Darkness & Love 150 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 miss A's Suzy lost her lawsuit against the internet shopping mall that advertised hats as a 'Suzy hat'. Suzy filed the lawsuit claiming that the shopping mall went against her publicity rights by using her name and photos without permission, but the Seoul Central Court sided with the internet shopping mall. The judge denied that publicity rights were valid, saying, "The rights to use and manage your name and face commercially are included in the rights of your name and the rights to your image. There do not need to be extra 'publicity rights.' Also, there isn't enough to prove that the plaintiff was not able to either sign a contract about the name and image or that the contract was broken just by the fact that the rights to the name and face were invaded, and it cannot be said that there were financial damages." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiestargossip 521 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 HAHAHAHA EDIT: Okay I kind of feel bad for laughing now... I didn't realize they used her image as well. I thought it was just something like this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naru4ever 2,427 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 i will show this to anyone who want SM to sue Wu Yifan for using the name 'Kris'..... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WON Hallyu 18,527 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 JYP is always unlucky with lawsuits lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DidiM 2,430 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 SOOMPI Suzy Loses Case against Online Shopping Mall That Used Her Name without Permission On February 15, the Seoul Central District Court ruled against miss A’s Suzy in a lawsuit she filed claiming publicity rights against an internet shopping mall that was using her name and face in promotions without her permission. In response to the court’s decision, Suzy’s management agency JYP Entertainment told TV Report, “We are disappointed in the [judge’s ruling]. As to whether we will appeal the decision, we will decide after consulting our lawyer tomorrow (February 16).†The defendant, identified in reports as “shopping mall A,†sold “Suzy hats†from September 2011 to February 2014. In advertisements for the hats, the mall used pictures of Suzy from past interviews as well as paparazzi shots of her airport fashion. Suzy sued the shopping mall claiming publicity rights, which are in short her right to control the commercial use of her name, face, image, and other aspects related to her persona. The court provided the following rationale for its ruling, “The rights to control the commercial use of Suzy’s name and image are included in the right to one’s name and the right to one’s image, so there is no separate publicity right to be acknowledged.†Moreover, “There isn’t enough [evidence] to prove that as a result of the infringement of [suzy’s] rights to her image and name she was unable to sign new contracts or had to terminate existing ones, and we are dismissing her claim for damages because there is no evidence that she incurred financial losses.†Source: Soompi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ 730 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 it's late, i understand the “There isn’t enough [evidence] to prove that as a result of the infringement of [suzy’s] rights to her image and name she was unable to sign new contracts or had to terminate existing ones, and we are dismissing her claim for damages because there is no evidence that she incurred financial losses.†but i don't understand what the judge is saying here: “The rights to control the commercial use of Suzy’s name and image are included in the right to one’s name and the right to one’s image, so there is no separate publicity right to be acknowledged.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DidiM 2,430 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Advertisement isn't free. If free advertising is allowed, then why CF companies need to pay celebrities (and even non-celebrities that do advertisement) to endorse their products? Might as well everything do it for free... There is no financial loss for Suzy but there is huge potential gain for the perpetrator to use her image without her consent. According to this line of reasoning, all product advertising would be free to use celebrities' images without paying them... No company, anywhere, can use the name and pictures of people for free, especially celebs, to make money. So Suzy should have won the lawsuit. It has recently happened to Rihanna, and she won the lawsuit easily...So the Korean law is messed up, as apparently you can use celebrity's name and face for free to make money... Unfortunately NOT recognizing 'IMAGE COPYRIGHT' and 'PUBLICITY RIGHTS'... But yeah, it's well known that Korean legal system is fucked up anyways. What kind of judgement is this? The justice system needs to be fixed in Korea! Suzy is not wrong here, there is something wrong with the court instead. Whether the Korean law condones it or not, using a celebrity's name and face (without permission of the celebrity itself or its company) who is knowingly quite popular in S.Korea in order to sell your product for profit is wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seulchu 9,452 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 What the hell How can a company use a photo of a person without their consent to make profit What's wrong with this judge? Is he an anti or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
182 443 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 suzy lose isnt a big deal. and please respect the law processes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coordi_Oppa 458 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Korea law is seriously fucked up lmao what a mess.