The following is some information I found, I hope it will be useful to you.

Analysis of issues related to infringement of portrait rights

Disputes over portrait rights have been continuously reported by the media in recent years. From film and television and sports stars to ordinary company employees, everyone has tried to protect their own portrait rights. And go to court. In view of the complexity and diversity of this type of disputes and the current status of the protection of portrait rights under our country's laws, legal analysis and sorting of this type of disputes is of great significance to citizens' legal rights protection and judicial practice.

1. Overview of portrait rights

A portrait is a work that uses photography or plastic arts to reflect the image of a natural person, including the facial features. Portrait right is a kind of personality right, which is the right of a natural person to make and use the portrait. Legal portraits are an integral part of a natural person's personality, and the spiritual characteristics embodied in the portrait can, to some extent, transform or derive citizens' material interests. The law protects the portraits of citizens on the basis that the portraits reflect the citizens’ spiritual interests and personality interests in many aspects.

The owner of the portrait right enjoys exclusive rights over his or her own portrait. The owner of the portrait right can not only freely dispose of his or her portrait rights, but also has the right to prohibit others from using the portrait without his or her consent. Proprietary portrait. Specifically, portrait rights include portrait ownership, production rights, and use rights.

Portrait ownership means that citizens have the right to own their own portraits. Without the citizen's permission, others may not possess the citizen's portrait, nor may they damage the citizen's portrait.

The right to produce a portrait refers to the right to decide and implement the production of a portrait, that is, the right to decide whether to produce a portrait and how to produce a portrait. The portrait holder can make the portrait by himself, such as taking a selfie, painting, etc.; he can also entrust others to make the portrait, such as entrusting a photo studio or studio to make the portrait. If someone takes the initiative to take a photo or create a portrait of the portrait subject, the right to create the portrait must be obtained from the portrait subject. However, this right should be subject to some restrictions, mainly including (1) politicians, film, television and sports stars and other public figures, who are not allowed to object to others taking photos when appearing in public; (2) participating in parades, demonstrations and public speeches Persons with special news value shall not object to journalists taking photos in good faith because the purpose of their activities is public. This is the case for particularly lucky or unlucky people, parties or people present in major events, etc. (4) Suspects shall not object to judicial officers taking photos for the purpose of judicial evidence.

The exclusive right of portrait refers to the right to use the portrait to mark and commend oneself, that is, the right to decide whether to use the portrait and how to use it. Others may not use your likeness without your consent.

2. Standards for identification of portrait right infringement

(1) Relevant provisions of current laws

Article 100 of my country's "General Principles of Civil Law" stipulates that "citizens enjoy Citizens' portrait rights cannot be used for profit-making purposes without the consent of the individual. "It can be seen that to constitute an infringement of a citizen's portrait rights, there should usually be two elements: first, without the individual's consent; second, for profit. Purpose. Common infringements on citizens’ portrait rights include using other people’s portraits for commercial advertising, product decoration, book covers, and printed calendars for profit-making purposes without the consent of the individual. For infringement of portrait rights, the victim can stop it on his own, such as requesting the surrender of the film taken, removing the public display of the portrait, etc. The victim can also request the offender to stop the infringement, eliminate obstacles, eliminate the impact, or compensate for losses according to the law. The right to claim compensation for losses does not require property damage.

Other laws and judicial interpretations also make some corresponding provisions on the infringement of portrait rights. Article 139 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the "General Principles of Civil Law" stipulates: For the purpose of profit, without the consent of citizens Using his or her portrait for advertisements, trademarks, window decorations, etc. should be considered an infringement of a citizen's portrait rights.

Article 25 of the "Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that advertisers or advertising operators who use the name or image of others in advertisements must obtain the written consent of others in advance; the use is not civil. If the name or image of a person with capacity for civil conduct or a person with limited capacity for civil conduct is changed, the written consent of his or her guardian must be obtained in advance.

According to the above standards, under normal circumstances, as long as the portrait is used for profit without the consent of the portrait rights holder, it will constitute infringement.

(2) Main flaws in current legal provisions

Judging from the current legal provisions, my country's protection of portrait rights is imperfect.

