Kun sued for infringement and caused controversy. Does mocking ghost animals infringe on portrait rights?

Whether Kun's portrait right is violated depends on whether he has a profit-making purpose.

According to the relevant laws and regulations, unauthorized use of other people's portraits for the purpose of making profits infringes on the portrait rights of portrait owners. Therefore, if it is profitable and actually profitable to make and spread the video of ghost animals spoofing Kun, then his portrait right will be violated. On the contrary, if there is no profit-making purpose, there is no profit-making purpose in fact, and of course there is no violation of Kun's portrait right.

Of course, the so-called profit-making purpose is not limited to spreading videos through fees, but also includes earning income through spreading traffic. In today's network society, there is a social reality that "traffic is king". If you release Kun's ghost video, if you get huge traffic, you are likely to get more benefits. Therefore, whether it is profitable or not cannot be generalized.

Of course, whether it infringes on Kun's portrait right or not, it is suspected of infringing on his reputation right. Because the video of ghost animals, to a certain extent, belittles his personal image and reduces his social evaluation, which is in line with the constitutive requirements of infringement of reputation rights.

Of course, to add, I'm not a fan of Kun, I'm just talking about things. No matter how much you hate a person, you can't make fun of others at will. This is the bottom line of a society ruled by law.