On February 16, the Morning Post (Shanghai region) published news on the front page, quoting the director of the Copyright Department of the National Copyright Administration.
When answering reporters’ questions, Wang Ziqiang said, “If it is used to introduce a situation or illustrate a point, is it appropriate?
A small amount of quoting other people’s works is allowed by copyright law, but It goes beyond the scope of introduction or clarification.
The premise of this point of view is to quote a lot of other people's works, which is not allowed by law. In case of dispute, the opinions of the competent authorities are generally acceptable.
It’s personality. Based on this alone, Hugo might lose.
I am not a legal expert. I have a copy of the Copyright Law in my hand, and I am not sure about the implementation of June 91.
Whether it has been modified after application. I want to say that Hu Ge definitely did not study law seriously. It is said that he consulted some experts, but it is not known which experts he consulted.
Hu Ge believes that he has no basis for infringement, Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the law (this text may not be accurate, but it is still
for reference):
" In the following circumstances, the work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner, and no remuneration shall be paid to the copyright owner, but the name of the author and the title of the work shall be indicated, and other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner in accordance with this law shall not be infringed. Rights:
(1) Use the published works of others for personal study, research or appreciation;"
When we non-professionals read legal provisions, we often only see ourselves interested, while ignoring the rest. Found myself
I wanted a shield, but I forgot about the spear in someone else's hand. In the second paragraph of this article, it is written very clearly:
“(2) In order to introduce, comment on the work or explain the problem, appropriately quote the words of others in the work.
Publication Works;"
This paragraph is the basis of Director Wang. "Steamed buns" can hardly be called "appropriate". The first half of the second paragraph is applicable,
If "mantou" applies to this situation, because "mantou" can never prove that it is "appropriate", this is
A Achilles heel, so "Bun" will never be protected by this section. Because this paragraph is set out in Chapter 2, Section 4 "Rights"
Restrictions", if it is not protected by this paragraph and is not noted elsewhere in this section,
< p>It should be regarded as a copyright infringement (I don’t know if there are any legal changes or judicial interpretations, and the accuracy of this textis not guaranteed). Therefore, as long as the second paragraph of "Steamed Buns" is applied, it cannot be proved to be "appropriate". It's an infringement.
In short, "appropriate" is a dead end, and "mantou" if you can prove that you don't apply for the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, you can’t point out this Achilles’ heel.
According to Article 10, copyright includes: the right to publish, the right to authorize, the right to modify, and the right to protect the integrity of the work.
p>Right to use and get remuneration
Although the application of Article 22, paragraph 1, to "mantou" does not infringe the right to use and get remuneration, it may still
< p>Infringement of the right to modify (edit) and the right to protect the integrity of the work?The law does not seem to provide specific provisions.
< p>right, may also infringe upon the right to protect the integrity of the work. Paragraph 4 of Article 10 has a specific explanation:(4) The right to protect the integrity of the work, that is, to protect the work from distortion or tampering. Rights
In addition, please refer to Article 45, Paragraph 4 on Legal Liability:
“Article 45 Anyone who commits one of the following infringements shall, according to the circumstances, bear the responsibility to stop Infringement, elimination of influence, and
apology, compensation for losses and other civil liabilities:
(4) Distorting or tampering with other people's works;"
"Steamed Buns" Commonly known as "spoof", it may be called "distortion" in law! Accordingly, it is possible to be prosecuted.
As a layman, I took a cursory look at the legal text and concluded that this is the case. Likely to infringe.
Are you more knowledgeable than me? Now Chen's lawyer wants Hu Ge to publicly apologize and admit the infringement, and has released Hu Ge.
One yard, Hugo is still proud.
Of course, it’s not that Hugo can’t find a shield. He can argue that he did not intend to distort subjectively, but that he adapted and dubbed the movie as material to obtain new ideological content for himself.
Grateful. "Distortion" is usually used in written works, and it is indeed difficult to characterize film and television works. Written works
Text has only one element, while film and television works have three elements: images, dubbing, and subtitles. There is another question.
Is there only one opposite to adaptation, which is "distortion and tampering"? Obviously, Hugo would not admit that he was.
In the adaptation, I will not admit that I am "distorting or tampering". Is there a third possibility? I remember that photo.
The PS (Photoshop) and steamed buns being produced can also be regarded as PS. PS is not an adaptation (because
they are both movies and TV series, with completely different themes), so it seems difficult to say that it has been distorted or tampered with. The reason is that the title is not
the same and the story is completely different. The most important thing is that the story of the steamed buns was created by Hu Ge himself.
The content reflected in the dubbing has nothing to do with the original intention of the material. The only purpose of Hu Ge's use of "Wuji" is to use
The impact of this movie is to gain widespread attention for steamed buns, not to change the ideological content of the movie.
And theme. So, Hugo found his shield again.
Indeed, courts would be hard-pressed to agree how subjective this defense is.
