"I'm Not a Medicine God" producer was sentenced to 20,000 for photos infringement, and people were controlled by Ning Hao.

Radar Finance | Editor Wu Yanrui | Deep Sea

Recently, the China Referee Book Network announced a civil judgment on the first instance of copyright ownership and infringement dispute. The producer of "I am not the medicine god" Beijing Bad Monkey Cultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "bad monkey film industry") was sentenced to 20,000 yuan for infringement of copyright.

According to a civil ruling of the case number (2020) Beijing 0101 China Early Chu No. 11782, the proposal of Zhang and the bad monkey film copyright ownership and infringement disputes were filed by the Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court on July 22, 2022. The court believes that it has no jurisdiction on the case and was ruled to be transferred to the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing. The date of judgment is September 21, 2020.

The plaintiff Zhang believes that on December 13, 2015, he released a travel notes on the Malaysia Honeycomb platform, and the travel notes published a photo of Gu Tetbita and his mosque next to him during the trip to New Delhi, India. Later, he found that the defendant was not permitted and used the work in the movie "I'm Not a Medicine God". Zhang believed that the defendant's behavior infringed his right to signature, replication, protecting the complete rights of the work, the right to spread the information network, and the right to obtain compensation. Court of request: 1. Order the defendant to stop the infringement immediately, and publish a written apology statement recognized by the plaintiff and the court on the 15th on the "Legal Daily" to eliminate the impact;

According to relevant evidence, the People's Court of Chaoyang District of Beijing believes that on December 13, 2015, the plaintiff published on the Malaysian Honeycomb platform entitled "The most complete Indian New Delhi Attractions Raiders in History-The Heritage of Sudan" in Delhi, the beginning of the article, and the beginning of the article. There is Zhang's statement "All texts and photos are original", and there are works involved in the picture. The upper left corner of the picture is marked with the word "Aperlink" watermark. According to the electronic film submitted by Zhang, the photo was taken on September 20, 2015.

Zhang said that it was a shareholder of Shanghai Yichen Qi Shuo Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yi Chen Qi Shuo Company"). Load the word "Aperlink" watermark. The plaintiff submitted the "Explanation of the Situation" issued by Yi Chen Qi Shuo Company.

The film involved in the case was filmed in 2017. According to the end of the film, the copyright is enjoyed by the defendant. The second minute and 35 seconds of the film appeared as follows: the lens swept the health product store operated by the actor, and the photo wall appeared to the infringing work. The work accounted for about one -sixth of the picture, and the lens time was 2 seconds. After comparison, the infringing work and the works involved in the case structure, color, shooting angle, and light and shadow are basically the same, but there is no watermark of "Aperlink".

The court determined that the photo was the plaintiff's photography work. The defendant's behavior of the above -mentioned works involved did not obtain the plaintiff's permission, infringing the plaintiff's right to replicate and information network dissemination of the plaintiff's work involved.

The court pointed out that in film works, producers usually signed the authors of screenwriters, photography, lyrics, composers and other authors in the way of pioneering, head subtitles or screen marking. With reference to this signature method, the defendant used special circumstances such as the plaintiff's work involved in the case involved in the case, but the defendant did not show the plaintiff's author's identity in an appropriate manner when he used the work involved, infringing the plaintiff's right to sign. The defendant shall bear the legal liability of stopping infringement, apology, and compensation for economic losses.

In the end, the court judged 1. The defendant Beijing Bad Monkey Cultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. stopped the infringement involving the case; The content of the apology statement must be sent to the court for review within ten days after the effectiveness of this judgment, and the overdue will not be fulfilled. The main content of this court will publicize the main content of this judgment. The defendant Beijing Bad Monkey Cultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. will compensate the plaintiff Zhang's economic loss of 20,000 yuan within ten days from the date of effectiveness of this decision;

According to industrial and commercial information, the bad monkey film industry was established in 2013 and paid 3 million yuan in capital. The company is wholly -owned by Tianjin Bad Monkey Pictures Co., Ltd., and the actual controller and the final beneficiary are director Ning Hao.

Brief introduction of Tianyan Check said that the bad monkey film industry is a professional film company, forming a professional industrial chain that integrates development, production, distribution, publicity, integration of marketing and cross -industry cooperation. Successfully produced "Crazy Stone", "Crazy Racing", "Golden Raiders", "Unmanned Land", "Border Wind", "Heart Flower Road", "Embroidered Spring Sword II Shura Battlefield" Works, box office reputation double harvest.

- END -