Bosco Wong Seeks $2 Million In Compensatory Charges For Nude Photos
The Hong Kong Privacy Commission established that Face Magazine and Sudden Weekly Magazine have violated Bosco Wong (黃宗澤), Vincent Wong (王浩信), and Yoyo Chen’s (陳自瑤) privacy for taking unauthorized nude and semi-nude photos of the TVB artists. It was reported that Bosco sought $2 million HKD in compensatory charges against the tabloid for taking and publishing such photos. In addition, Face Magazine and Sudden Weekly were asked to publish an apology notice to the involved artists.
The tabloids refused to pay the compensatory charges and have filed an appeal. Bosco stated, “We are still working on the filing of claims. The matter is being handled by my lawyer.” The Privacy Commission’s ruling that the tabloids have violated artists’ privacy helped Bosco set aside a burden which has been inside him for the last six months. After being photographed fully nude through his home window last June, Bosco acted more cautiously at home. He was afraid to open his window curtains at home in order to avoid “peeping toms.”
Despite the scandal that resulted when his nude photos were exposed, Bosco was able to joke about the matter. After Sudden Weekly published photos of Bosco’s fully nude backside, his friends often teased him about the matter. Nick Cheung (張家輝) joked that Bosco possessed a “generous butt which was able to protect the world.” Since the exposure of Bosco’s nude butt, he has assumed the role of advocating for increased measures to protect artists’ privacy.
Note: This article is written for JayneStars.com. DO NOT re-post this article on any other websites. No part of this article may be copied, reproduced, rearranged, redistributed, modified by any means or in any form whatsoever without prior written permission. You may use the content online and for your non-commercial, personal use only. Copying these materials for anything other than your personal use is a violation of copyright laws.
Should you wish to share this article, we recommend that you: (i) link directly to the article at JayneStars.com on your website; or (ii) share this article link via social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.
Sources: Oriental Daily, Zdface.com
Jayne: The compensatory fees of $2 million HKD are quite low, perhaps enough to just pay for legal fees. It appears that the filing of claims against the tabloid publications is to just give them some legal trouble, demand for public apology and perhaps make them a bit more cautious in such invasive actions in the future.
Not a lot of money. Point is this won’t stop the long lens. The magazines that were sold probably is more than any penalty the magazine has to pay. Public apology is expected. But it won’t stop the papparazzi, in fact it will only escalate.
I think HK$10 million is more reasonable as there were cause for distress and invasion of privacy.
Funn, it’s hard to stop the “peeping tom” lens. Especially when most part of the blame is pushed to the artistes for not shutting down the curtain; based on many feedbacks I’ve seen from the internet.
Since many only reprimand the artistes for their lack of precautions, it will only encourage the “doggies” to be more daring and creative, in the name of “press freedom”.
This is an article from The Srandard, HK
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=21&art_id=121178&sid=35908115&con_type=1&d_str=20120330&fc=7
War with bounty hunters not over
Mary Ma
Friday, March 30, 2012
As that proverbial expression goes, a man’s home is his castle, where he should be able to enjoy his privacy whether he’s a celebrity or not.
He should be free from unwarranted intrusions, let alone peeping toms. I’m surprised the photographers who snooped on three TVB stars weren’t charged.
Legally, a person can do anything inside his or her own home – be it walking around naked, or being intimate with another – as long as no laws are broken.
But surely, there needs to be legislation to prevent someone from hiding in the bushes to spy on someone, or use telephoto lens to photograph people acting naturally inside their residence.
ADVERTISEMENT
Privacy Commissioner Allan Chiang Yam-wang deserves kudos for issuing stern warnings and slapping enforcement notices on two entertainment and gossip magazines published by Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s Next Media Group.
Sudden Weekly and Face Magazine were cited for infringing on the privacy of three artists by secretly snapping and then publishing pictures of their private activities.
I couldn’t agree more with the privacy watchdog when he rejected the magazines’ argument that the peeping was done in the public interest.
I can’t see how photos of actor- singer Bosco Wong Chung-chak walking around naked inside his Fo Tan home can be of any public interest. As Chiang said: “The reports sought only to satisfy the public’s curiosity. This is completely different from public interest.”
The commissioner also said it was unacceptable to snap pictures of actor Vincent Wong Ho-shun and Yoyo Chen Chi-yiu behaving intimately – just to try to prove they weren’t being truthful when they denied living together before they married each other.
Chiang said people should be protected from unwanted intrusions into their lives, and “the complainants should not be deprived of this right just because they are celebrities.”
