In May 2014, the well-known writer Chen Zhe (pse name: Qiong Yao ) filed a lawsuit against the five defendants of infringing on their copyright disputes against Yu Zheng (pse name: Yu Zheng ), Hunan Economics Company , Wanda Film and Television Company, Dongyang Huanyu Company , and Dongyang Xingrui Company, five defendants infringement of their copyrights. Chen Zhe argued that Yu Zheng adapted the script and novel of "Plum Blossoms" without permission and created the script of the TV series "Hidden City" (also known as "Hidden City" by "Hidden City"). Hunan Economics and other producers invested in the filming of the TV series "Palace Chain" based on the script. Yu Zheng and five other defendants infringed on the adaptation and filming rights of their script and novel "Plum Blossoms". The court requested the court to order the five defendants to stop distributing infringing works, apologize to them and compensate them for their economic losses of 20 million yuan. Yu Zheng and five defendants agreed that the script "Plum Blossoms" had never been officially published, and the defendant could not have been exposed to the script; Chen Zhe claimed that the infringed content was not protected by in the Copyright Law; the defendant's works were significantly different from the plaintiff's works and were obviously original. The five defendants did not infringe on the plaintiff's copyright and requested the court to reject all the plaintiff's claims. The Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing ruled that the five defendants infringed on the plaintiff's right to adapt and film, and needed to apologize, stop distributing infringing works and compensate for losses of 5 million yuan.
1. First instance court views
In February 2015, Yu Zheng and five other defendants were dissatisfied with the original judgment and appealed to Beijing Higher People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Beijing Higher People's Court), requesting the revocation of the original judgment and rejecting Chen Zhe's all lawsuit requests. The reasons for appeal of the five defendants are similar, all revolving around the plaintiff's failure to enjoy the copyright of the novel and script of "Plum Blossoms", the actions of the five defendants do not constitute infringement, and the civil liability borne by the five defendants in the original judgment was improper. After trial, the Beijing High Court made a final judgment to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
The first instance court summarized the focus issues in this case into the following points:
1. The copyright of the script "Plum Blossoms"
The script is the basis for shooting TV series, presenting the shooting content of the TV series in text form. The physical object of the script printed and bound into a book is the physical carrier of the script content. The change in the physical form of the script physical carrier does not mean the change in the script content. In this case, the content of the script "Plum Blossoms" submitted by the plaintiff Chen Zhe did not exceed the plot expression of the TV series "Plum Blossoms", and formed a basically consistent correspondence with the video and audio-visual content of the TV series "Plum Blossoms". Combined with the original records of the previous completion of the script creation in the "Creation Postscript" of the plaintiff's novel "Plum Blossoms", the authenticity of the content of the script submitted by the plaintiff, which is recognized by this court.
In this case, although the subtitles of the TV series "Plum Blossom" have been signed by "screenwriter Lin Jiuyu", the "Statement" issued by Lin Jiuyu himself has clearly stated that he does not enjoy the copyright of the script "Plum Blossom"; the "Statement" issued by Yiren Communication Co., Ltd., the producer of the TV series "Plum Blossom" also clearly states that the author and copyright holder of the script "Plum Blossom" are both the plaintiffs in this case. Lin Jiuyu sorted the script "Plum Blossom" based on the plaintiff's oral statement. It is a writing operation of record nature, not a sorting behavior in the sense of copyright law or a cooperative creation activity that incorporates original wisdom. Therefore, Lin Jiuyu is not the author of the script "Plum Blossom". Therefore, this court determined that the author and copyright holder of the script "Plum Blossom Ball" are both the plaintiff Chen Zhe of this case.
2. The relationship between the novel "Plum Blossom" and the script "Plum Blossom"
According to the facts found by this institute, although the story content in the novel "Plum Blossom" is highly correlated and similar to the script "Plum Blossom", it has originality that exists different from the script "Plum Blossom". Therefore, the novel "Plum Blossom" should be an adaptation of the script "Plum Blossom" and enjoys copyright according to law. Given that the signature of the novel "Plum Blossom" is Chen Zhe, the plaintiff of this court, the court determines that the author and copyright holder of the novel "Plum Blossom" are both the plaintiff Chen Zhe.
3. The plaintiff claims that the content adapted and filmed can be protected by the copyright law
1. The object of copyright
For literary works, even if a single plot itself is not original enough, the connection between the plots and the logical order can closely penetrate all plots into a complete personalized creative expression, and give the overall originality of the work. The selection of plots of the work, the clever arrangement of structure and the deduction design of plot development reflect the author's personalized judgment and choice, and reflects the author's original thinking results. Based on the same plot design and with different story structures, plot arrangements, and logical deductions, different works may be formed. Specific story structure, plot arrangement, and logical deduction can give a specific work its entire original meaning. If the works used for comparison form a similar overall appearance based on the same internal structure, plot combination, etc., although there are some differences in the local plot arrangement of the work, from the overall effect, it can constitute a reproduction or adaptation of the previous work. Therefore, sufficiently specific character design, plot structure, and internal logical connection are undoubtedly important elements that should be protected by copyright law.