Portrait rights include citizens’ exclusive and exclusive rights to their own portraits. Exclusive right refers to the right of citizens to decide whether to allow others to reproduce their own portrait through art. Exclusive right refers to the right of citizens to decide whether to use their own portrait and how to use it. Article 100 of the "General Principles of the Civil Law" stipulates that "public portraits shall not be used for profit-making purposes". In fact, it only emphasizes the protection of citizens' exclusive rights to portraits, but lacks provisions for the protection of citizens' exclusive rights to portraits. At the same time, When it comes to the protection of a citizen’s exclusive right to portrait, the General Principles of the Civil Code only emphasizes that his or her portrait may not be used for profit-making purposes without the consent of the individual. If we insist on the existing narrow interpretation, we will come to the absurd conclusion that using a citizen's portrait without his or her consent for non-profit purposes does not constitute an infringement of a citizen's portrait rights. Therefore, the existing provisions of the General Principles of Civil Law are errors in extending the legal concept too narrowly, and therefore should be understood in a broader way. It should be said that based on the exclusive and exclusive nature of portrait rights, the essential feature of infringement of portrait rights without the consent of the individual is, and the purpose of making profit can only be a common form of infringement of portrait rights.

On the other hand, citizens’ right to portrait is a kind of personality right, which mainly reflects spiritual interests. The law protects citizens' portrait rights. The most important thing is to protect the spiritual interests embodied in citizens' portrait rights. It also protects the property interests that are transformed and derived from spiritual interests. Therefore, only emphasizing profit-making is obviously contrary to the legislative purpose of the General Principles of Civil Law to protect citizens’ personal dignity from infringement. In March 1988, the Supreme People's Court held a symposium on hearing cases of infringement of copyright, reputation rights, portrait rights, and name rights in five provinces (cities and districts) in North China. It was held that unauthorized use of other people's portraits, whether for profit or not, can be deemed to be an infringement. It cannot be considered that infringement of portrait rights of others must be for profit-making purposes. However, this explanation is limited to theoretical discussion and has not yet been confirmed in legislation.

(3) Illegal reasons for obstruction in the infringement of portrait rights

Portrait rights will also be subject to some restrictions, and there are some illegal reasons for obstruction. In judicial practice and legal theory, they mainly include the following Several types: (1) Use of portraits for the benefit of the public, such as public security organs using the portraits of criminal suspects in issuing arrest warrants, and judicial officers taking photos of criminal suspects for the purpose of judicial evidence; participating in parades, People who demonstrate and make public speeches, because the purpose of their activities is public, shall not object to others taking photos of the above activities; (2) The use of portraits for the benefit of the citizen, such as a citizen making a missing person announcement because his loved one is missing. (3) The use of portraits for social news reporting. People with special news value shall not object to journalists’ good-faith photography. For example, the use of portraits of citizens to promote social justice or expose social ugliness, and special This is the case for those who are lucky or particularly unlucky, parties to or present at major events, etc.; (4) The act of using the portraits of politicians and social stars in good faith, including politicians, film and television and sports stars, and other public figures. , when appearing in public, shall not object to others taking photos.

3. Specific analysis of different situations of infringement of portrait rights in judicial practice

(1) Issues of portrait rights in collective portraits

1. Individuals in collective portraits Determination of portrait rights.

Portraits can be divided into individual portraits and group portraits.

The personality right of the portrait right holder of a personal portrait exists independently. Once an infringement occurs, the portrait right holder can claim his or her rights against the infringer in accordance with legal provisions. A collective portrait is a collection of independent portraits of each right holder and has the dual characteristics of independence and identity. In an abstract legal sense, the spiritual interests and transformed (or derived) material interests enjoyed by each right holder in relation to their individual portraits in the collective portrait are independent and divisible. Each portrait right holder enjoys the same rights in the photograph. Independent personality rights; physically, collective portraits have inseparable qualities, so when using a specific individual portrait in a collective portrait, it is inevitable that the portraits of other people will be used together.

Our country’s laws stipulate the characteristics, constituent elements, legal consequences, etc. of infringement of personal portrait rights, but does the use of collective portraits by one person in a collective portrait (or several people in a collective) harm other collectives? There is no clear provision on the infringement of the portrait rights of portrait members.

