What do you think of Wu Jiesi's misuse of Wen Jie's photos and tearing up the North American Student Daily?

Personally, I think there are three standards to deal with negative news: reasonable, reasonable and legal.

It is best to combine the three. If not, on the premise of "legality", choose one from the other two. The worst result is "legal".

Next, let's talk about the whole practice of North American Student Daily (hereinafter referred to as Daily Jun) in the Wu Jiesi incident.

Event outbreak

The reason for the outbreak of the incident was that Daily Jun used the photo of a foreigner, Wen Jie, without permission, which violated his portrait right. Since Tiantianjun's account number is a marketing number, and every article has the nature of advertisement, then this kind of infringement of portrait rights is established, and it has a bad influence on Jay Wen Ren without communication and Jay Wen Ren's permission. So at this stage, what is the nature of the daily practice? Illegal, unreasonable, unreasonable.

Daily Jun actively communicates with Wenjie.

After seeing Wen Jie's message, Daily Jun took the initiative to communicate with Wen Jie and deleted the article at the first time. This practice is reasonable, and then it needs to be "legal". What is legal? Stop the infringement, compensate the losses and restore the reputation. But to do this, we need to communicate with the portrait right holder.

Wu Kai Kaisi Si Daily Jun

Next, Wu Jiesi tore up the Daily Jun, and Jie Wen Ren produced a power of attorney. It means that Wu Jiesi has the full authority to handle this matter on behalf of Jervin. To be reasonable is to be reasonable. Because Jermaine has enough trust in Vujacic.

But is it legal? Illegal.

In Tian Tianjun's article, it is also very clear: "It is illegal for the other party to entrust Wu. If Wenjie Jackson wants to talk with a lawyer, he must present a formal power of attorney. The parties concerned must entrust a professional lawyer with a business license in China. The parties need to send the power of attorney to the embassy for certification. "

So obviously, what Wu Jiesi and Wen Jie did at this stage is "reasonable and illegal".

Sasha Vujacic's practice

Wu Jiesi opened up appreciation in the article of tearing Rijun, that is, carrying out purposeful profit-making behavior in the process of safeguarding rights. It's really hard for me to judge whether this is legal or not. It should not be illegal, but it is "unreasonable". Your friend entrusts you with safeguarding rights, but you make money from it?

Daily Jun's Apology and Push

The apology and push of the daily monarch, even if many people feel that they are insincere, is actually a legal procedure. The only problem is that Jervin is not cooperating.

Yes, many people say that it is obvious that the marketing number was dialed wrong first, so why should the victim cooperate?

However, the compensation for infringement of portrait right is not just a matter of money. As mentioned earlier, "stop the infringement, compensate the losses and restore the reputation". Stopping infringement is deleting posts. Compensation for losses is to give the victim a reasonable amount of compensation according to the severity of the infringement. Restoring reputation means publicly apologizing and clarifying to save the reputation of the victim. Daily Jun's behavior so far is indeed legal. Moreover, if it is not handled according to legal procedures, the worst result will be that if Wen Jie is a bad person, he will be very troublesome if he thinks of one thing and does another, and he will lose money today and ask for compensation tomorrow. Legal procedure is the guarantee of the interests of both parties.

Please believe in the law

In this incident, we have seen that many people's dislike of marketing numbers has reached the point where they can not consider whether they are legal or not, which is not good.

When we suffer losses, the law is our backing. If public opinion can trample on the law, can the law still protect you when you are hurt in the future?

The law is ruthless, not asking right or wrong, only asking whether it is legal or not. If you break the law, you will bear the consequences, and if you are legal, you will do whatever you want. Isn't that what it should be?

Above.