First of all, the hairdresser in this incident filmed and broadcasted the whole process of Ms. Zhou's haircut with her mobile phone. Obviously, it is impossible for a barber to broadcast Ms. Zhou's haircut live for no reason. Needless to say, this is an act for profit. The barber broadcasted Ms. Zhou live for profit, but did not get Ms. Zhou's consent. This is an infringement, infringing on Ms. Zhou's right to portrait, privacy and reputation. At the same time, Ms. Zhou can also complain to the local consumer association, or report complaints through the consumer rights hotline, or report to the local industrial and commercial administrative department.
In my personal opinion, the most effective means is to file a civil lawsuit, or when you are in the store, ask them to stop this infringement on themselves immediately. If the other party does not stop and continues to infringe, they can call the police directly and ask them to file a case. If the police do not file a case, they must be required to issue a notice of non-filing. This is to prepare evidence for civil litigation in the future. After this, you can find a lawyer, and the lawyer will take care of the latter, basically.
? In fact, many people often choose to tolerate this situation in their lives and are unwilling to argue with others. For example, when I went to the barber's for a haircut last month, the barber's wife was watching my live broadcast on her mobile phone and was still explaining. She said that my short hair style is suitable for a haircut, which is the spirit. Although the proprietress said I was short, I didn't like it. She also watched me live without my permission.
Legal knowledge points
I. Right of reputation
The Civil Code clearly stipulates that no organization or individual may infringe upon citizens' right of reputation. Combined with this case, the barber broadcast live to the customer without the customer's permission. When the customer objected to the stop, he also said that the customer was out of date. The barber's remarks spread to the Internet through live broadcast, which belonged to defaming the customer, Ms. Zhou, in public places. His libel against Ms. Zhou has had a bad influence on her reputation. Seriously violated Ms. Zhou's reputation. Ms. Zhou can ask the barber and her barbershop to apologize publicly to eliminate the influence and bear civil compensation, that is, to give spiritual comfort to Ms. Zhou's unpleasant experience. Therefore, the barber shop and its barbershop need to compensate Ms. Zhou for her spiritual comfort and publicly apologize to eliminate the influence and restore her reputation.
Second, the right to portrait.
Portrait right is a part of the personality right of every natural person, that is, citizen. Every natural person and citizen has the personality right to use and make public and allow others to use their portraits. Therefore, in this incident, the hairdresser broadcasted it live without the consent of Ms. Zhou, which was an infringement of Ms. Zhou's portrait right.
Portrait right refers to the specific personality right enjoyed by natural persons to make, use, disclose and permit others to use their own portraits with the personal interests embodied in their own portraits as the content. The barber violated Ms. Zhou's portrait right, that is, violated Ms. Zhou's personality right.
For example, if a company asks someone to speak, the star who speaks is equivalent to giving this part of his portrait right to the brand.
In this case, the hairdresser broadcast it live without Ms. Zhou's consent, which is obviously an infringement of Ms. Zhou's portrait right. Hairdressers are also infringing on their own interests. Ms. Zhou can ask the hairdresser to delete the relevant videos and compensate for the losses.
Third, the right to privacy.
Privacy is a part of citizens' personality rights, and no organization or individual may infringe upon it without permission. Ms. Zhou went to the barber's to get a haircut, which belongs to Ms. Zhou's personal privacy. The hairdresser broadcast live without her permission, which is an infringement of Ms. Zhou's privacy. When Ms. Zhou asked to stop the infringement, the hairdresser also said that Ms. Zhou was outdated and continued to carry out the infringement despite Ms. Zhou's opposition, which was an insult and violation of Ms. Zhou's personal dignity.
In this case, the hairdresser's violations, including infringement of Ms. Zhou's right to privacy and portrait, were called outdated after being opposed by Ms. Zhou during the live broadcast of the infringement, which damaged Ms. Zhou's reputation and was suspected of constituting the crime of insult and slander. Ms. Zhou has the right to demand that all acts infringing on Ms. Zhou's portrait right be stopped immediately, and that the hairdressers involved and hairdressers issue an apology statement to Ms. Zhou, and pay compensation for infringing material damage and spiritual damages.