Recently, some media reported that a tourist soaking in a hot spring at a resort was captured on a merchant's livestream. It turned out that, in order to attract visitors, the hot spring resort had been livestreaming footage of guests soaking in the hot springs without their knowledge. Later, after negotiation, the merchant deleted the video containing the tourist.

People are surely familiar with this. Livestream cameras are everywhere now, and one careless moment can put you in the frame as background. If accidentally appearing on camera is indeed hard to avoid, then merchants treating tourists as livestream material without informing them is especially objectionable: it feels like entering "The Truman Show," where not only is your daily life broadcast live, but it is also used for profit.

Such situations are not rare. Reporters found that on social media platforms, many consumers have recently complained about being livestreamed by merchants while dining, working out, visiting scenic spots, or shopping. In the comment sections of related posts and videos, many netizens strongly resonated and discussed it. Most merchants do not inform consumers, since if people knew they would be livestreamed, most would probably refuse as a first reaction.

From the current situation, this has clearly become a new marketing model: merchants provide services and also re-broadcast and promote the service content. But from a legal perspective, the reasonableness of this practice is highly questionable. Article 1019 of the Civil Code stipulates that no one may produce, use, or publicly disclose a person's portrait without the consent of the portrait rights holder. In other words, livestreaming consumers as soon as the camera turns on is itself suspected of being illegal.

During this year's "3·15" International Consumer Rights Day, the Jiangsu Provincial Consumers Council, together with the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court, released the "2023 Typical Cases of Consumer Rights Protection in the Province," including a similar case. A consumer's haircut was filmed by a stylist and uploaded to an internet platform. The consumer confronted the merchant but was not satisfied with the result, so brought the merchant to court. The court held that the stylist's conduct infringed Ye's portrait rights and ordered Sun to apologize on a social platform for 10 days and pay Ye 1,000 yuan in compensation for mental distress and other losses.

This case is highly representative. However, given how common merchant livestreaming is today, pursuing rights one case at a time is obviously costly. Whether one even discovers being livestreamed is also a matter of chance. From some online comments, it is clear that many people only discovered they had become material when they or their friends "stumbled upon it by chance"; let alone real-time livestreams, which are nearly impossible to obtain evidence of unless discovered on the spot. This may also be one reason such livestreaming flourishes: consumers find it very difficult to effectively assert their rights.

Therefore, to change the status quo, in addition to encouraging consumers to stand up for their rights, the key is for relevant authorities to guide merchants in reshaping industry rules and clarifying disclosure obligations. Just as registering for an app requires checking a "user agreement," if a merchant livestreams, it should clearly inform and seek consent before the service begins. This should become a mandatory requirement.

In fact, this is already being gradually implemented in many places. For example, some amusement parks or online courses clearly state in advance that photography or recording may occur. This practice of prior disclosure should be promoted and become a common standard across industries. Since the internet age has brought new issues, merchant service standards should also be updated in a timely manner.

In addition, relevant authorities might also clarify penalty standards for such situations and punish merchants that fail to clearly inform and receive frequent infringement complaints. At the same time, they can promptly coordinate with online platforms, urging them to handle merchants' accounts through feedback on penalty information, thereby cutting off infringing conduct at the source. This is also a form of precise governance—"striking the snake at its vital point."

In short, these livestream cameras that constantly intrude into everyday spaces should be reined in. People go out to consume, not to "be consumed"—their words, behavior, and attire should not casually become marketing material. People should enjoy the right not to be disturbed.