The key issue in the second instance was whether entering a villa that the owner had not lived in was considered an invasion of privacy. The owner believed that there was an invasion of privacy, while the judge and the defendant in the first instance believed that there was no invasion of privacy. The first thing that happened was a female owner in Hangzhou. She bought a villa a few years ago, but the key to the villa was given to the property company for safekeeping. She never even lived in the villa once. But later while watching TV, the owner suddenly discovered that her villa appeared in a film and television drama, and she expressed great surprise.
When I rushed to the villa later, I found that the things had indeed been used, and the walls were even worn. The property company also admitted that it had indeed lent the villa privately for filming, and more than once, it lent it to two film and television companies for filming. This made the owner find it difficult to accept that someone else broke into the villa without even having lived in it for a day. So he demanded compensation from the film and television company and the property company, and sued the other party for infringing on his privacy.
According to the first-instance judgment, the court required the two film and television companies to compensate the owner 300,000 yuan per day for damage to the villa's things and belongings, but rejected the owner's claim that the privacy rights were violated. . After the verdict, the owner was obviously not satisfied. The lawyer representing the owner said that although the owner himself did not live in the villa, the design and decoration of the villa were the owner's creativity. The film and television company broke into the villa and used these things in the villa. Clearly a violation of the owner's privacy rights.
The second instance is still under discussion. The two parties have not produced more evidence, or the specific outcome of the scope of privacy rights is still unknown, but judging from the definition of the latest Civil Code, This villa still belongs to the owner. Even if she does not live in it, it contains her privacy. Entering without permission is definitely an invasion of privacy. If it is defined in the Civil Code, the crime of invasion of privacy should be established.
According to the newly implemented Civil Code, the right to privacy is further extended to include private space and personal activities being protected by the right to privacy.
The appellant also gave an example that according to the spirit of the Civil Code, even if the public **** part is formed due to my participation under certain conditions, the right to privacy needs to be protected, such as when I go to a hotel. I eat in my room. The room is a public **** space, but can you come in and film me eating? What's more, this is my home.
These all show that residence and personality are closely related. The personality interests of residence (that is, private space) mainly depend on people’s will and emotions. Therefore, the formation of residence personality interests should be the person’s acquisition of residence. When it comes to ownership, it has nothing to do with whether the residence is occupied or whether personal belongings are stored.