[ad_1]
Plaintiff and third parties making independent claims (plaintiff’s sister and spouse) have applied to court for an order that defendant (photographer) not reproduce, display, print, broadcast or otherwise distribute on any platform or medium from Internet. publicly available) images of the applicant and his relatives and other close persons from photographic and visual material created by the accused. The plaintiff assessed the non-material damage at 1,000 euros and the third parties at 1,500 euros each.
The applicant alleged that he and his relatives did not give their consent and that they saw the videos uploaded and made available to the public on the Internet by chance. Before going to court, the plaintiff sent a claim to the defendant and demanded an end to the wrongful conduct, but the defendant refused to do so.
The Klaipėda District Court confirmed the claim in part, found a violation of the right to image, ordered the defendant to stop streaming the videos on the internet platform www.youtube.com and the internet platform https: // www .clip.fail and awarded the plaintiff EUR 100 for non-pecuniary damage, – after compensation of EUR 200 for non-pecuniary damage.
The plaintiff and the third parties disagreed on the amounts of compensation for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the Court of First Instance and requested compensation of 1,000 and 1,500 euros respectively.
According to the appellants, the district court did not take into account the fact that the violation of their privacy (right to the image) lasted for more than three years, this violation was committed intentionally, knowingly and for commercial purposes.
The district court dismissed the appeal, noting that to assess whether a person has suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of a violation of their right to image and whether compensation alone is sufficient to award damages is relevant in each case. to the circumstances to determine if a person could have suffered and has suffered the negative consequences of a violation of the right to image (physical or mental pain, depression, humiliation, deterioration of reputation, etc.).
The panel of judges pointed out that the recognition of a violation is an independent means of protecting the violated rights of an individual, therefore, not in all cases, to protect the violated non-patrimonial right, compensation for non-patrimonial damages is awarded. Compensation for moral damage is awarded if in a particular case it is established that the recognition of the violation of the law is not sufficient to protect the violated right.
After examining and evaluating the evidence gathered in the case, the panel of judges concluded that there was no data on the intense experiences lived by the appellants, on mental shock, emotional depression, humiliation, deterioration of reputation or diminished communication opportunities . There is no evidence that the appellants have consulted doctors or other professionals as a result of their experiences. Although a video of a third party’s wedding has been made public without their consent, such an infringement cannot be considered substantial and causes significant non-pecuniary damage.
In the opinion of the Chamber, in the present case, the recognition of the violation of the law and the non-pecuniary damage awarded is sufficient and just satisfaction for the damage suffered, without any reason to increase the non-pecuniary damage. The panel of judges did not agree with the appellants’ assertion that their rights had been violated
lasted more than three years because he found that the appellants were still in 2017. He received videos of the defendant by email that were published online, but he did not make any claim against the photographer for their distribution. You filed the claim only after three years. According to the court, “the same long-term omission by the same appellants cannot be considered as an intentional and deliberate intention of the accused to commit unlawful acts over a relatively long period, so that there is no reason to increase the compensation for non-pecuniary damage” . “.
It is strictly prohibited to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere or to distribute our material in any way without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to indicate DELFI as the source.
[ad_2]
