"I'm Not a Medicine God" was sentenced to the first instance of the infringement, and the movie was good but the infringement was not good.

Ji Mu News commentator Qu Jing

A first -instance civil judgment released by the Beijing Court Judgment Information Network on July 5 shows that Beijing Bad Monkey Cultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. was complained and did not permit in the movie "I'm Not a Medicine God". Building photos. The court found the defendant's infringement in the first instance. The judgment showed that the defendant stopped the infringement involving the case, compensating the plaintiff Zhang's economic loss of 20,000 yuan and apologizing. (According to Sino -Singapore Finance on July 6)

Civil judgment in this case (picture source Beijing court trial information network)

"I'm Not a Medicine God" is directed by Wen Muye, and Ning Hao and Xu Yan are co -produced. The plot films starring Xu Yan, Monday, Wang Chuanjun, Tan Zhuo, etc. The lineup is strong and the script is solid. The creative method is a rare masterpiece of realism. At the time of its release in 2018, it won the double success of the box office and word of mouth. So far, many audiences still have meticulous character portrayal, rich dramatic and warm real views.

But on the occasion of the four -year release, "I'm Not a Medicine God" defendant. If the defendant's picture is not the defendant, the audience may not notice it. There is a commemorative photo of Cheng Yong played by Xu Yan, a photo of traveling to India. Among them, there is a photo of the temple architecture of New Delhi, India. For about 2 seconds, the original author Zhang Bai infringed his signature rights, replication rights, and protecting works. The entire rights of complete rights and the right to pay for network information dissemination were reported to the court and claimed 480,000 yuan.

The photos appeared in the movie in the movie (the source of the source "I am not the medicine god" movie screenshot)

When the news came out, netizens generally reflected: "This is a bamboo bar!" Because the display of that photo was indeed very unique, and the plaintiff's claim amount was quite high, this movie was " God's masterpiece "conscience work". Netizens only make judgments based on their feelings and feelings, and they probably feel that the plaintiff is "small questions", "lion opening", "lion opening", "when watching movies red, come to heat."

However, the protection of intellectual property rights cannot only talk about feelings, just look at feel, but also based on facts and laws. It is not that excellent movies will not infringement, and conscience works are flawless. In fact, because the division of labor and production of film and television dramas is getting more and more fine, involving multiple links and types of work, accidentally involved in infringement storm.

In February 2021, a Weibo netizen broke the news that the parents' wedding photos were regarded as a statue of the crew of the hit drama "Holiday Warm" appeared in the TV screen. Personnel, will replace the content of the positive film, which actually violates the personal information rights and interests of others;

In September 2021, the film "Sweeping Storm" was accused of infringement. Subsequently, the film production company Yihe Visual Effect stated that the company had purchased the material on the Vjshi website on July 21 this year. Vjshi.com said that after verification, the contributor Gao Moumou provided non -original works, which had banned his account and terminated cooperation.

There is also the "Audi Xiaoman Copy Plagiarism" incident that everyone should remember. It is also a problem with the producer. The brand's review is not in place, violating the legitimate rights and interests of the original creators, and also let netizens watch a joke.

In similar cases, in fact, there are not many infringed people who will sue the court. Most of them are the end of the reconciliation of compensation and stop infringement with apology. But this does not mean that those who are infringed must be peaceful, and must reconcile privately. Protecting claims by litigation is also the legitimate right of rights. As for whether the final infringement was established, it violated those rights, how to determine the compensation, and the law had its own public theory.

In this case, according to the existing facts and evidence, the court identified the defendant to infringe the right to replication, the right to dissemination and signature of the information network involved in the case. Essence However, according to the popularity of the work involved, the defendant's subjective fault, the infringement plot, and the contribution rate of the work involved in the film, the apology time and the amount of compensation were determined as appropriate. It can be seen that artistic creation is emotional, but the legal responsibility is rational, and there is a great risk of infringement in "use without sue", and infringement must bear legal responsibility.

This also wakes up all the film and television creation, and even art creators: the movie is good, but the infringement is not good. Don't let bad infringement and have a bad impact on good movies. Creatives should not be the creators, actively respect and protect intellectual property, and create can be bloomed.

- END -