The record company must compensate you for damages – Corriere.it

A lady was walking on the street, in the outskirts of Naples, in the company of her lover, when she appeared in a video of Gigi Di Alessio. Sony had to pay her for the damages: in fact, as soon as she found out that she was in the video, she asked for protection because these frames caused her various personal problems. So, in 2012, during the filming on the streets of some neighborhoods of the suburbs of Naples for the video for the song “Oj nenna n” sung by Gigi D’Alessio, the woman was photographed walking side by side with a man who was not. her husband. The video was very successful at the time and DVD was sold with TV Sorrisi e Canzoni and quickly became very popular, especially in the neighborhood where the same lady lives. Well, according to the Naples Court of Appeal, compensation was due to the woman, who found herself a “victim” of a popularity she did not want, and therefore, by appearing in a video of this size, the right to privacy, as well as the reputation of the woman was violated, and her private life is at the mercy of everyone.

Q&A between Sony and the judges

The judges declared, in fact, that: the simple news of a woman’s extramarital affair, and even more than the visible physical traces of this relationship, arouse a wide curiosity especially in the context in which you live, which immediately became the subject of gossip. The record company thought rather than have to compensate the woman since the video was shot outdoors, therefore, there was an alleged tacit approval. In support of this thesis, Sonny stated that the lady focused her gaze on the photographic instrument for a few moments, but the judges emphasized that, instead, he could have been merely curious about the filming, and moreover there was not a single scenography that made us assume that a clip was shot Video. Sonny then tried to point out the fact that the woman’s relationship had been compromised prior to filming. The objection backfired against the record company, with judges then confirming how this event then led to the subsequent divorce: the video clip actually became the vehicle through which confidential information was disseminated.