Why are popular movies frequently sued for infringement?

Recently, Ningbo Konggu Youshui Film Industry claimed that the movie "All in One" is suspected of infringing on the copyright of its original film series "Fishing Operation".

Subsequently, the production company of the movie "All for One", Bad Monkey Film, responded with a statement that Ningbo Konggu Youshui Film was making "false statements"; Alibaba Pictures has also publicly denied the infringement of "All in One" and called on Ningbo Konggu Youshui Pictures to "see it in court.".

Almost simultaneously, the popular animated film "Chang'an 30000 Miles", also encountered copyright issues and was exposed for using unauthorized materials from the original designer. The result was that "Chang'an 30000 Miles" issued an apology statement, and the film company reached a settlement with the original author.

In recent years, many popular movies have been embroiled in copyright infringement disputes, including "New God List: Yang Jian", "Nezha's Demon Child Descends", "Young You", "I am not the Medicine God", and so on.

Why are popular movies frequently sued for infringement?

Movies cannot obtain license from rights holders in an exhaustive manner

Li Hongjiang, Senior Partner and Director of the Intellectual Property Business Committee at Beijing Guantao Zhongmao Law Firm, told China News Service that the frequent infringement of films by defendants is closely related to the characteristics of the film works.

As a complex and special audiovisual work, the creative process of movies involves the creative labor of many individuals, including screenwriters, directors, photographers, editors, stage designers, lighting, etc. In a sense, it can be seen as a complex collaborative work.

Article 17, Paragraph 3 of China's Copyright Law states: "The authors of scripts, music, and other works that can be used separately in audiovisual works have the right to exercise their copyright independently." This means that films themselves contain various types of works, such as lines, props, costumes, music, and other elements, which are very easy to "collide" with previous works.

Secondly, copyright is not acquired through public disclosure, but rather by the author upon completion of the work. This means that even if the copyright owner of a movie, i.e. the producer, conducts preliminary searches or fulfills a higher duty of care, it is difficult to ensure that throughout the entire process from creation to public release, the movie can obtain licenses for different types of related prior works that may be involved in an exhaustive manner.

An Wensen, a partner of Baichen Law Firm, also told China News Service that infringement of film and television works is more common because whether directly quoted or adapted, the copyright license of the original work must be obtained. However, film and television works contain a wide range of genres, such as images, music, etc., making it difficult for users to find individual rights holders.

In addition, Stevenson pointed out that adaptation also requires authorization and permission from the rights holder, otherwise it may go beyond the boundaries of fair use of copyright.

The defendant of a popular movie is closely related to the complexity of the constituent elements of the movie, as well as the high exposure of the movie. Li Hongjiang stated that after the promotion and release of popular movies, they will gain more and more lasting attention, and potential rights holders will be more likely to discover and claim their rights to potential infringement in the movies.

At the same time, works that have already been authorized by the original author may also fall into infringement disputes where both parties have their own opinions.

Li Hongjiang stated that current disputes over film and television works include disputes over commissioned creation contracts, adaptation contracts, script copyright sales contracts, and film and television investment and shooting disputes. Different types of film and television copyright disputes face different practical difficulties.

In disputes involving adaptation contracts, the original author agrees to the creator's adaptation of their work, but there are some special adaptation requirements that may be proposed later, such as not changing the theme and idea of the original work, which makes it difficult for the creator to fully comply with the original author's intention. In such cases, disputes often arise between the two parties.

An Wensen stated that there may also be situations where the authorization for film and television works is incomplete, such as when the rights holder stipulates the use in a specific scenario. If the user exceeds the scope of the license, there may also be infringement disputes.

"Clash on porcelain style rights protection" may bear criminal responsibility

Due to the complexity of its genre and the difficulties faced by different disputes, movies often encounter infringement disputes. But is there a situation where netizens claim to "ride the heat" to win over popular movies?

Li Hongjiang stated that there is a certain degree of "collision style rights protection" in film infringement disputes. The high returns of popular movies can easily lead some individuals or companies to distort the Copyright Law by "cracking down on counterfeits" for the purpose of "profit" and lacking a legal basis.

From a legal perspective, "collision based rights protection" is essentially a malicious lawsuit. Li Hongjiang stated that the constituent elements of malicious litigation related to intellectual property include both subjective and objective aspects.

Subjectively, malicious lawsuits related to intellectual property require the perpetrator to have subjective intent, that is, to act knowingly, excluding negligence, etc; And it is direct intention, that is, having a clear and clear understanding of the upcoming infringement results, without insufficient cognitive ability or misunderstanding, and hoping for the results to occur and actively pursuing them in terms of willpower factors.

Objectively speaking, the perpetrator has committed the act of filing a lawsuit, and this act points to the other party who is a legitimate user of rights. Usually, it manifests as the actor first obtaining intellectual property through improper means, and then claiming rights from others based on the illegally obtained intellectual property.

Anwensen stated that malicious litigation essentially does not infringe on the rights of the original author, and the plaintiff knowingly defended their rights despite not having any rights.

Article 112 of China's Civil Procedure Law stipulates that if the parties maliciously collude and attempt to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others through litigation, mediation, or other means, the people's court shall reject their request and impose fines or detention based on the severity of the circumstances; If a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be pursued in accordance with the law.

Regarding the response to malicious litigation, Stevenson stated that if there is malicious litigation, the original plaintiff can file a counterclaim.

The Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Issue of Defendants Requesting Compensation for Reasonable Expenses on the grounds of Plaintiff's Abuse of Rights in Intellectual Property Infringement Litigation clearly stipulates that in intellectual property infringement litigation, if the defendant submits evidence to prove that the plaintiff's lawsuit constitutes the infringement of rights as stipulated by law and damages its legitimate rights and interests, and requests the plaintiff to compensate for the reasonable lawyer's fees, transportation fees, accommodation and other expenses paid in the litigation, the people's court shall support it in accordance with the law. The defendant may also file a separate lawsuit requesting the plaintiff to compensate for the reasonable expenses mentioned above.