From the perspective of the legal characteristics of portrait rights, since portrait rights are part of personality rights, their spiritual characteristics can be transformed (or derived) into material benefits. In an individual's portrait, the personality of the portrait owner is It exists independently. Once infringement occurs, the portrait right holder can claim his rights in accordance with legal provisions. In a collective portrait, although each portrait right holder enjoys independent personality rights in the photo, all portrait right holders enjoy indivisible spiritual and material interests in the collective portrait. At this time, the interests of all portrait rights holders cannot be damaged because of the interests of one person. Therefore, when defining the portrait rights of a collective portrait, it is necessary not only to fully and effectively protect the portrait rights of each member of the collective portrait, but also to ensure that each member of the collective portrait has a reasonable right to use the collective portrait. If the use of the likeness of any one person in a collective portrait constitutes infringement of other participants, it will be difficult to make any use of the collective portrait. This is almost harsh on any partner and is not economical. Therefore, a balance must be struck between the portrait rights of the photographer and the right to use the portrait of the photographer, so as to ensure the reasonable use of the portrait by the photographer without infringing on the personality rights of other photographers.

In 1887, the French High Court of Paris made a precedent in this regard. A well-known actor asked the court to order a photo studio to remove the group photos it displayed, including his own portrait. The court held that one person’s interests in his or her portrait were outweighed by the interests of the whole group, one person’s personality was obscured by the whole picture, and personality rights lost the basis for their existence. There was no need to withdraw the group photo including the actor. His lawsuit was dismissed. This case developed a systematic theory that was adopted by many subsequent legislations. The gist of this theory can be summarized as follows: in individual portraits, the portrait rights holders can claim portrait rights in accordance with the law, but in collective portraits, individual portrait rights holders are not allowed to claim portrait rights. Although this explanation solves the problem of portrait rights in collective portraits, it has a major flaw, that is, the portrait of any person in the collective portrait cannot be protected. This flaw becomes even more obvious when the perpetrator maliciously uses collective portrait rights. Therefore, this theory also includes an exception. Even if the user maliciously damages, tarnishes or vilifies a specific person in the collective portrait, the proportion of the specific person's personality rights is sufficient to cover all portrait rights holders, and their portrait It is obvious that the right has been infringed, so it should be regarded as an infringement of portrait rights.

There are still differences in the degree of protection between personal portraits and collective portraits. Due to the identity of its legal meaning and physical characteristics, personal portraits do not involve the interests of third parties, making their legal protection more convenient and sufficient. Since the legal meaning of a group portrait is separated from its physical characteristics, and it involves the interests of a third party (other people taking the photo), a balance of interests needs to be struck between the third party and the rights holder. Therefore, as far as a single portrait right holder is concerned, the degree of legal protection for individual portraits and collective portraits is different. The degree of legal protection for collective portraits is lower than that for individual portraits. In other words, the individual portrait rights in collective portraits should be protected by the law. There are certain restrictions, which are sufficient to ensure the reasonable use of the collective portrait by all the people taking the photo.

2. Subjective elements of infringement liability for infringement of individual portrait rights in collective portrait rights

For infringement of individual portrait rights in collective portraits, the perpetrator's fault is a necessary condition for him to bear infringement liability. In the infringement of portrait rights, the subjective mental state of the perpetrator is intentional, and intentionality is one of the constituent elements of the infringement of portrait rights. The so-called intentionality refers to the subjective psychological state of the perpetrator knowing that it is another person's portrait and intending to use it. Knowing means knowing the identity of others. To determine whether the use of a collective portrait infringes upon the portrait rights of a specific individual in the collective portrait, in addition to the actor’s objective behavior of using the collective portrait, it also depends on the actor’s intentional direction. If the perpetrator only uses the collective portrait for the purpose of using the likeness of a specific individual in the collective portrait, he does not have the intention to use the portraits of other participants other than the specific individual, and therefore does not constitute infringement for other participants other than the specific individual. Judging the perpetrator's intentional direction can be based on the perpetrator's text description of the photo or the intention of using the photo.