2, Thoughts and Expressions and Their Distinguishments
Copyright Law protects expression without extending thoughts. The plots in literary works can be summarized as relatively abstract plot summary, or relatively specific plots can be sorted out from them. Therefore, there is still a boundary between thought and expression in terms of the plot itself. When distinguishing thoughts and expressions, we should look at whether these plots and plots are only general and general narrative patterns, or whether they are specific to a certain extent, they are enough to produce a unique appreciation experience that perceives the source of a specific work. If it reaches this level and is enough to reach the critical point of thought and expression, it can be used as an expression. In this case, the plaintiff listed 17 plots and 21 plots in the novel "Plum Blossom" and the script "Plum Blossom" respectively, basically forming a continuous event with causal connection. Therefore, the above-mentioned "segment" should be classified as a specific "plot".
3, the relationship between specific situations, limited expressions and publicly known materials
Although the use of specific scenes, limited expressions, and publicly known materials is not restricted by copyright law, it does not mean that it is based on it. The content of works independently created by the author will automatically be classified into specific scenes, limited expressions or publicly known materials. Use these materials to create a complete plot, including character settings, relationships between characters, scenes, plots, overall plots formed based on story development logic and arrangement, and of course they can be protected by copyright law. Creators cannot prevent others from using specific situations, limited expressions, or publicly known material, but of course they can prevent others from using works based on their original achievements. Therefore, when considering whether works and content formed based on specific situations, limited expressions and publicly known materials are protected by copyright law, it should be focused on whether the author has added original and intelligent expressions when using relevant materials and gives specific original meaning to the relevant results.
4. Whether the script of "Palace Lock" infringes on the adaptation rights of the script and novels in "Plum Blossoms"
1. Whether the defendant has contacted the plaintiff's work
The constituent elements of copyright infringement are contact and substantial similarity. Contact can be divided into two situations: one is that the work has not been published but there is evidence to prove that the defendant actually came into contact with the work, and the other is that the work has been published and is in a state of public disclosure. The so-called publication means that the work is in a state where unspecified people can contact and know through normal channels. Second, it does not require that there must be facts that someone has actually known or contacted. The public broadcast of a TV series can be presumed to be the public publication of the corresponding script. In this case, the public broadcast of the TV series "Plum Blossoms" can achieve the effect of the content of the script "Plum Blossoms" being made public, and the audience can learn the entire content of the script "Plum Blossoms" by watching the TV series.Therefore, the public broadcast of the TV series "Plum Blossoms" can be presumed to be the public publication of the script "Plum Blossoms", so it can be presumed that each defendant has the opportunity and possibility to contact the script "Plum Blossoms", thus meeting the contact requirements in copyright infringement.
2. The relationship between adaptation and reasonable reference
In cases of infringement of the adaptation rights, the basis for determining whether there is infringement is to judge whether the adaptation act and the relationship of the adaptation source exists. To verify this basic fact, the method that can be selected is usually to compare the content of the previous and subsequent works, and to judge whether the two works have a correlation in the sense of copyright law based on similar expressive elements. This correlation refers to whether there is a relationship between the creation source and the re-creation between the previous works and the later works at the expression level of the work. At the same time, in terms of the audience's appreciation experience, if it constitutes an adaptation, it is often possible to generate the perception that "the two works are similar or later works are derived from previous works."
. Reference may refer to behaviors that simply use ideas rather than expressions, or they may refer to reasonable use. As for which behavior is infringement and which behavior is a reasonable reference, the first thing that involves is the boundary between thought and expression. Ideological reference does not involve the original achievements that infringe upon the original author, and usually does not involve the situation of infringement of copyright; while specific expression references need to consider the proportion of reference content, which includes the proportion of reference content in the original author's works and the proportion of reference part of reference in new works. The measurement of this proportion should not only be quantitatively considered, but also from the perspective of the importance of reference content and originality of expression, that is, the qualitative dimension. The evaluation criteria also need to be analyzed and judged in individual cases based on the specific case situation.
3. Similarity judgment criteria for infringement of adaptation rights
Adaptation does not deny that the adapted works incorporate the original wisdom of the adapter to form new original features and become new works in the sense of copyright law. When the lines are different but the plot has significant similarity and relevance, it is unfair to the original author to deny the similarity between works based on the expression of the lines, and thus to make a conclusion that negates the infringement.
