ju Jingyi's commercial value to attract traffic and increase sales.

As a network service provider, Micro Dream Technology has no fault and should not be liable for tort.

Moreover, as a public figure, Ju Jingyi should have a certain tolerance obligation to the public in evaluating his publicly released photos. The relevant articles published on the WeChat public account involved in the case did not vilify or derogate Ju Jingyi’s portrait. And it has been deleted before the first instance.

Accordingly, the court of first instance rejected all of Ju Jingyi's claims.

　　Ju Jingyi refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court.

　　Ju Jingyi’s entrusted litigation agent and the entrusted litigation agents of Qinyu Company and Wang Xintong attended the second-instance trial, and Weimeng Creative Technology Company submitted written defense opinions.

During the trial of the second instance, the collegiate panel organized a cross-examination of the evidence provided by the parties in the second instance. Whether the parties involved should apply the "General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China" or the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" on the right of portrait in the disputes in this case, Qin Yu Company, Wang Xintong Whether the use of Ju Jingyi's portrait in the article involved in the case violated Ju Jingyi's portrait rights and other controversies fully expressed opinions.

　　The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court will hear the case in accordance with the law and decide on a date.

(Finish)