Regarding the Civil Judgement by the Taipei District Court Docket No. 109-Su-Zi-4589, the other two observations by this article, i.e. the practice of athlete sponsorship and endorsements, and the boundaries and protection of reputation and publicity rights, are as follows:
- the Practice of Athlete Sponsorship and Endorsements
From this case, it can be seen that sports starts can work with agencies to secure various types of sponsorships or brand endorsements from enterprises. These come in various forms, including:
- Direct monetary sponsorship
- In-kind sponsorship (such as products, accommodation, gym memberships, flight tickets, etc.)
- Image or brand ambassador
- Commercial advertisements and promotions
- Authorization to use their likeness
Athletes, with the assistance of their agencies, negotiate with enterprises, sign contracts, and carry out events. The revenue is then settled and divided according to the terms of the agency contracts. This collaborative model allows athletes to secure additional income, enhance their visibility, and focus on training, while also creating a positive image for the partnering enterprises. If the brand aligns well with the athlete's characteristics, a synergistic effect can be achieved. This approach is similar to how celebrities seek endorsements or sponsorships (such as for concerts or events), with similar considerations involved.
- the Protection of Athletes' Reputation and Publicity Rights
- Reputation Rights
Reputation refers to the evaluation of an individual's character, fame, or credibility as perceived by society. When the court determines whether reputation has been harmed, it assesses whether the statement is capable of tarnishing the social evaluation of the individual. However, when it comes to public figures, the court generally applies a stricter standard. It takes into account the balance between protecting personal rights and preserving freedom of speech. In current practical cases, if the statement is based on facts or pertains to public interest, even if the tone is harsh or critical, it may still be regarded as a "reasonable comment" and not constitute defamation.
In this case, the Agent posted on his personal Facebook, accusing Wen Tzu-yun of "breaching the contract unilaterally, privately engaging in activities, and damaging the company's image and reputation." After reviewing the case, the court determined that the post was based on the factual dispute over the contract between the parties and was not unfounded. Therefore, it did not constitute a violation of reputation rights. The court further noted that Wen Tzu-yun, being a well-known athlete and public figure with significant social and media influence, had the resources to address the statement. After the post, she also had her lawyer clarify the matter on her behalf, and thus, the court did not find her reputation rights to have been infringed upon.
It is worth mentioning that according to Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, if someone's reputation is harmed, they may request an appropriate remedy to restore their reputation. In past cases of reputation rights infringement, it was common for the court to order the offender to publish an apology notice. However, in the Ruling by Constitutional Court Docket No. 111-Shian-Pan-Zi-2, the holding states that "appropriate remedy" does not include a court ordering the offender to issue an apology, as this would not align with the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Since this ruling, courts have refrained from ordering public apologies as a remedy for reputation rights violations.
- Publicity Rights
Publicity rights refer to the representation of an individual's image and personality, which is an important aspect of one's personal rights. The “other personal rights” under Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code also includes publicity rights. However, a victim may only request compensation for emotional distress if the infringement is "serious in nature."
In this case, the court ruled that the Agent's Facebook, which promoted sports courses, only used one photo of Wen Tzu-yun and contained only one post. Additionally, the promotional activity for the courses had already ended. Given these factors, the court determined that the infringement did not meet the criteria of "seriousness" and dismissed the claim for damages.
Based on the above, brands, coaches, or sponsors who wish to use an athlete's photo for promotional purposes should obtain the athlete's written consent in advance. The consent should clearly specify the scope, duration, region, and method of use to avoid potential disputes over the unauthorized use of someone's likeness and infringement of publicity rights.
Conclusion
In today's professional and commercialized environment, athletes' agency contracts, sponsorships and endorsements, and the protection of their personal image rights have become increasingly important. As seen in this case, the legal relationship between athletes and their agencies is essentially similar to that of the entertainment industry, with the core principles being trust, transparency, and clear contracts. With the well-defined contract terms and a foundation of mutual trust, the professional value and commercial interests of an athlete's career can be balanced and developed sustainably in the long run.
(The article is originally in Chinese which can be found here.)