What are the criteria for determining the infringement of portrait rights?

Paragraph 2 of Article 10 19 of the Civil Code stipulates that portraits and documentary photographs taken without the consent of the portrait owner shall not be published or exhibited in principle. If published, it can be regarded as infringement. In the previous General Principles of Civil Law, the definition of infringement of portrait rights included "for profit" as an important element of infringement of portrait rights, but the latest Civil Code deleted this point, that is to say, whether it is commercial or not, it is an infringement of others' portrait rights without others' consent, so the use of other people's image works must obtain the consent of the parties concerned.

At the same time, article 1020 of the Civil Code stipulates five reasonable behaviors that can be implemented without the consent of the portrait owner. If it belongs to these five reasonable behaviors, it does not constitute an infringement of portrait rights. These five reasonable implementation behaviors are:

(1) Using the public portrait of the portrait owner within the necessary scope for personal study, art appreciation, classroom teaching or scientific research.

(2) In order to carry out news reports, it is inevitable to make, use and make public portraits of portrait holders.

(3) In order to perform their duties according to law, state organs make, use and publicize portraits of portrait owners within the necessary scope.

(4) It is inevitable to make, use and publicize the portrait of the portrait holder in order to show the specific public environment.

(5) Other acts of making, using or publicizing portraits in order to safeguard public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of portrait owners.

There are three principles to determine that the right to portrait has been violated: first, there is damage fact. For example, quoting portraits of others causes economic, reputation damage or mental torture to others. Second, the infringer is subjectively at fault (including intention and negligence). Third, there is a causal relationship between the damage facts and the tort. Article 150 of "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues of Implementation (Trial)" stipulates: "If a citizen's right to name, portrait and reputation is damaged, he has the right to demand to stop the infringement, restore his reputation, eliminate the influence, make an apology, and may demand compensation for the losses."

Article 100 of China's General Principles of Civil Law stipulates: "Citizens have the right to portrait, and their portraits shall not be used for profit without their consent." We don't want our image to spread viral on the Internet, and we are also made into various expression packs by netizens, pushing ourselves and others. Of course, some people don't want their portrait rights to be violated. As the saying goes, don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Who wants to be the object of comments from netizens?