3. Does "collective portrait right" exist?

A group photo of multiple people is called a collective portrait, but does there exist a collective portrait right? The so-called collective portrait right, literally speaking, is an overall portrait right that goes beyond the individual portrait rights of the participants in the group photo. The case of Yao Ming v. The Coca-Cola Company’s portrait rights dispute triggered more discussions on collective portrait rights. Since April last year, Coca-Cola, as a signed sponsor of the Chinese men's basketball team, has used Yao Ming's prominent images of three national team members on its beverage bottles. As the spokesperson of Pepsi-Cola, Yao Ming did not grant Coca-Cola the right to use his personal image. As a result, Yao Ming believed that Coca-Cola Company's behavior infringed on his right to image, and sued the court, requiring Coca-Cola Company to stop using it, apologize, eliminate the impact, and pay emotional compensation and economic loss of RMB 1 yuan. The Coca-Cola Company argued that according to the contract signed between the company and the Chinese Basketball Association and its commercial agency, the Coca-Cola Company has the right to use the overall portraits of the Chinese Men’s Basketball Team and three or more people. Their "Shang Fang Sword" is Document No. 505 issued by the State Sports General Administration, which stipulates: "The portrait rights and other intangible assets of national-level athletes belong to the state." In this dispute, Yao Ming emphasized his personal portrait. The rights of Coca-Cola have been infringed, and Coca-Cola believes that according to the contract, they own the collective image rights of three or more Chinese men's basketball players, including Yao Ming. So, can the so-called "collective portrait right" be legally established?

The author believes that portrait right is a type of personality right, an integral part of a natural person’s personality, and is exclusive to natural persons. The General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that citizens enjoy the right to portrait. Other laws do not provide that subjects other than natural persons can enjoy portrait rights. It can be seen that the so-called collective portrait rights are not stipulated in the current law. In theory, the concept of collective portrait rights is also contrary to legal principles. Citizens' portrait rights are enjoyed by individuals and are exclusively used by themselves. No other person may interfere or infringe. Except for legal reasons for prohibition, any use of another person's portrait must obtain the consent of the portrait owner. The right of portrait in a collective portrait also consists of the individual right of portrait of each person participating in the group photo. There cannot be a so-called "right of collective portrait" that transcends the right of individual portrait. As for the resolution of personal portrait rights conflicts in collective portraits, it has been described above and will not be repeated.

(2) Conflict and balance between portrait rights and copyright

Photos of portraits should be photographic works protected by copyright law.

Photographic works refer to artistic works that record the image of objective objects on photosensitive materials or other media with the help of equipment. The establishment of a photographic work has nothing to do with the photographic object (people, objects, scenery), the purpose of photography (for artistic creation, advertising, publicity and reporting, etc.), and the photographic method. The key to judging whether a photo is a photographic work is to see whether the act of taking the photo itself is an original intellectual activity.

When taking personal portraits, the photographer can be original and independently create a photographic work due to his unique viewing angle, shooting timing, lighting methods, techniques, etc.

In this way, in the same portrait photography work, there are two rights: the portrait right of the photographed person and the copyright of the photographer. When the two rights holders exercise their respective rights, sometimes the copyright owner will The right of publication and right to decide how to use the image conflict with the right of portrait and privacy of the image owner. When two rights coexist and conflict, there should be legal rules to adjust the conflict, or determine the priority of one of the rights, or determine that the two rights can be exercised in parallel. Under the rules that determine the priority of one right, another right will be restricted.

In photographic works that record portraits of people, it is generally believed that the protection of personal rights, such as portrait rights, is better than the protection of dual rights, both personal and property, such as copyrights. This is because the issue of the consent of the photographed person arises from the very beginning of the creation of portrait photography works. Portrait rights restrict whether copyright can be generated and whether it is legal. After a portrait photographic work is legally produced, how the copyright owner uses the portrait photographic work is still restricted by the subject's portrait right in many cases. The first thing the copyright owner faces is the protection of the subject's portrait right, that is, the copyright owner's right to the portrait work. The form of right to use is not as free and broad as the right to use copyright in the general sense. This is a special situation in copyright. At the same time, since the work records the portrait of the subject, the citizen's portrait right is expressed as the absolute exclusivity of using his or her own portrait or allowing others to use his or her portrait. How citizens use their portrait photography works is an issue within the scope of their portrait rights. Their portrait rights have covered and submerged copyrights. Therefore, citizens’ use of photographic works containing their own portraits is dictated by their rights. Therefore, in the case of conflict of rights, priority should be given to the protection of portrait rights.

