May 18, 2018 News: In September 2015, the disaster adventure film "Nine-Storey Demon Tower" directed by "Shaanxi Son-in-law" Lu Chuan was released. It earned more than 600 million in box office in 20 days and won several awards. Multiple awards.
However, this movie has also attracted a lot of lawsuits. In addition to copyright and interlude infringement lawsuits, a font infringement case was also pronounced in the first instance. Four defendants, including the film producer and distributor, were sentenced** * Also compensated calligrapher Xiang Jiahong 140,000 yuan.
Prosecution: Unauthorized use of seven registered fonts
Claim for 510,000 yuan
In December 2013, Xiang Jiahong applied for a work to the Guangdong Provincial Copyright Bureau Copyright registration for the work titled "Xiangjia Red Calligraphy Font". Xiang Jiahong told a reporter from the Chinese Business Daily on May 17 that he has clearly signed this set of fonts in the font library. This set of fonts is only for learning and communication, and commercial use requires his authorization, and his contact information is also left.
The font "Nine-Story Demon Tower" in the stills in "Nine-Story Demon Tower" infringes upon
After the movie "Nine-Story Demon Tower" was released, Xiang Jiahong discovered that the font that appeared in the movie His calligraphy works "Ghost", "Clan", "History", "Hua", "Xia", "Ri" and "Bao" were used in the book "History of the Ghost Clan" and the newspaper "Hua Xia Bao". He believes that the film's production, distribution, investment and dissemination parties did not obtain his permission and did not sign his name, which infringed his right of signature and reproduction of the above-mentioned calligraphy works.
After that, he sued Dreamer Films (Beijing) Company, Beijing Universal Arts Pictures Co., Ltd., LeTV Pictures (Beijing) Co., Ltd., and China Film Co., Ltd., requesting a verdict against the four defendants** *At the same time, he paid 500,000 yuan in copyright royalties, 10,000 yuan in emotional comfort, and publicly apologized in the newspaper.
Response: The defendant believed that it was only used to illustrate the name of the prop
It was a fair use
Dreamer Company, Universal Entertainment Company, and China Film Company*** also argued that : The font involved in the case was not created by Xiang Jiahong, and he does not have copyright in it; the words involved in the case had been published before being used by the three companies, and they only appeared in movie props. The purpose was only to explain the name of the props and to convey the Chinese characters they carried. The meaning of language, rather than mainly showing its artistic value as a work of art. They believe this use is fair use.
LeTV Pictures argued that the words involved in the case are not original and do not belong to works of art; the words involved in the case can be generated online on the website and saved in a personal computer. Xiang Jiahong did not comment on the words involved in the case and their The font library in which it is located has sufficient rights restrictions; the word involved is only an element of the film, accounting for a very small proportion of the film, and does not affect the commercial value of the film. At the same time, the company is only responsible for the investment, promotion and distribution of the film. It has not participated in the filming or production, and has no knowledge of the production of film props. It should not bear any responsibility.
First-instance judgment: 7 single words belong to works of art
The four defendants apologized and compensated 140,000 yuan
The Beijing Chaoyang District Court held that although the calligraphy writing Limited by the fixed combination of strokes and structure of Chinese characters, writers still use specific lines, stipples, etc. to adjust and create in many aspects such as glyph structure, radical ratio, stroke length, thickness selection, and straight design. Integrating one's own choices and judgments, showing unique artistic beauty and reflecting the writer's own personality, it has originality that meets the requirements of copyright law and becomes a work of art protected by copyright law.
In this case, the seven words "gui", "clan", "history", "hua", "xia", "ri" and "bao" that Xiang Jiahong claimed were written in a broken way. , the layout structure, stroke thickness, curvature, length and the combination of traditional and simplified characters all reflect a unique artistic beauty, showing an original expression that is different from traditional running script and other common fonts, and integrating the unique intellectual judgment of the writer and selections, which are works of art under the Copyright Act.
After comparison, there is no obvious difference in the overall structure of the glyphs, the ratio of radicals, the length, thickness, and straightness of the strokes between the seven words used in the movie and trailer props and the word Xiang Jiahong involved in the case. Difference, it can be determined that these 7 single characters are 7 calligraphy works of Xiang Jiahong.
In film works and works created in a similar way to filmmaking, the producer usually signs the author in the title, title subtitles or screen annotations.
