What will happen if a photography studio infringes on the right to portrait?

First, the subject of responsibility for the infringement of portrait rights by wedding photography shops If the wedding photography shop infringes on the portrait rights of others, the specific subject of responsibility depends on the nature of the wedding photography shop. If the wedding photography shop is registered as an individual industrial and commercial household, its head of household should be the subject of tort liability; If the wedding photography shop is registered as a partnership, all partners shall bear the tort liability; If the wedding photography shop is registered as a limited liability company, the wedding photography limited liability company shall bear the tort liability. As for individual industrial and commercial households as the main body of civil litigation, Article 41 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues has made specific provisions: "Individual industrial and commercial households with a shop name shall take the head of household (owner) registered in the business license as the party to civil litigation, and indicate in the litigation documents that they are the head of a shop name." In this case, Tang, the owner of the wedding photography shop, as the head of individual industrial and commercial households, transferred the shop to others for operation after his infringement was discovered, and the head of the shop was registered as others. Since the tort liability of individual industrial and commercial households is borne by the head of household and has personal attributes, others do not need to bear the tort liability of Tang. Therefore, the tort liability such as compensation for losses and apology should be borne by Tang. Two. Determination of items and amounts of damages for infringement of portrait rights. Portrait right contains certain economic benefits. Without the consent of citizens, the infringer uses citizen portraits for advertising, trademarks, window decoration, etc. for the purpose of making profits. And get some illegal benefits. Therefore, the infringer who infringes on the citizen's portrait right should pay a certain usage fee. At the same time, it causes a certain degree of mental pain to the portrait owner, so the infringer should pay the mental damages. Therefore, the damages for infringement of portrait rights should be divided into two items: portrait rights use fee and spiritual damages. With regard to the determination of the right to use portraits and the amount of compensation for mental damage, the judge should comprehensively consider the circumstances of the infringer's infringement (such as means, methods, occasions, duration, etc.). ), the infringer's compensation ability and the local average living standard, and appropriate use of discretion to determine the amount of compensation for the loss of infringement of portrait rights. In the case of similar infringement, the determination of the right to use the portrait and the amount of compensation for mental damage can neither be divorced from the local average living standard nor from the infringer's compensation ability, which is a personalized realistic influencing factor. Third, the specific ways to deal with the injured party's apology. The specific ways of apology of the injured party should be treated differently. If it is feasible for the injured party to ask for an apology in a specific way, which can better soothe the mental pain of the injured party, then the court should support this litigation request; If the injured party asks for an apology in a specific way, it can only better soothe the mental pain of the injured party, which is not feasible, and may also have a certain adverse impact on the legitimate rights of others, so the court should not support it. In short, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the situation that the infringer has apologized and the adverse impact that the specific apology method will bring to the legal rights of the third party. In this case, the court held that the defendant Tang should publicly post an apology letter in the place where the wedding photos of the two plaintiffs were hung for one year, and the original wedding photography shop of the defendant Tang had gone through the cancellation of industrial and commercial registration, and the shop had been transferred to others, and others no longer operated, and others still operated wedding photography. Therefore, it is obviously not feasible to publicly post an apology letter in the place where the wedding photos of the two plaintiffs were hung for one year, which will give others normal business activities, business reputation and operating income.