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seditary 5,876 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 it's late, i understand the but i don't understand what the judge is saying here: As far as I can tell, Suzy's lawyers are idiots who tried to get 'publicity rights' which don't actually exist through a court to establish precedence, and the judge was having none of that. Thus her lawyers were unprepared to properly present sufficient evidence that her image rights had been violated. SM has won numerous lawsuits of this kind in the past by sticking to actual current Korean law, for example. This is a lot of supposition though since I don't have court documents to read lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abra 40,910 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 She should have won imo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adda 9,200 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 The name is ok, "Suzy" is a common name, but when you use an image associated with that name, you practically use that specific person (the name is not more common, is a proper name) to promote your product and make profit, while others pay money to have Suzy as their image. Normally, you cannot use a person's image to promote your products without her/his consent. I don't know what lawyers asked and were denied but the court recognized that " ... by the fact that the rights to the name and face were invaded," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tieuyeunu 209 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 suzy lose isnt a big deal. and please respect the law processes I don't think you understand what everyone is trying to get at. Regardless if she gain or lost from this ordeal, the issue is the public use of her picture as advertisement. If they ruled it that way, anyone can have their pictures used for adverts, even adult ones, because it does not cause gain or lost for the person in question. I'm not sure how she lost, but it might be JYPE lawyers putting forth the wrong 'claim'. Since they said gain or lost, so they are likely claiming for financial lost instead of invasion of privacy and the unauthorized use of image for promotional purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natalia 794 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Awwww, oh well She should have won imo...your opinion? You are bipolar so your opinion is a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
182 443 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I don't think you understand what everyone is trying to get at. Regardless if she gain or lost from this ordeal, the issue is the public use of her picture as advertisement. If they ruled it that way, anyone can have their pictures used for adverts, even adult ones, because it does not cause gain or lost for the person in question. I'm not sure how she lost, but it might be JYPE lawyers putting forth the wrong 'claim'. Since they said gain or lost, so they are likely claiming for financial lost instead of invasion of privacy and the unauthorized use of image for promotional purposes. so do you think law master of degree JYP lawyers are stupider than immature fans here which havent graduate yet from school or even enter law college or univ? i dont think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yana101 211 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 As stated by many others i think the fault lies on suzy's lawyers for putting the wrong cause of actions. I dont think its the law that is in the wrong here had her lawyers worked properly she would've won the case imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adda 9,200 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 so do you think law master of degree JYP lawyers are stupider than immature fans here which havent graduate yet from school or even enter law college or univ? i dont think so. I honestly think the lawyer who represented the other part was more clever than JYP lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
182 443 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I honestly think the lawyer who represented the other part was more clever than JYP lawyers. i wont judge them who is more clever, my concern is people in this forum show stupidity when they think they are more clever than any JYP lawyers. respect the law respect the lawyers respect the judge ( i am judging some immature fans here saying the judge is suzy anti, the fuck) they can do Appeal to the Supreme Court. this is just the first process from law itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abra 40,910 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Awwww, oh well your opinion? You are bipolar so your opinion is a joke I'm glad you find it amusing~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tieuyeunu 209 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 so do you think law master of degree JYP lawyers are stupider than immature fans here which havent graduate yet from school or even enter law college or univ? i dont think so. I think you are really immature to berate others and make assumptions based on your own personal views. What part of my reasoning was immature or incorrect when I have: A) use formal language and proper grammar B) hazard a "guess' with no claim on "truth" I based my assumptions on the emphasis of loss which was what was presented by both sides. In this case I believe the judge made the right ruling even though the usage was incorrect. If JYPE sued for damages/loss, any solicitor worth their weight would only have to prove no damage or loss to toss the case out. An illegal use of image would have been a safer bet but would not have brought in revenue. And yes, I did study law but choose to go into IT instead. It doesn't mean I can't form a plausible 'guess'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaiELF15 611 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 i wont judge them who is more clever, my concern is people in this forum show stupidity when they think they are more clever than any JYP lawyers. respect the law respect the lawyers respect the judge ( i am judging some immature fans here saying the judge is suzy anti, the fuck) they can do Appeal to the Supreme Court. this is just the first process from law itself What are you 12? Your clearly missing the whole point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oppadidntmeanit 990 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Suzy lawyers are the ones in the wrong here- they should have handled it better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oppadidntmeanit 990 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 What are you 12? Your clearly missing the whole point no, this person is judging the idiots claiming the law is stupid when they're only assumption is that the judge is an anti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittlePinky82 1,303 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 i will show this to anyone who want SM to sue Wu Yifan for using the name 'Kris'..... lol You can't copyright names. If they were just using the name 'Suzy' you can't own or copyright names or any of us could be sued. My name is pretty common like "Suzy" is (I know a "Susie"). If it's her image in terms of photo's she would have won here in the US with copyright with that I think. It depends on Korea's laws in terms of all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.