The priority status of the portrait right does not mean that the portrait right holder can completely ignore the existence of copyright and use the photographic work at will. Once the copyright of a photographic work is legally established with the permission of the portrait right owner, the portrait right owner's exercise of the specific portrait rights contained in the photographic work has to be subject to certain restrictions from the copyright. That is to say, the portrait right holder cannot freely disseminate and distribute the photographic work to the public for profit on the pretext of preferential exercise of the portrait right. The creative labor of the photographer included in the photographic work should be protected. Among the copyrights enjoyed by the photographer, the right of publication in his personal rights should be restricted by the right of portrait, right of privacy, and right of reputation. Without the consent of the owner of the right of portrait, the portrait produced may not be displayed in public or made into a plate. Publish, screen and play. However, the right of signature and property rights in the personal rights of copyright should not be restricted by the right of portrait. When the owner of the portrait right disseminates photographic works to the public for profit, the copyright owner's right of signature and right to receive remuneration should be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Law. .

(3) Portrait rights in official conduct

In photographic works, in addition to photos that highlight the personality of the subjects with their consent, there are also photos of the subjects who are photographed due to their Photos taken while performing duties. There is some controversy over how to enjoy and exercise portrait rights in such photos.

Although there is no relevant legislation or judicial interpretation, judicial practice has made a preliminary judgment in the dispute over image rights between Qiao Yiping v. Fugu County Coal Products Operating Company and Fugu County Post and Telecommunications Bureau. Qiao Yiping used to be the manager of Fugu County Hengchang Industrial Company. The company selected coke powder produced by its affiliated fine coke plant and won the Gold Cup Award at the 1990 National Metallurgical Products Expo. In 1991, at the award ceremony for award-winning products, Qiao Yiping took the stage to receive the award as the main person in charge of Hengchang Industrial Company. The county took a photo of the leader of the Ministry of Metallurgy awarding the gold cup and certificate to Hengchang Industrial Company and Qiao Yiping receiving the award.

In June 1991, the defendant operating company signed an agreement with Hengchang Company, dedicating all the technical data and honors of the fine coke plant to the operating company, and the operating company still used the original name of the fine coke plant. , both parties have the same rights to use and protect the honors (including certificates and trophies) of the Precision Coke Factory. Afterwards, Hengchang Company was dissolved.

In August 1992, Fugu County issued a picture album, which published the award-winning photo. In 1994, the Fugu County Post and Telecommunications Bureau printed a phone book containing the photo in accordance with government requirements. .

Qiao Yiping later sued, believing that the two defendants had infringed on his right to portrait, and demanded an apology, elimination of the impact, and compensation for losses.

After trial, the court held that when Qiao Yiping was the manager of Hengchang Company, he went on stage to receive awards on behalf of the company as the main person in charge, which was an official act. The photos used certificates and trophies as specific objects of expression, which was a violation of Live reproduction of specific scenes of awarding and receiving awards. The operating company used its legally obtained honors as content for advertising, which was a legal use. Moreover, the advertisement did not distort or damage Qiao Yiping's image and reputation, and did not constitute an infringement of portrait rights. The plaintiff's lawsuit was dismissed.

This case actually involves a two-step logical reasoning. That is to say, first of all, it is judged whether the photo has a person as the central subject, and secondly, if the person is not the central subject of the photo, the protection of portrait rights is limited to not damaging the image and reputation. The author believes that although there is nothing wrong with the judgment in this case, there are contradictions and legal errors in the reasoning. If it is confirmed that the character still enjoys the right of portrait even when the character is not the central subject of the photo, then damage or distortion of the image cannot be used as the criterion to determine whether the right of portrait has been infringed. As mentioned before, the right of portrait is only the rights holder’s right to create and mark and commend. If the portrait is distorted and vilified, it is an infringement of the right of reputation and has nothing to do with the right of portrait. Just because the image of the person in the photo is distorted or vilified does not mean it should be included in the scope of portrait rights. From a theoretical point of view, the composition of the portrait right should require the depiction of the facial features of the character, and the subject of the portrait should be the person in the portrait. In the above case, the award-winning photo did not feature Qiao Pingyi as the subject, but was only a solidification of a specific scene. Therefore, Qiao did not enjoy the right to portrait in the photo.

