Why was Yang Mi's portrait misused, and what was So-Young's infringement about?

[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
 
Case review
Recently, SoYoung (SY.US), known as the "first stock in internet medical aesthetics," issued an apology statement revealing that the company used Yang Mi's portrait without her permission on the "SoYoung" WeChat official account, and published false information and content disparaging Yang Mi. There is no cooperation or any other relationship between Yang Mi and the company. The aforementioned actions have infringed upon Yang Mi's legal rights and caused negative impact and losses to her. SoYoung has made a sincere apology to Yang Mi for the aforementioned infringement.

 
 

It is reported that Yang Mi is not the first celebrity to sue SoYoung. According to incomplete statistics, since October 2016, more than 90 celebrities have sued SoYoung over “network infringement liability disputes and portrait rights disputes,” with plaintiffs including Li Xiaolu, Qin Lan, Xu Weizhou, Jiang Qinqin, Zhang Hanyun, Lu Han, Hua Chenyu, Ju Jingyi, and others.

Frequent conflicts with celebrities may be related to the inherent need for traffic as an "internet medical aesthetics service platform" of SoYoung.

 

 
The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China "
Article 1018
A natural person enjoys the right to likeness and has the right to legally make, use, disclose, or permit others to use his or her own likeness.
Likeness refers to the identifiable external image of a specific natural person reflected on a certain medium through images, sculptures, paintings, or other means.
 
Article 1019
No organization or individual may infringe upon another person's right to portrait by means of vilification, defacement, or forgery using information technology. Without the consent of the portrait right holder, no one may produce, use, or publicly disclose the portrait of the right holder, unless otherwise provided by law. Without the consent of the portrait right holder, the owner of a portrait work may not use or publicly disclose the portrait of the right holder by means of publication, reproduction, distribution, rental, exhibition, or otherwise.

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
It is not the first time that SoYoung has used celebrity portraits without permission. It is no exaggeration to say that the celebrities who have sued SoYoung span nearly half of the entertainment industry. What is puzzling is that after being sued for infringement, most companies would usually tone things down, or at least avoid falling into the same pit again. So why does SoYoung, even at the risk of being penalized, still target celebrities again and again? In fact, this is SoYoung’s tactic for grabbing attention.

It is understood that Soap's revenue mainly comes from two parts: appointment service fees and information service fees. The former is the commission earned when consumers book medical aesthetic projects through Soap, while the latter is the promotion fees charged to medical aesthetic institutions on the platform. For both parts, traffic is crucial to Soap. Only by continuously attracting consumers can it convert them into actual transactions.

From SoYoung's perspective, the compensation paid to celebrities might be seen as advertising expenses to attract traffic, but SoYoung has overlooked the feelings of its audience. Before we become consumers, we are all viewers of the platform, and we assess its credibility. After all, medical aesthetics procedures can affect one's appearance in minor cases or life and health in serious ones. If a platform repeatedly infringes on rights, it will gradually lose its reputation over time. Who would then trust and choose such a platform? Therefore, SoYoung's approach can only bring temporary traffic and is far from a sustainable strategy. It also serves as a warning to relevant authorities to introduce laws and regulations as soon as possible to effectively curb this traffic “extortion” phenomenon and genuinely protect citizens' legitimate rights and interests.