In addition, "Steamed Buns" has been widely circulated on the Internet and has been popularized by mainstream print media ("Morning News")
"I have been reporting on "Steamed Buns" for a long time, and this is already well known. No matter whether it hurts Chen or others, such serious creation is also disrespectful to Chen and others. The key to this incident is "Steamed Buns". From online to offline, entering mainstream print media and even TV stations, if it only stayed online, it is estimated that Chen Ye would not be so angry. It was because of the intervention of entertainment writers that this matter became a big deal. Entertainment news. Chen Er
Obviously cares about the reports of entertainment reporters. Of course, he cannot throw fire on the heads of entertainment reporters. In this way, the weak Hugo becomes a reasonable candidate. Defendant.
I am not afraid of jokes. I have never seen the steamed buns, and I am not interested in making pranks. If you sue, you can sue for the right to use and the integrity of the work. The question is whether Hugo wanted to clarify a point, that is, did he express the view that "commitment is boring"? If so, then "Steamed Buns" can be regarded as a quotation. Promise, and improperly quoted a large number of promises, so Article 22, paragraph 2, applies, and infringement may be determined. I once saw a PS picture written by Einstein on the blackboard. It says "Commitment = boring It can be considered that "Mantou" has distorted and tampered with the "promise", which constitutes infringement. Generally speaking, the court will not consider the subjectivity of the defendant, but will look at the evidence. The determination of whether it has been distorted or tampered depends on the entertainment writer's report, because the so-called "distortion and tampering" should be made legally.
The determination mainly depends on the "mantou". "Whether it has had a negative impact on "The Promise" to a certain extent. At this time, the artist's report becomes the key. If "Steamed Buns" is repeatedly mentioned in the report, the audience will have a negative impact on "The Promise" Interested
“It’s disgusting, this can be used as evidence. Of course, Hugo could still defend himself, but he would have a hard time proving it.
The court is believed to be serious about its establishment. Does he have a script? Probably not. If he has a script
and can prove it existed before production, that can be used as evidence. Hu Ge needs to provide evidence to prove that "Steamed Buns" are produced seriously, but this is not enough. Hu Ge also needs to provide evidence to prove that "mantou" is not or is not.
On a large scale, it has a negative impact on "The Promise". It's hard.
It's actually not complicated. Judge
He is also a rational person. In the eyes of rational people, steamed buns are not serious. It's not serious. No
It means the content is not serious, it refers to the production techniques and attitude. That is, "Shantou" and other PS online short films,
In the judge's view, they are definitely not serious productions. Review Article 22, Paragraph 1:
(1) Use the published works of others for personal study, research or appreciation
This is Hugo’s lifeline. In fact, this one is not as simple as we think. Steamed buns
This situation may apply, but Article 22 has some words: "However, the name of the author and the title of the work should be indicated.
Call. Should" means The law is not mandatory, but once a dispute occurs, the law will be biased. This is a "seal"
Like points", Lawyer Chen may raise this point, so the impression point of "steamed buns" is gone again. In this way, it becomes more
this It strengthens the court's understanding that "mantou" is not a serious product.
Look at the meaning of "appreciation"; "study, research, The four words "appreciate" are juxtaposed.
It can be seen that the law only protects people with positive values. Pay attention to the meaning of the word "appreciate", that is, to know.
It must have aesthetic value. Only those items with aesthetic value can be classified as worthy of appreciation. Therefore, it can be used to determine that "steamed buns" do not have appreciation value, so they are not protected by this paragraph. The court held that
"Steamed Buns" basically has neither a serious creative attitude nor appreciation value, so it is not subject to any protection under Article 22. Hu Ge used Wuji's image without permission (this
is not a big problem), of course it is an infringement (right to use). As for whether it has been distorted and tampered with
Hmm. , it doesn’t matter whether there is an infringement of the right to use the work.
Just show it to the judge on the spot. Of course, the judge will look at it in advance.
< p>0 years old and above. In addition, as far as the actual situation of copyright is concerned, if "Steamed Bun" uses "Wuji" in a small amount (such as one minute) and circulates it in a small area, the court may not rule that it infringes its right to use. Said, if the circumstances are very minor and there is no profit, then let’s not go to trial at all.I think it is not impossible for Hugo to win the case, but it is really slim considering that he is an adult.
In the PK between things and people, Chen represents the Chinese film industry, and Hu Ge’s prank spirit is integrated with the country.
Huge’s personal connections and intellectual property policies run counter to each other, and Hu Ge is even less likely to win the case. If you want to give a
percentage, I will give 1%. But Hu Ge doesn’t need to worry too much.
This is the law = legal evidence +. Conservative and rational. Many things that we think are reasonable may not be feasible in law. On the one hand, the law cannot keep up with the changes of the times; on the other hand, the law supports it.
It is the mainstream, not the countercurrent, not the tributary. Maybe things will change in n years, but at least now, this is the fact.
Things have developed to this point. It's definitely not what Hu Ge wants. Hugo should take action now, admit that if there is any infringement, publicly apologize, and then take specific measures to stop the spread on the Internet, maybe it can make Chen change his mind. p>
Change of heart. In this way, Chen Yidan has gained a reputation as a compassionate person.
It is embarrassing that he also wants to be in Hugo. After acknowledging the infringement to eliminate the impact, do not resort to legal action on the matter.
In addition, the entire public opinion is now very critical of Chen. It is time for Hu Ge to give Chen face. Hugo, country
Be kinder and act faster.