Home > News content

Tiktok Kwai won B station, and was also sad to hear the quiver and rush?

via:博客园     time:2020/7/4 15:18:10     readed:233


Wen / BA Jiuling

Source: Wu Xiaobo channel

These two days, everybody is eating the melon that Tencent sues old godmother, but a few days ago, still have two big factories also fight lawsuit

Let's talk about the context first

When the movie "I'm not the God of Medicine" was in flames in 2018, a B station UP owner spread the original sound of the film to the public and named it accurately

At that time, Youku owned the copyright of the film. Youku thought that I had the exclusive right to spread information on the Internet. Anyone who wanted to use the film, even if it was pure audio, would have to pay royalties first.

The story here, the panic is the up master who carries the audio. What's the relationship with station B?

At this time, Youku also pointed out that: without my permission, station B not only approved the movie soundtrack, but also provided movie soundtrack playback and download services without my permission, which was to help users infringe my copyright.

No, Youku sued station B. A few days ago, the case came to a conclusion. The first instance of Beijing Internet court found that Shanghai Kuanyu Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the operator of station B) constituted a helping infringement, and it needed to compensate Youku 65000 yuan.

At this point, some readers wonder that the full version of "I'm not the God of medicine" can be found on station B. It can be seen that station B has purchased the copyright, so what's the matter with losing the lawsuit?

I wasn't the god of medicine. It was released in 2018. Youku had copyright in the same year, and the movie could be broadcast on youku when it went offline. But B only bought the copyright of "I'm not the god of medicine" in 2020. The time when B UP host uploads the original sound of the movie is even more subtle

But Youku sued an infringing audio, and thousands more. Baba input at B station


Movie soundtrack on station B

According to the law of the case of "I am not the God of medicine", if the copyright owners want to protect their rights, I am afraid the lawsuit will be accurate.

The Kwai Chung new problem has come again. We are still doing some video on the App, such as jitter, fast hand, tiktok, etc., is it also a number of infringing contents?


Tiktok on a movie account page

Or, now that many people like to upload and share some audio and video, will they inadvertently walk on the edge of the law?

Therefore, the minibus specially invited industry observers, lawyers and up owners to tell everyone about this.


In fact, the editing, editing and adaptation of film and TV plays on the short video platform are huge and disorderly, and the resulting infringement is a huge volume. There have been similar infringement lawsuits for a long time. However, for the sake of traffic and content quality (the picture quality of film and TV series editing is usually higher than that of ordinary original video), most of the platform turn a blind eye to the principle of safe haven (that is, the platform will investigate after receiving the report).

From this case, it can be seen that film and television institutions have more awareness of rights protection. However, if such cases still stay on the shock and fragmentation of rights protection, they can not really form a more effective deterrent in the industry. The volume of cases should be at least 10 times larger than the current situation, and the punishment should also form a punitive effect. Only in this way can the sharing platform and the content creators with infringement act be deterred.

Under the technical conditions, it is not difficult to find the infringement of film and television content (including editing state). Every film and TV play has its own digital characteristics. If the industry big data platform is formed based on such digital characteristics, various clips can be easily identified in the pre content review stage. Only the barriers between the platforms and the internal selfishness are the key to such behavior repeatedly prohibited by the way of edge ball.


Search "home has children" in station B, thousands of editing works appear

And really let the content platform is not afraid of safeguarding rights, in addition to even if the penalty is only a dime, more important is that the protection cycle is too long, personal rights will mostly choose to give up, even at the corporate level to protect rights, but also time-consuming and laborious, not necessarily

Therefore, the key to solve this problem is to make the platform and content creators dare not cross the thunder pool by punitive judgment, and to form the copyright public data pool between the platform and the copyright party on the technical level

But on another level, some movies and TV shows

1. For the promotion of new dramas, some TV plays will actively invite the up main editor when they go online, and ask the platform to delete the so-called infringing content when they are offline;

2. It may also activate the old dramas, which also requires cooperation between the copyright owners and the platform parties to form a more flexible management mechanism that takes into account the respective interests of copyright, platform and content creators.

Therefore, all parties express and play games from their own perspective. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish right from wrong. The key is to have rules.


Judging from the judgment logic of station B case, most of the sharing platforms in the market may involve copyright infringement. If they continue to develop according to the existing business model, they will inevitably face a large number of lawsuits and claims, which means that the legitimacy foundation of these sharing platforms will be shaken.

Fundamentally speaking, the Internet industry pays attention to innovation and breakthrough. These sharing platforms are the innovation models that have emerged in recent years, and the law naturally lags behind the economic development and tends to be conservative. Therefore, the conflict between innovation and legal aspects of the Internet industry is bound to exist for a long time.

Thus, such cases are new cases for the courts that need to be determined how the law applies, and no uniform and clear norm of adjudication has yet been established. As far as the copyright protection system is concerned, the legislative intent of the legal establishment of the system is not intended

China's "copyright law" only provides for 12 kinds of situations that can reasonably use the copyright of others and do not constitute infringement, such as: using others' published works for personal study, research or appreciation; inevitably reproducing or quoting published works for reporting current events and news, etc. According to the existing law, no infringement will be constituted if the 12 cases are not violated and no profit is made.

Obviously, sharing platform auditing and allowing content creators to upload copyrighted audio and video content is not within the scope of these 12 reasonable uses. In fact, it is difficult to prove whether platforms and individuals are making profits. Therefore, both content creators and sharing platforms are stepping on the edge of the law.


However, we should also see the positive side, the sharing platform has existed in reality, and to a certain extent has played a role in helping the publicity of works. In my opinion, if we can find a balance between promoting the development of the Internet and protecting the interests of copyright owners, we can not only protect the interests of copyright owners, but also maximize the social and economic values of works.

Before the judicial interpretation or other guidance documents are issued, the realization of this state can only hope to form a relatively fixed standard in the trial of many cases, and then guide the individual re creation and the sharing platform to actively adjust and adapt.


What I do is original video. The copyright of font has been purchased. There is no perfect solution to BGM copyright problem. It is still on the edge of illegal.

Generally speaking, I like a small number of foreign language songs. I haven't uploaded videos on YouTube. I haven't encountered the problem of being sued for infringement, but I still have worries.

If you sign a contract with the music copyright library, the annual cost of a better copyright music library is about $200, which is still a little expensive for individual up owners. Even if we can't find the right one from BGM.

The existing solution is that I will specially select older and less popular music, which is not easy for the copyright owners to find. I will also contact some minority orchestras in China and ask if they can license me to do BGM for non-commercial video. At present, some orchestras have already obtained their consent. At the same time, it is also looking for a suitable paid music library, or hope to solve the music copyright problem once and for all.

In addition, when I use BGM, I will mark the name and creator of this song in the video. The purpose is to help these BGM drain as much as possible. For example, some fans will search for this song after watching my video.

The author of this article is Li Mengqing and the editor on duty Feng di

He Mengfei, editor in chief, Zheng Yuanmei

China IT News APP

Download China IT News APP

Please rate this news

The average score will be displayed after you score.

Post comment

Do not see clearly? Click for a new code.

User comments