He noted that although the privacy ordinance doesn’t prohibit the media from taking candid pictures of newsmakers, these particular incidents involved “clandestine” actions and an “unfair collection of personal data.”
But there is a gray area. How far can paparazzi go in a public place? It’s a bit of a problem, especially for celebrities.
This is an on-going issue that underlines the existence of paparazzi – whose intrusive behavior has violated the privacy of many individuals – prompting people to ask whether they are photographers or stalkers.
It has been suggested they “make a career out of pushing their way into other people’s lives, in a way that makes them repugnant.”
Their actions have earned them the name of “modern-day bounty hunters” – armed with cameras instead of guns – to snap pictures of stars wherever they are, in search of photos that will sell magazines.
In these two cases, the paparazzi have certainly overstep their boundaries.
It’s high time for the Association of Artistes to start consulting the privacy watchdog to set a code of conduct governing the paparazzi.
This is vital, for if they think they have won the battle, they are very wrong.
This Mary Ma must be a Bosco fan to.write an essay to support his so called home privacy
Only $2 million? I’m thinking he could have probably earned more by agreeing to a nude photo shoot with a magazine! 😛
And this is in HKD!! That’s only 25000 USD. Bosco! You are selling yourself short!!
Sorry, left off a 0, that should be 250000 USD 😛
Agree. Bosco can easily make $2 million by agreeing to a nude photo shoot with a magazine (especially with Myolie Wu in a shower).
Bosco could have do it $20 Million and people will accused Bosco of greedy. It doesnt matter how he get the money. Those tabloids are unstoppable trying to get the juice to feed their own and their children.
The Hong Kong government needs to fined Jimmy Lai’s business much harder (http://thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=121167&sid=35895484&con_type=3) or get TVB banned Next Media’s publication.
Theres no good solution to this…
Just curious if anyone knows what legal grounds Bosco has for sueing. I’m not agreeing with what the reporters did. I think it’s unethical but unethical is not the same thing as illegal. From what I understand, he was naked in his own home with curtains up. The report didn’t trespass so how can he sue.
Sounds like a losing fight. 2 million is too little and I don’t think his case is strong too because the paparazzi didn’t trespass into his property and he didn’t close the curtain. I don’t think this will make any difference.
You don’t need to trespass to invade someone’s privacy. Bosco’s case is clear; the camera was clearly pointing at him and they took pictures of him in his own home. Same philosophy as someone who used a telescope and look into your place and also take pictures. It is clear cut invasion so I am sure there is a law broken somewhere but since this is civil case, the burden of proof is much lower. Compensation is due and I do think it will be settled out of court. However the paps can argue he himself made things so much easier for them, hence the amount may be lower but in the end it is an invasion.
$2 mil is not a lot. Bosco can get more out of those sleazy paparazzi. Bosco look so damm hot on the above pic hehe
Hannahh, I miss the moustache 😛
well they violated his privacy.
I wonder if this move will make Next Magazine his enemy. I hope Next won’t retaliate my writing all sorts of negative articles about him.
Maybe Next will take back his next award and later revenge by write negative things to put him down. I just hope Next wont involve Myolie in their revenge plan for Bosco. Myolie isn’t involve at all in his whtever weak battle to fight for stars privacy.
He must be crazy. Who in their right mind want to pick fight Jimmy Lai’s company esp. Jimmy’s papz arent doing anything illegal ROFL
Next is always Next, nothing can make them change. Some ppl said that Next even made fake info about stock market, so ent. industry is nothing.
don’t you think he’s a bit bold? He’s still only a rising actor and not a veteran with clout yet. As kidd said it seems like he will become enemy with Next.
Moses play it more strategic. He and Aimee only smile and praise their pictures are pretty when paparazzis took pictures of them having dinner in Aimee’s house a few months after Bosco case.
Well, Aimee and Moses pictures are different. There’s nothing revealing about them and they most probably get free publicity.
Moses Aimee loves punlicity. Either stupid or purposely using the papz to publicize their over publicized love. Puke.
Actually Next won’t mind. They have a lot of enemies and they actually helps them to do the public stunt for free in some cases.
Maybe bosco thinks his lil bro is only worths 2millions?
hahahaha… u r so funny, Veejay! 🙂 🙂 🙂 LOL!!!
