-9A A 28. B C There was apparently never formal or written consent of any sort. There was however the evidence of Sylvia Tai (“Tai”), a teammate of Solabarrieta in the filming of the interviews and the compilation of the B C Video. The filming schedule that Tai disclosed and her electronic message D E in late October 2012 suggested that it was at all material times a university project; and that the team never endorsed the use of the Information, D E specifically the Video, by Solabarrieta for her own purpose or publication F G H on the internet. 29. In the email correspondence with the Chor couple in May 2010, Solabarrieta asked for permission to incorporate a picture of the F G H couple in the Article. Whist Chor did not specifically replied to that in his I J subsequent email, he, as mentioned, did request Solabarrieta not to quote him or his wife for their comments as they were not professionals. I J Nevertheless the Article published days later not only quoted them but also K contained their family photograph. L 30. M N As mentioned, Chor’s wife complained to Solabarrieta and her mother towards the end of August 2012. Chor’s wife complained that she only expected to help Solabarrieta with her university project but never K L M N gave her permission to publish the Video on the internet to the public. She O P Q R demanded the removal of the Video from the internet or legal action would be taken. Letter of demand was also sent electronically by the solicitors for the Chor couple to Solabarrieta in early September 2012. Solabarrieta’s mother was apologetic to the complaint. As to Solabarrieta, one would have expected denial of the complaint. Yet what she did was to express her O P Q R understanding of the concern of the Chor couple; and suggested nothing S T could be done until the web controller of her company returned to a fortnight later. S T U U V V