The first step in the above case is correct, that is, we should first determine whether the character is the subject of the picture. However, there is a certain complexity in how to understand the theme of the characters composing the picture. For example, twins Zhang Weiwei and Zhang Lili, who served as leaders of the female military parade at the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China, took Xiamen Hero Three Islands Tourist Park Co., Ltd. to court in June 2003 because they believed that they had infringed on their image rights. Zhang Weiwei and Zhang Lili claimed that on September 11, 2001, they discovered that Xiamen Hero Three Islands Tourist Park Co., Ltd. had used their portraits during the Tiananmen Military Parade to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China without authorization to advertise on page B4 of the China National Defense News for commercial purposes. For-profit activities. Request a court to order Xiamen Hero Three Islands Tourist Park Co., Ltd. to make a public apology in the newspaper that originally published the infringing advertisement; and to pay compensation of 400,000 yuan in damages. The case was settled through mediation in which the twin sisters were compensated 130,000 yuan, but no reason for the judgment was given. However, leaving aside procedural issues such as the subject of the lawsuit, it is not difficult to imagine that the defendant's commercial use of photos from the military parade is its fatal point, because the current legislation has clear provisions on this. However, if we conduct further theoretical discussion, we will find that new problems exist. If the twin sisters' unit uses the photos from the military parade for non-profit purposes, will this constitute an infringement of their portrait rights? This issue can be transformed into a question: in the pictures formed by official behavior, the image of the character occupies a prominent position. Does the unit where the portrait owner belongs has some priority rights when using the portrait? Can this right be used to make a profit? as a criterion for judgment.

The author believes that the following points should be clarified in the above situation:

1. In the picture formed by job behavior, the character image occupies a prominent position, and the elements that constitute the picture can be clearly determined The main content should be that the person photographed has the right to portrait in the picture.

Take the case of twin sisters as an example. In the photo, the image of the character occupies a prominent position. The essential meaning of the photo is not to reflect the beauty of the character, but to reflect the specific history through the character. However, it is undeniable that the photo intuitively clearly depicts the facial features of the character, which is an objective reflection of the character's portrait. It can be said that constituting a portrait is a natural attribute of the photo. If there is no legal prohibition, the portrait right of the person photographed should be recognized, and the portrait right of the person in the photo cannot be denied just because the photo has a deep meaning.

2. Profitability cannot be used as a criterion for restricting the rights of an organization to use pictures.

On the premise of acknowledging that in the above circumstances, the person being photographed enjoys the right of portrait, what needs to be further discussed is whether the right of portrait should be restricted because it is formed based on official behavior. Profit-making is only a way of using the portrait and should not constitute the criterion for judging whether there is infringement. Regarding this, this article has explained it above.

3. The use of the portrait by the subject's unit must be approved by the portrait owner, but the normal use of the image by the unit should not be refused without legitimate reasons.

In modern society, personal interests are regarded as the highest interests. Personality rights are different from other civil rights in that they are not the subject’s rights to things or people outside the body, but the subject’s rights to personal interests such as life, body, health, freedom, portrait, reputation, etc. that exist within oneself. The transfer of such rights must be under the control of the right holder, and portrait rights are certainly no exception. Therefore, even if it is a portrait image formed based on official behavior, the unit where the portrait right holder belongs should obtain the permission of the right holder when using the image in any way.

However, portraits based on official behavior have their own particularity after all, and it is unfair to completely deny the rights and interests of the unit. The author believes that the use of portrait images by an organization should obtain the consent of the portrait rights holder, but the portrait rights holder should not refuse without legitimate reasons. As for the standard of justifiable reasons, it relies on the judge's common sense judgment on the one hand, and on the other hand it relies on the continuous summary and induction of judicial practice.

4. Conclusion

Portrait rights constitute an important part of personality rights in personal rights. The increase in portrait rights dispute cases indicates the awakening of citizens’ awareness of human rights and the rule of law. This article only attempts a preliminary legal interpretation based on some cases that occurred in real life, including the composition of portrait rights, the current legal environment, portrait rights and copyrights, portrait rights in collective portraits, and portrait rights formed in official behaviors. The enjoyment and other issues were roughly sorted out. However, real life is all-encompassing, and a simple enumeration will inevitably miss everything. As a codified country, citizens’ portrait rights are fully protected and we look forward to legislative responses.

Source: China Court Network