Is the paparazi guilty in th first place? I would say NO in Bosco case. firstly, the cameraman obviously stood very very far away fr Bosco. No intention of protruding his privacy (based upon the blur image) in fact, itt shows that hte cameraman is observing and drawing a line btw Bosco’s privacy and his professionalism. Secondly, it is Bosco who came by his window stark naked! Hwoever, if there is indeed a camera pin place secretly in bosco house, then i would say thats outright infriengment od privacy but in this case, it is nothing close to that. Remember when Myoli Wu arrived home, Bosco is said to be hugging and kissing her passionately b4 drawing the curtain close? what does Bosco implicate here? – obviously, he knows it is a private matter to make out with his gf.so, reli, my point is – Bosco IS NOT A VICTIM!
In some jurisdiction, it is a crime to even take photos of people without their permission, let alone nude. Or in their home. Just because something is open to you, does not mean you can reach out and take it. Along the same lines, just because he’s nude doesn’t mean they can take those photos and publish it. It was like Gill’s changing photos – obviously she was changing under the presumption that there are people outside but respect the boundaries. But they didn’t. Its unethical.
Does HK practice the same jurisdiction? I am not a hongkie nor chinese. Hence, i lack of knowledge here. And like a coin, this issue has 2 sides to it. If it is unethical to take nude pics of someone at home n publish it, similarly, Bosco shouldn’t have go near the window, looking out from the window in NUDE! Just bcoz u r doing all these inside your house, your compound, that doesnt mean you can expose nudity to the rest of the world within the boundary of your house but visible to the world at large.
I kinda agree with Lady Gaga here, foremost, there werent any hidden cameras in Bosco’s apartment and it was bosco’s fault for standing naked infront of the window.. Normal ppl who see it, will take pics and brag about it lol.
Gil’s situation is different, CHANGING room is supposed to be PRIVATE no matter what, even if you try on your clothes in a boutique, the fitting/changing rooms are also separated by gender.. so Gil’s photos was taken inside the changing room is absolutely privacy invasion..not only that..it should called as SExual harrassment too.
But I dont see the paps was invading bosco’s privacy, it was bosco who didnt close the curtain..lol.
Normal people won’t see Bosco unless they used a telescope like the paparazzi.
Kidd,
I was just saying “if” normal ppl like us see Bosco starked naked infront of the window..ok maybe just me not u lol..I’ll def take a few look at him cuz u wont get to see a star being naked everyday lol. I’m not saying people must see Bosco or try to see him naked..I mean if they accidentally see him naked.. it’s common for ppl to take pics of him.
Agree that Gil’s situation was different …….. Gil’s photos was taken inside the changing room is absolutely privacy invasion.
Investigation report said that since Bosco’s house is at top and no buildings in direct viccinity, normal.vision without telelens can’t see him.
So Kidd has a point, but since he’s a famous actor, he should’ve been more careful over his etiquette at home and not opening chance for paparazzis to capture him like that.
i gotta agree with Veejay. Gill’s case is obviously an act of violation. We are living in this advanced century where technology plays a vital part. Invention of technology has its pros n cons. One enjoys his so-called ‘private rights’ in his home absolutely but such rights must be exercised with cautious. If one decides to be naked at home, he must then make sure that his own gratification is not exposed to others. If a person beyond his home sees it, takes photos of it using a camera, it is absolutely fine. BUT THE FACT THAT THOSE PHOTOS WERE PUBLISHED for commercial derivation IS WRONG! therfore, my point is – SNAPPING BOSCO’S NUDE PICTURE IS NO INVASION OF PRIVACY BUT TO SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC FOR PROFIT MAKING PURPOSES IS WRONG!
ROFL Gillian=fake girl=crocodile.tears. She went down and can never recover although with EEG support. LOL
How bad Gillian is, her changing pix are still illegal as the paparazzis snapped it by hidden camera.
Stalking is illegal, but importantly taking pictures of people without consent is illegal too because we have the right to privacy (US) at home. Maybe HK law is different, but in US you can’t follow someone, or stalk without consent. The most important case is taking pictures that was made for profit without his consent at home which goes over the line and Bosco deserves compensation for mags making money off of him. He wasn’t walking naked off his property, if he did, the magazine has the moral obligations to publish or not, but in this case, his rights were abused at his home, his privacy. Bosco should of went for Megamillions.
but the papz didnt climb his home although he is indeed inside his home and they indeed sell the pics. They just took pic from publuc bushes or hills far away using advanced technology. The papz dont break any law.
The Hong Kong Privacy Commission already established that the magazine violated Bosco’s privacy. Why did you still insist that the papz didn’t break any law?
