(See also Civil Case (Shalom Tel Aviv) 43369-03-18 Sarit Yahya v. Sapir Academic College (published in Nevo, March 12, 2020)).
- We will examine whether it has been proven that this is a real violation of privacy.
- In accordance with the provision of section 6 of the Protection of Privacy Law, it is necessary to prove that the violation of privacy is not minimal or negligible, that it is not a "trivial act" that a reasonable person would not have complained of, and that it is a significant infringement of the autonomy or feelings or status of the victim.
- In the case before us, the content of the publication (which may and may even have been viewed by one of the plaintiff's acquaintances), which indicates that the plaintiff has great difficulty with the English language, exceeds the category of "a trivial act" and constitutes a real violation of her privacy.
- The plaintiff's testimony that the publication humiliated her (p. 1, paras. 18-22 of Peru) does not, as I have determined, amount to humiliation or humiliation as required by the provision of section 2(4) of the Protection of Privacy Law. However, the publication may cause personal feelings that are unpleasant and not simple, and therefore it constitutes a real violation of her privacy.
- According to defendants 1 and 3, they have the defense of good faith under the provision of section 18(2)(a) of the Protection of Privacy Law, which states as follows:
"In a criminal or civil trial due to an invasion of privacy, it will be a good defense if one of the following is met:
(1)....
(2) The defendant or defendant committed the injury in good faith in one of the following circumstances:
(a) He did not know and should not have known about the possibility of invasion of privacy."
- According to them, defendant 3 purchased the "domain" from the previous owners of the website and backed up the website's files. The examinations conducted by defendant 3 against the previous owners of the website did not raise a concern of a violation of any right. It was further claimed that the image was embedded on the website by defendant 2 at the beginning of July 2022, after receiving the material from defendant 3 and prior to the operation of the website and its publication by defendant 1. Defendants 1 and 3 did not know the service recipients who appeared on the website or their pictures and do not know what the backup included in the listing.
- I cannot accept the argument of defendants 1 and 3 for the defense of good faith. The presentation of the image was done for the sake of spacing. In accordance with logic and common sense, the defendants should have known that when using a person's picture, there is a possibility of violating his privacy. Therefore, the defendants do not have the defense of good faith.
- I hold that defendants 1 and 3 violated the plaintiff's privacy by using her picture, without her consent, for the purpose of spacing, in accordance with the provision of section 2(6) of the Protection of Privacy Law.
- Section 29a(b)(1) of the Protection of Privacy Law authorizes the court to award compensation of up to ILS 50,000 without the need to prove pecuniary damage. This compensation is intended to reflect the violation of the basic right and autonomy of the individual.
- The plaintiff's argument that prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the defendants removed the publication and offered her compensation in the amount of ILS 15,000 (see the plaintiff's main witness affidavit, Appendix D). However, the plaintiff refused to receive it because, according to her, this sum does not constitute proper compensation for the injury and its intensity (paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's summaries). Defendants 1 and 3 recognized their responsibility, and removed the publication as soon as they received the request from the plaintiff's attorney. However, I do not believe that the relief sought by the plaintiff is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
- I determine that in the present case, compensation in the amount of ILS 9,000 is proper compensation to the plaintiff for the violation of her privacy and which will be paid to the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 3, jointly and severally.
Defamation, really?
- The provision of Section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law states as follows:
"Defamation is something whose publication is liable: