Tan Tan's first lawsuit was only 1500 yuan. Lawyers analyzed: batch rights protection profit or not supported by the court

Screenshot of "Tan Tan Traffic" program

The "Tan Tan Traffic" program involved in the storm of rights protection has recently attracted attention. On July 14, some media reported that the first case was sentenced after the controversy of "Tan Tan's Transportation". Company X ") constitutes a 1500 yuan of the plaintiff compensation for infringement.

On July 15, the defendant X was interviewed by a reporter from the Dahe Newspaper · Yu video. The company's legal person said that he received a judgment on the 13th and said "the plan to appeal."

According to public information, the dispute between the operating company and X Company's infringing the information network of the work of the work. On June 16, the People's Court of Chengdu District, Tianfu, Sichuan publicly opened the trial.

Tourism company and company X judgment

Plaintiff: The defendant reproduced the video benefits

The judgment provided by Company X shows that the operating company proposed that it was found on March 29 that the company X was unauthorized and uploaded an infringing work in the WeChat public account operated by its operation (Name: "Tan Tan Traffic" To. The operating company believes that company X illegally reproduces the acts involved in the case and obtains the legitimate rights and interests, and causes direct economic losses to the plaintiff due to rights protection. Therefore, the court requested the court to stop the infringement, delete the infringement video, and compensate for the cost of 10,000 yuan for each cost of the operating company (including 7,800 yuan in infringement compensation, 2,000 yuan in lawyers, and 200 yuan for certificates and technical service fees).

Defendant: The video has been deleted without any commercial and profit

Ms. Wang, a company of Company X, said that due to the impact of the epidemic, she did not participate in the trial. She submitted a written response to the court before the trial. Company X believes that the Video of the WeChat public account is not produced and uploaded by Company X. The company only reposted the video. The second creation of the videos of the video department has no copyright of the operating company. Company X stated that it had been deleted for the first time, and the low impact of the video reading volume was small, and there was no commercial and profit.

The court identified the defendant's infringement

The reporter of the Dahe Daily · Yu video noticed that in the judgment, the court first determined that Chengdu Radio and Television Original produced the "Tan Tan Transportation" program, which has the copyright of the program. The rights of letters, complaints, litigation, criminal measures, and compensation are issued.

The court trial believes that according to Article 3 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (Amended in 2020), the video of the "Tan Tan Traffic" sector has originality of intellectual achievements and belongs to the category of audiovisual works. Company X used the WeChat public account to reprint the network to provide the work involved in the unspecified public, so that the public obtained the work at the time and place of its personal selection, infringing the right to spread the information network involved in the work of the operating company.

In the end, the court ruled that Company X deleted the infringement video, and compensated the operating company's economic loss and reasonable rational expenditure of 1,500 yuan.

Lawyer interpret

It is worth noting that on the one hand, the court believes that the operating company has not submitted evidence to prove that it has been lost due to the actual loss of the infringement in this case or the illegal income of company X. On the other hand, the behavior of the "batch litigation" of the operating company is also the court. The reference basis for identifying the defendant's compensation amount.

In this regard, lawyer Wang Kepeng, a law firm in Henan Zhongyu Law, explained: "The legal infringement judgment has a lowest foundation, called the" principle of losses and filling in. "The principle of losses is. The main purpose of the loss caused by the loss caused by myself is to allow the right holder to be economically unsuccessful. Through this judgment, we can also see the court's point of view. Large -scale infringement is profitable. It is also a response from the court. 'I (the court) explained that you (the defendant) infringement, and I don't want you (right holder) to make a profit. "Lawyer Wang Kepeng believes that this judgment reflects the court's court’s in the court. At the attitude, the court recognized the infringement of the operating company, and the amount of claim was 15%of the plaintiff, which was much less than the plaintiff's compensation amount. Lawyer Wang believes that the operating company has prosecuted in batches, but did not submit evidence of losses suffered due to infringement. This amount may not want to see the operating company profitable.

Defendant: I have not considered the authorization of the operating company before there may be problems, and there are appeal plans to

Company X's legal person, Ms. Wang, responded in detail on the social platform. She introduced the infringement video in September last year on the WeChat public account. When she was released, she indicated the source and author of the video. The reading volume was more than 900 times. At that time, she never thought of infringement.

Ms. Wang said that she received a call from the court on June 1. On July 11, she saw that Tan Qiao was also infringing the defendant, and said that things were not so simple in the discussion of Tan Qiao and netizens.

"As a result, everyone also saw it. In view of the fact that we had not considered the authorization of the authorized book on the surgeon before, we also had an intention to appeal, mainly to figure out this copyright and authorization dispute." Finally wrote.

Ms. Wang said in a previous interview that there was no entrusted lawyer to act in the first trial, because there were only two people in the company, and the cost of asking the lawyer was a bit high.

extend

"Tan Tan Traffic" premiered in 2005 and was stopped in 2018. Tan Qiao was the host of the show, and the show did not leave the public's horizon because of this. In the past two years, "Uncle Erxianqiao" and other video materials were by netizens. In the second creation, some Shenxin was widely circulated, and once called "top -flow show".

Tan Qiao, the host of the "Tan Tan Traffic" column, released Weibo on July 10 that the video of the column was offline and may face tens of millions of compensation. In addition to the discussion of this matter, copyright issues have also become the focus of attention.

————————————————————————

Source: Dahe Daily · Yu Video Reporter Chen Man

- END -