On January 29, the aesthetic education blogger "Yang Fan Talks about Art" (hereinafter referred to as Yang Fan), who has 2.19 million fans on Douyin, released a short video, pointing out that Dong Dong, the anchor of the Live broadcast room with Hui, plagiarized his original work when explaining the product. Copywriting. Yang Fan said that when Dong Dong explained Michelangelo, there were many similarities with the video he introduced Michelangelo in his early years.
Later, Dong Dong responded to the alleged plagiarism during the live broadcast, saying that he might have borrowed some works, but he had no intention of offending. That night, Dong Dong also used his personal account to leave a message in the comment area of Yang Fan's short video, saying, "I have been watching your videos when I was in college. I like you very much. I am very useful and like many of the things you said. I also like them very much." Thank you for sharing. I'm sorry that I just saw the video you posted, because mentioning a certain creator on Douyin Live will involve traffic diversion and violation of regulations. So I didn't mention you, so I hope you won't be angry. I have always respected your creation, and I will let you know if it is used in the future." This message has been deleted. Yang Fan told Nandu reporters that he did not delete this message, and he did not even have time to see the message.
"Yang Fan talks about art" short video and the content of the live broadcast room with Hui Peer. From the Internet
The content, structure, and language are similar to
Yang Fan told Nandu reporters that he had not paid attention to the live broadcast room with Hui before. He only discovered this similar problem after fans saw the relevant content and sent it to him.
When introducing the relationship between Michelangelo's master and apprentice, Yang Fan said that Dong Dong's content, structure, and vocabulary are almost identical to his own video. He was the first to explain the three masters of the Renaissance on a domestic online platform based on the Chinese master-apprentice relationship model. The relationship The picture was also sorted out by searching more than ten documents.
Yang Fan also said that the picture of the Faunus sculpture that Dong Dong showed to netizens in the live broadcast room was a screenshot of his own video. During the live broadcast, Dong Dong said that the sculpture was the work of Michelangelo, but Yang Fan said that it was not actually the case. The picture above is an example of sculpture that I found. When
explained the meaning of Michelangelo's full name, Yang Fan translated it into the Chinese name "Fugui" based on semantics and other factors. Dong Dong also translated Michelangelo's full name into "Mi Fugui" in the live broadcast room.
Yang Fan told Nandu reporters that he has now encountered a lot of online violence, with thousands of messages in the background. He is also under tremendous pressure. On the evening of January 29, when Yang Fan was live broadcasting on Douyin, Dong Dong also came to his live broadcast room and gave him a gift of 500 yuan. Regarding this, Yang Fan said, "I don't know if he wanted to give him a gift." Just to calm things down, or something like that. Why don't you post it openly on your homepage and say, 'Sorry, it won't happen again, we will investigate it strictly.' That's it. It's a very simple matter. I won't hold you accountable for commercial use. "
In Yang Fan's view, the key to this matter is that the live broadcast room with Hui is for commercial use and trailers. When selling goods in a scene, his Douyin was uploaded without his permission. Take the copywriting and use it. His Douyin copywriting was also released earlier than the live broadcast room with Hui. A fan of
retorted, "When it comes to historical content, most people look for literature to sort it out. Is there anyone who is born with knowledge? Since it is literature, there is a high probability that there will be similar information. You can't quote other people's information." You can't quote it. Otherwise, it will become plagiarism?"
In response to this, Yang Fan responded to the Nandu reporter, "Many people say that what I quoted is the history of the Renaissance, and I have no copyright. So, what Mingyue quoted in "Ming Dynasty" that year "Those Things in the Ming Dynasty" comes from the history of the Ming Dynasty. If you tell the history of the Ming Dynasty in a way that the public can understand, does it mean that Mingyue didn't have the copyright of "Those Things in the Ming Dynasty" back then?"