When using the calligraphy works involved in the case, the four defendants failed to indicate in an appropriate manner that Xiang Jiahong was the author of the work, thereby infringing upon his right of signature. At the same time, the court held that the use of the word involved by the fourth defendant was not fair use.
A few days ago, the court of first instance ruled that the four defendants must fulfill their obligation to publish a statement in a newspaper within 30 days from the date of the judgment, publicly apologize to the plaintiff, and jointly compensate Xiang Jiahong 140,000 yuan.
Law-ridden
"Nine-Storey Demon Tower" has been sued three times
The Chinese Business Daily learned from an interview that, in fact, "Nine-Storey Demon Tower" is no longer the third I was sued once for intellectual property infringement.
In January 2016, Tian Xia Ba Chang, the author of "Ghost Blowing the Lamp", sued the film side of "Nine-Storey Demon Tower" to the court for copyright infringement. The court ruled in the first instance that the film company of "Nine-Storey Demon Tower" signed Tian Xia Ba Chang as the author of the original novel when distributing, broadcasting and disseminating the film, and issued a statement on the infringement involved in the case, apologizing and eliminating the impact.
Because it is believed that the song "Late" was used as an episode and plot in the movie "Nine-Storey Demon Tower", which infringes upon its right to modify, protect the integrity of the work, copy, adapt, distribute, film, etc. For six rights, the famous Taiwanese musician Peter Chen took the production company and the third party China Music Copyright Association to court. On April 25, the first-instance judgment of the Beijing Chaoyang District Court ordered China Film Company, Dreamer Company, LeTV Pictures Company, and Universal Entertainment Company to publish apology statements in newspapers and periodicals published nationwide. In addition, the four defendants and the third party China Music Copyright Association *** also compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of 300,000 yuan.
In the plagiarism case of "The Palace", Yu Zheng refused to fulfill the court's judgment
On April 27, 2018, after hearing the two levels of courts, it was decided that Yu Zheng and other five defendants should stop the works involved in the case copy, disseminate and distribute, publicly apologize and compensate Qiong Yao 5 million yuan. Because Yu Zheng and others refused to fulfill the court's judgment, yesterday, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court announced the summary of the judgment of the case to the public through the "Legal Daily".
On April 28, 2015, Qiong Yao formally filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting Yu Zheng, the author of "The Palace", and five producers, Hunan Economic Television Company, Dongyang Huanyu Company, Wanda Company, and Dongyang Xingrui Company. The defendant *** also bears legal liability for copyright infringement.
The court found after trial that the script "Plum Blossom Brand" was independently written and completed by Qiong Yao in October 1992. The outline of the story of "The Palace Locked City" created by Yu Zheng was completed in 2012.
The Third Intermediate People's Court held that Yu Zheng adapted Qiong Yao's work "Plum Blossom Brand" to form the script of the new work "The Palace Lock". The above-mentioned behavior exceeded the boundaries of reasonable reference and constituted an adaptation of the plaintiff's work, which infringed Without the right to adapt Qiong Yao's works, the five defendants should bear corresponding joint and several liability for infringement according to law. Therefore, the Third Intermediate People's Court of First Instance ruled that Yu Zheng and other five defendants should stop the reproduction, dissemination and distribution of "Gongsuoliancheng", publish an apology statement in a prominent position on the designated website, apologize to Qiong Yao, and compensate for losses of 5 million yuan. The Beijing Higher People's Court rejected the appeal at the second instance and upheld the original verdict.
In January this year, Qiong Yao applied to the Third Intermediate People’s Court for execution. However, after contacting multiple parties, the execution judge, Yu Zheng and the other five persons subject to execution, refused to fulfill the effective court judgment. Therefore, if the person subject to execution fails to fulfill the judgment based on the effective judgment, the court will issue an execution announcement on his behalf.
Yesterday happened to be "April 26" World Intellectual Property Day. The Third Intermediate People's Court published an enforcement announcement on the fourth page of "Legal Daily" and released the summary of the judgment in this case to the public.
“If the person subject to execution takes the initiative to perform, he only needs to express his apology in the announcement and does not need to mention the details of the judgment.” Judge Wei Zhibin, the judge in charge of this case, the First Enforcement Division of the Third Intermediate People’s Court, said, excerpt Compared with the parties' voluntary apology, the judgment actually discloses more information about the case, and will impose greater punishment on the person subject to execution who refuses to fulfill the judgment.