Hangzhou women's villa was filmed by the crew for the second trial. What details were revealed in the trial?

The key to the second trial is whether entering the villa where the owner has never lived is an invasion of privacy. The owner thought it was an invasion of privacy, but the judge of first instance and the defendant thought it was not. The first thing happened to a woman owner in Hangzhou. She bought a villa in Hangzhou a few years ago, but she gave the key to the villa to the property for safekeeping. She never even lived in this villa once. But later, while watching TV, the owner suddenly found that his villa appeared in a film and television drama, and she was very surprised.

Then I rushed to the villa, only to find that things were really used and the walls were even worn out. The property company also admitted that it did lend the villa to private people for filming, and more than once, it lent it to two film and television companies for filming twice. This makes it difficult for the owner to accept that the villa he bought was invaded by others without staying for a day, so he asked the film and television company and the property company for compensation and sued the other party for violating his privacy.

According to the judgment of the first instance, the court asked the two film and television companies to compensate the owners for the damage to the things and articles in the villa totaling 300,000 yuan, but rejected the owner's claim for infringement of privacy. After the verdict, the owner was obviously dissatisfied. Lawyers said that although the owner himself did not live in the villa, the design and decoration of the villa was the owner's idea. The film and television company broke in privately and used these things in the villa, which obviously violated the privacy of the owner.

At present, the second trial is still under discussion, and the two sides have not produced more evidence, but the specific results are still unknown. However, according to the definition of the latest civil code, the villa is still owned by the owner. Even if she hasn't lived in it, it contains her privacy. Entering without permission is definitely an invasion of privacy. According to the definition of the Civil Code, the crime of violating privacy should be established.

According to the newly implemented civil code, the right to privacy is further derived, and private space and personal activities are protected by the right to privacy.

The appellant also gave an example. According to the spirit of civil law, even in public places, under certain conditions, my participation will form the right to privacy that needs to be protected. For example, if I go to the hotel box for dinner, the box is a public space, but can you come in and film me for dinner at will? Besides, this is still at my house.

These are all very clear. Housing is closely related to personality, and the personality interest of housing (that is, private space) mainly depends on people's will and emotion. Therefore, the formation time of housing personality interests should be when people obtain housing ownership, regardless of whether the house is inhabited or not, whether personal belongings are stored, etc.