Yang Fan pointed out that it is inevitable to learn from other people's content when teaching knowledge. , but you need to indicate the reference author or source of inspiration when using it, "This is my original creation, the real Douyin original copywriting, and everyone pays attention to me because of this."The content of your video explaining the structure has 90% overlap. It is used commercially when selling goods, and then sliced into short videos for dissemination. Isn’t this plagiarism? "Plagiarism" of
short videos and live broadcast copy has become a common case
Xiao Jinyang, a lawyer at Guangdong Hebang Law Firm, told Nandu reporters that works refer to intellectual achievements that are original and can be expressed in a certain form in the fields of literature, art and science, " In practice, the criteria for determining whether it constitutes plagiarism can be based on the time before and after the creation of the work and the comparison of the main features, such as whether the characters, main plots, themes, details, etc. are the same. "
Xiao Jinyang pointed out that my country's "Implementation Rules for the Trial Regulations on the Protection of Books and Periodicals" once had two standards for the identification of "one-tenth", namely: 1. Citing other people's works shall not exceed one-tenth of the cited works; 2. , the total amount of quotations shall not exceed one-tenth of the total amount of the author's creative works. According to Article 52 of the Copyright Law, whoever plagiarizes other people's works shall use the work in the form of audio-visual works without the permission of the copyright owner. (Unless otherwise stipulated), those who use works in the form of adaptation (unless otherwise stipulated) shall bear civil responsibilities such as cessation of infringement, influence, apology, compensation for losses, etc., according to the circumstances.
Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law Deputy Director Zhu Wei said that the copywriting of live broadcasts and short videos is of course copyrighted. “If the copywriting is highly overlapping, it may be suspected of copyright infringement. If it is purely knowledge learning, there is no issue of commercial use infringement, and the source must be indicated. But if he displays this script completely unmarked in his live broadcast room for commercial promotion or sales, then it depends on how much overlap the content has. If the script and copywriting are basically the same, it may involve infringement. The most basic thing to do is to indicate the source, and it is better if you ask permission in advance. "
There have been many cases of plagiarism in the copywriting of short videos and live broadcasts. In May 2022, the Audi brand released a commercial film "Life is Little Man" starring Andy Lau, but soon afterwards, the blogger "Peking University Mange" pointed out The copywriting was plagiarized. Finally, Audi’s official Weibo issued a statement saying, “We sincerely apologize for the trouble caused to Mr. Andy Lau, Peking University Mange and related parties due to poor supervision and lax review in this incident. "This video has also been removed from the entire network.
Judging from public legal precedents, the copywriting of short videos has also been regarded as an original work. In February 2023, the Judgment Document Network announced an unfair competition case. The Hangzhou Railway Court heard the case involving copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes between the plaintiff Beijing Hengxiang Future Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Meiyou Company") and the defendant Hangzhou Meiyou Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hengxiang Company") .
The judgment document shows that Meiyou Company opened a store on the Douyin platform and promoted its pillow products by publishing short videos and opening live broadcast rooms. However, during the promotion process, Meiyou Company was suspected of "borrowing" and applying the promotion of Hengxiang Company Marketing methods for brands and related products. Hengxiang Company filed a lawsuit with the court, requiring Meiyou Company to immediately stop the infringement and to compensate for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses of 100,000 yuan.
According to Article 3 of the Copyright Law, the court held that Hengxiang Company Xiang Company’s video copy uses original expressions. For example, the rhetorical techniques and text expressions used to introduce products play a role of inheritance, reflect personalized characteristics, and have a certain degree of originality. Therefore, the copy can be regarded as It is an intellectual achievement expressed in words, which complies with the constitutive requirements of a work in the Copyright Law and constitutes a written work.
The court held that according to the provisions of Article 10, Item 12 of the Copyright Law, in the field of Internet communication, Meiyou Company has not With the permission of Hengxiang Company, it published copywriting works that were substantially similar to the video copywriting of Hengxiang Company on the Douyin account it operated, which violated the information network dissemination rights enjoyed by Hengxiang Company according to law for its original video copywriting.
Finally, the court made a judgment. Meiyou Company was ordered to immediately stop infringing the copyright of Heng Company’s works involved in the case and the unfair competition involved in the case, and compensate Hengxiang Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses to stop the infringement totaling 15,000 yuan; Heng Company was rejected. Enjoy other litigation claims of the company.
Written by: Nandu reporter Wang Chenchen