Does the HKPC have any legal authority? If not it doesn’t matter what they thinks.
I hope the magazine won’t bailout and take this matter to court, since I too believe they didn’t necessary break any law.
@Kidd
The PC don’t have law power. ROFL tell me what law did the papz break. They took the pics from public ground 1000m away and dont violate Bosco’s property. If he dont want to be taken telelens pics he close window or wear clothes!
It does not have any legal authority. A comission is a commission and it has not right to sue, be sued, arrest, etc. The findings merely confirmed the status of the law in HK. So now is for Bosco to sue.
There also no law in HK that said you cant take a celeb telescop lens pic without consent and sell it in magazines. A celeb privacy is different from normal.citizens. Who knows the PC must be either fan of Bosco or just want to look good in artistes eyes.
@Funn
It’s not likely for him to win because
-papz dont trespassing
-no law forbid taking pics of celeb inside their home from a faraway distance
-no law forbid took and sell celeb pics in HK even without their consent
-although can argue that normal people cant see him but he himself open chance for papz and their hitech cameras
Thanks Funn,
I believe Bosco is just trying to get an official apology to save his “face” as HKD 2 million isn’t exactly much. The magazine might decide to pay instead of settle in court.
How’s the magazine going to survive if it can’t take pictures of celebs? It’s the price to pay for being a celeb and those who can’t handle it should just retire from showbiz or return to being a klf, hehe.
-papz dont trespassing
-no law forbid taking pics of celeb inside their home from a faraway distance
-no law forbid took and sell celeb pics in HK even without their consent
The same law applies to celeb and normal people.
“How’s the magazine going to survive if it can’t take pictures of celebs? It’s the price to pay for being a celeb and those who can’t handle it should just retire from showbiz or return to being a klf, hehe.”
They can take photos when the celeb is in public places. But, when he enter his house, it should be off limit. I don’t believe magazine cannot survive without taking spy pictures of the celebs in his house. This is not Bosco staying in the ground floor with windows facing the road that anyone walk by can see with naked eyes. Bosco’s window is facing somewhere far from public eyes.
The The Hong Kong Privacy Commission commissioner might not have execution right, but, I’m sure they came to this conclusion by studying privacy law in HK.
@ Vivien
Why are you so sure there’s no law violation? Are you a lawyer practicing in HK?
REALITY.
Magazines cannot survive by taking usual pap pictures. I am very sure they have a fund called compensation fund. Their sales worth will always outweigh the compensation they have to pay. In america this is how it is done. Some do have integrity; like a wide ban on Princess Diana’s death pictures. No one ever published that though you can a few online these days. Some paps even ambushed the star to illicit violent response.
Whatever done to Bosco is a clear cut violation of his privacy. Compensation will be paid. The case will be settled out of court. But will this stop future invasion? No. It will continue on, because the sales are worth it.
Let me address this one by one. This will apply to celebs and we normal people.
“It’s not likely for him to win because
-papz dont trespassing
Strictly speaking this is true.
-no law forbid taking pics of celeb inside their home from a faraway distance
There is. It is called privacy. We have a right to enjoyment of our privacy in our private property/land. Which is why it is not legal to place a telescope on the balcony and stare at your neighbours. It doesn’t matter the distance. For some country it may not be criminally illegal but for all I am sure you can sue in civil court. It is entrenched in the constitution if there is one; your right. BUT that doesn’t mean you can open all windows and walk around naked for all to see. That person is also wrong because there is such thing called indecent exposure. NOW that is criminal but for Bosco he can argue since he was in his own home, house facing mountain, etc likelihood of any child or anyone offended by that sight is minimal.
-no law forbid took and sell celeb pics in HK even without their consent
Not true. Depends on situation. if not imagine you’re sunbathing at your backyard fully naked but surrounded by tall trees and one guy took your picture from somewhere high above and sell it. If the paps took those picture and someone uses it to endorse some product, say Bosco’s naked picture and put in front of say a condom package, that is illegal.
-although can argue that normal people cant see him but he himself open chance for papz and their hitech cameras”
True. Which is why it goes both way. But his right was violated. However he should have been more careful.
He will win a compensation. Sum may be minimal or max. point is if HK a 1st world country does not have any privacy law, no one would want to live there.
