[ad_1]
The guy scoffed at G.Gurevičiūtė’s opinion and she sued him. He based his move on the fact that he was not a public figure, so it was not possible to use the image without his consent.
The man reportedly used and publicly posted his image on a social network, violated his right to the image and asked to be prohibited from displaying, posting, printing or using his image in any way without consent. In addition, the host requested that Mr. Mikolaitis be ordered to pay the costs in the amount of 771.71 euros.
It is true that P. Mikolaitis won the case, the court did not comply with G. Gurevičiūt solicitud’s request. After this knowledge, the “influencer” did not hide his public resentment.
“No one should call ‘the abortion remnant’ any other way, even if it is masquerading as artistic satire. Bullying is a recent social scourge, which has recently reached unprecedented levels in Lithuania. We have a series of newborn “influencers”, event presenters, radio and television who have gathered their followers and gained popularity by making fun of other people. I do not understand what the social responsibility brands declare when choosing these people to represent them.
I am against bullying. I do not respond at the same time, even when they are directed at me. I believe that harassment in Lithuania must come to an end and I will do everything in my power to do so. We live in a state that is governed by the rule of law, so I decided to defend my honor and dignity with legal assistance. Being a visible person does not entitle anyone to insult, ridicule or degrade my honor and dignity. The judgment of the Court of First Instance in the case against PM would certainly be skeptical. I believe that common sense and laws are followed in Lithuania, ”the woman wrote on social media.
We remind you that G. Gurevičiūtė pointed out to the court that P. Mikolaitis had publicly called her “residual abortion” (an epithet that has a particularly negative meaning in society). She emphasized that by doing so, Paul de Miko was seeking to humiliate, belittle, and offend her.
Paul de Miko, for his part, disagreed with the “influencer” and said that he did not call the woman any epithet, but only wanted to draw attention to her public records in the social space, which could be misinformed and harmful in the face of globalization. pandemic. In addition, according to P. Mikolaitis, G. Gurevičiūtė is a public person, explaining that a woman is an “influencer”, is followed by tens of thousands of people, is the presenter of the program, therefore, widely publishes information for the public.
The Vilnius Regional District Court made a decision and declared that G. Gurevičiūtė’s claim was unfounded and the woman was obliged to cover the legal expenses incurred by P. Mikolaitis, who hired a lawyer, (EUR 1815). Paul de Miko has also managed to prove that the host is a public figure and the use of his image is permitted under the copyright law of the European Union.
G. Gurevičiūtė, who has heard the court’s verdict, can still appeal within 30 days.
[ad_2]