From the perspective of work type, fictional works are different from real historical works. The author has a relatively large creative space. He can freely create elements such as time, place, characters, events, etc., personalize and select and arrange public-known materials, and create freely according to the author's ideas. Therefore, even for similar plots, the differences in creations of different authors are usually greater, and the possibility of the same content or highly similar works created by different authors is less likely.
5. Whether the TV series "Palace Lock" infringes on the filming rights of the script and novel "Plum Blossoms"
Regarding this issue, this court believes that the adapter only enjoys the copyright of the adapted works in the negative sense, that is, the right to stop others from using their adapted works without permission, and does not enjoy copyright in the positive sense, that is, they may not use their adapted works on their own or by permission. The deductive works created based on previous works include both the intellectual achievements of the original author and the deductive author. Any use of adapted works will inevitably constitute the use of the original work at the same time. Therefore, the exercise of the copyright of the adapted work or any use of the adapted work, except for the special provisions of the law, should obtain the consent of the adapted work and the copyright holder of the original work. Otherwise, it will not only infringe on the copyright of the adapted work, but also infringe on the copyright of the original work.
In this case, considering that the TV series "Palace Lock" was filmed based on the script "Palace Lock" and the content of the two is basically the same, the filming behavior still falls within the control of the filming rights enjoyed by the plaintiff Chen Zhe. The filming of the TV series "Palace Lock" without permission infringes on the filming rights enjoyed by the plaintiff Chen Zhe.
In summary, the Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing ruled that the five defendants infringed on the plaintiff's right to adapt and film, and needed to apologize, stop distributing infringing works, and compensate for losses of 5 million yuan.
2nd and second instance court views
First of all, the "Declaration" and " Confirmation " issued by Lin Jiuyu and Yiren Company are punishments for their own rights and do not belong to witness testimony for statements of objective facts. The relevant certification rules for witness testimony do not apply to them. As long as the disciplinary person's true intention is the copyright owner of the work involved.
Secondly, only by meeting the two requirements of contact and substantial similarity can the infringement be determined to be valid. Contact means that the infringer has the conditions to see, understand or feel the work of the right holder. The defendant in this case learned the content of the script "Plum Blossom" by watching the TV series "Plum Blossom". Yu Zheng stated on Weibo that he watched the TV series "Plum Blossom" many times, so he met this requirement of contact. However, the second instance court believed that the audience perception experience, which was the main reference factor in the first instance, was only a simple investigation of Internet users by some websites, and most of the investigation subjects were perceived judgments after comparing the two TV series, which was not exactly the same as the adaptation of the textual work claimed in this case. Therefore, the second instance court still compared the character setting, character relationship, plot selection, structural arrangement and other factors between the script, novel and script and concluded that the five defendants constituted infringement. Finally, regarding the responsibility of tort liability for , the second instance court held that it was wrong for the original court to find that Hunan Jingshi Company and other people were wrong to provide assistance to Yu Zheng's behavior of infringing on the adaptation rights of the work involved. However, the above defendants had a common intention to create the script "Palace Lock and Continuing City". Their mutual behaviors jointly infringe on Chen Zhe's adaptation rights and should bear joint and several liability. In addition, the defendants such as Dongyang Huanyu Company are the producers of the TV series "Palace Locks and Chain" and should bear the responsibility for infringing on the filming rights.
Yu Zheng authorized other defendants to film the TV series "Palace Locks and Chain" and provided substantial assistance as the producer and producer. He jointly infringed the plaintiff's right to film with Hunan Economics and other defendants, and should bear joint and several liability. In summary, the second instance court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
33. Enterprise Help Views
During the trial of this case, the court made judgments and boundaries based on the specific situation, and identified the complete whole formed by the 21 plots of the plaintiff's script as an element of copyright protection, and made a breakthrough judgment based on some legal theories and precedents. This is a breakthrough in the sense of judicial practice.
The trial of this case fully utilizes the principle of "dichotomy of thought and expression". The principle of dichotomy of thought and expression only protects expression but does not protect the specific connotation of thoughts draws a roughly clear boundary for copyright protection content. As the expression form of ideas and ideas, ideas and expressions are indispensable parts of the works, and any work contains ideas and expressions. However, no expression can be completely separated from certain ideas and does not reflect any expression of thought. In specific judicial practice, what is the idea that is not protected by copyright law, what is the expression form protected by copyright law, or whether the defendant "plagiarizes" the idea in the plaintiff's work or the expression form in the plaintiff's work, forms the key to judging whether to infringement, and should be defined by the court in specific infringement lawsuits.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-