Eh Funn U.S. is first world country but a man naked in HIS OWN KITCHEN making coffee got sued by a woman passing by his house from the street for indecent exposure. Someone post this news yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6406630/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-in-own-home-while-naked.html
Sorry. Apparently the naked guy won the case and was found not guilty. I just know about this.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/fairfax/woman-flipped-off-naked-guy-th.html
Eventually yes, but FIRST he was found guilty. Then he appealed the decision, and was cleared when more details came out.
This is a matter where people become overly sensitive. If the reveal is unintentional and in own private home, of course he is not guilty. The law may be words, but it is up to interpretation.
Bosco’s nude pix are taken without his permission. Bosco dun nude in a place that everyone can see, he is in his house and it leads to the fact that he has the privacy rights. Plus, his apartment isn’t in a place that the whole world can see. Whatever the methods are, they broke his privacy and it caused damages to him.
Agreed. The papz was legally innocent and just spying from ONE KM away so not like papz is inside his property!
Bosco is waste time and money take this to court! Papz isn’t doing anything illegal just spying his window from far away and not on his property!
Their actions are illegal for sure! It broke the privacy of Bosco and that’s why it is illegal.
For example, you see a letter fallen in the ground of the library of A and A is not there, then you open it without A’s permission. It isn’t in A’s property but you still has the violation on A’s privacy.
I found it funny too that the PCPD took 9 months to invesrigate. ROFL long investigation.
If they took quick time, you will be saying that they took the case lightly and must be siding with the celebs.
Normal. The investigation period is never short except the urgent cases. Even for urgent cases, after the urgent period, the next investigation proceed will be long again.
2 million can but him 20 million blinds. Now he has no excuse to cover up his window. And some celebs tip the paps to pap them. Remember Yoyo Chen and Vincent Wong f****** in their apartment?
Vincent and Yoyo also complain. I suspicious more for Moses and Aimee who love publicity and all happy when papz took their love pics.
That’s why they don’t complain.
I feel that the Privacy Commission’s finding that the tabloids were guilty in violating artist privacy rights is expected. If their decision were otherwise, it would only fuel the paparazzi’s intrusive tactics further. It is also a means to leash back the paparazzi in going to extreme tactics to take celebrity nude photos.
However, it is a finding that is more talk than action. The compensatory charges sought are so low, it will not even make a dent in the tabloids’ profits.
Legislation is often a practical matter made to benefit the strongest lobbyists. The HK Artistes Guild seems to be more talk than action and I doubt that they will channel vast funds to advocate for tighter privacy laws. Artists desire promotion too, and we need to look at a case-by-case basis as to what truly crossed the line, what lies in public interest etc.
I would also think that the Privacy Commission has other pressing matters such as internet privacy to combat.
In the past, Leon Lai was photographed in his underwear briefs through his home window. I don’t know whether the sued the publication who released such photos. Vincent Wong was also in his underwear. Fiona Sit in her panties was photographed with her mom at home.
Other celebrities such as Moses and Aimee were dressed when their photos were taken through the home window.
Taking photos through artists’ home windows have been a common practice for the last few years in the HK paparazzi.
What makes the difference is the extent of nudity of the artists and the intimate acts they were caught in. There is much more public outrage when the artists are in a state of undress than if they were dressed. However, the “peeping tom” paparazzi resorted to the same way to get those photos using telephoto lens.
The HK Privacy Commission never acted in ruling that tabloids had violated artists’ privacy in the past until Bosco’s fully nude photos surfaced. Thus, I don’t sense that the HK Privacy Commission regards such violations as matters of high importance, otherwise they would have tackled it years ago.
However, HK is a traditional society and when a public figure’s completely nude photos surface, they begin to react. People see nudity as suddenly making the situation much more intrusive. The HK Privacy Commission’s specific decision at this specific time (after Bosco’s nude photos) is rather telling. They are responding more to society’s taboo on nudity rather than a true concern for personal privacy.
The HK Privacy Commission’s finding is the right public gesture to comfort a traditional society’s attitudes towards public nudity, made possible via the aggressive media. However, since this finding over Bosco’s case, have tabloids been barred from taking photos through house windows? They appear to continue to do so because there is no legislation to enforce it. IMO, the Privacy Commission’s decision seems to be more of a “disapproval” than true finding with legal weight.
Many legislative bills, including privacy guidelines are purposely vague to allow for interpretation. This is to establish enough legislative guideline but allow flexibility for interpretation. Often, it may also be dependent on the courts’ tendency to rule over certain matters that may set a precedent. Years later, the trend may be for the courts to reinterpret the legislative matters in a different light. Circumstancial matters are taken case-by-case basis.