[quote=“Flicka”]They are just coming out of the woodwork now. . . . This Spontaneous thing is so, like, 5 minutes ago.[/quote] Hilarious! 
[Edited after reading sticks of fury’s post.]
Thanks for the translation! That sounds like it may be an interesting case! In most US law, the basis of that kind of suit might be called “right of publicity” (federal courts use that phrase) or “wrongful appropriation of name or likeness” (there’s a big legal encyclopedia called the Restatement 2d that I think uses that one).
Anyway, if a person is a non-celebrity, such a case is problematic. However, in the States, the plaintiff might be in good shape because, at least according to his claim, he had already been on TV when they used his image for the other ads. (In other words, if your likeness has already been made public once, you may be “qualified,” so to speak–my term, not the law’s.)
I don’t know Taiwan law, but they have the ROC Civil Code, which I’ve read is based on the (or a) German Civil Code.
I wonder if lawyers here get to use the legal theories of other countries that have civil codes? For example, the French have a whole body of legal theory about “the law (literally, droite or right) of personality,” i.e., how a person’s personality, including his or her image, is part of his or her patrimony (his or her totality of assets and liabilities).
In other words, a French lawyer might argue that somebody made off with part of the plaintiff’s personality without paying him for it.
Man, that would be a fun lawsuit!