Reason two: the relevant provisions of the telecommunication company. A service agreement for the telecommunication company is required in the course of the registration of the twitter public number. In 4. 3, 5. 2, it is made clear that users may not infringe on the legitimate interests of other users or third parties in a public platform, including the legitimate rights to honour, portrait, intellectual property, business secrets, etc。
The beijing intellectual property court supported the second view。
On 9 october, the wikileaks public launch, entitled “the beijing intellectual property court concluded a dispute concerning the violation of the right to disseminate information networks by the wikileaks public name”, was the first time that the nature of the dissemination of the wiills was determined in a judgement。
China television network has the right to exclusive information network dissemination for the television show " the great dynasty " . Anthropological symptoms provided online broadcasting services for the television series nos. 1 and 2 in question, on its micro-intelligence public television, the astronomical symptoms microvision, without licence from chinavideo. Chinaview brought the case before the court, seeking an order to stop the infringement and to compensate avs for its economic loss of $50,000。
The court of first instance found a violation of the exclusive right of cvm to use the information network dissemination rights of the television drama in question, and awarded avm compensation of us$ 3,000 for economic losses。
Anthropovolent sources appealed to the beijing intellectual property court. It considers that, as a high-technology enterprise, the u. S. A. C. Application for registration of the u. S. W. P. C.'s u. S. Micro-c. S. C. C., a technical test based on a cooperative project with the relevant entities, is not a commercial act for profit by providing “work to the public”, and that the failure to publish any advertisement on the p. S. C., which is a legitimate use for scientific research under our right to authorise act, does not constitute a violation of the right to use the u. S. C. W. W. V. C., which has very limited access to the television series in question and which, upon being notified by w. C. W. C., the a. S. S. A. Has removed the television drama immediately; the television drama in question is of low visibility and the short time for the broadcast of the u. S. W. W. C.'s television drama in question has not caused economic damage. For this reason, a cassation decision was requested。
After hearing, the beijing court of intellectual property rights found that the unspecified micro-credit users would become subscribers to the micro-credit public account, which could interact with a relatively specific group of subscribers by sending text, pictures, voice, video, etc. Through the micro-credit public platform. While the wis public is different from traditional internet modes of dissemination in terms of channels of dissemination of information, reading terminals and so on, its essence is still to send text, pictures, voice, video, etc. Through the internet to unspecified micro-mail users. Once a twitter user has paid attention to the relevant twitter public number, it is possible to obtain the relevant information published on the twitter public number through an information network, depending on the time and place chosen by the individual, so that the dissemination of the relevant content through the twitter public number is an act of dissemination by the information network provided for in our copyright act. The television series "standing the sun of the sky" by skysystems, series 1 and 2, is part of the dissemination of information networks through the information network to its subscribers。
This also means that the beijing intellectual property court has explicitly included twitter in the dissemination of information networks under the copyright act。
In this case, the twitter public was an account offering “microvision” services, mainly via the twitter public platform, which provided such services as video broadcasting, video communication, etc., to enable users to play at terminals such as mobile phones. Currently, there are more than 40 accounts directly named “microvision”, with about 200 accounts providing “video” broadcasts as their main feature, while tens of thousands of micro-intelligence public numbers can provide video broadcasting services. In the future, can video be posted in the public account? What do you have to notice when you release the video
Reasonable use not applicable. Under the copyright act, a person who uses a work published by another person for the purposes of his or her study, research or appreciation may not be paid without the author's permission, but shall indicate the author's name and the name of the work. This is called “reasonable use”. Among them, for the purpose of reporting on current affairs, “for the purpose of reporting on current affairs, it is inevitable to reproduce or quote published works in the media, such as newspapers, periodicals, radio and television; it is inevitable to reproduce or quote published works in the media, such as newspapers, periodicals, radio and television; it is the media, such as newspapers, periodicals, radio and television, that publish or broadcast current events articles on political, economic, religious issues already published in other newspapers, periodicals, radio and television;” the closest is to the micro-mail public video. However, the above-mentioned provisions are directed at media such as television stations and do not contain micro-intelligence public signs。
Legal permits are not applicable. Legal authorization, i. E., in the case of certain use of a work to the extent directly provided by law, may be made without the consent of the author, but shall be paid to the author. The copyright act provides for four cases of statutory authorization: nine years of compulsory textbooks use material, periodical reproduction, performances by artistic groups, audio recordings of audio recordings, radio and television productions of radio and television programmes using published works of others; otherwise, the author's declaration that they are not allowed to be used constitutes a violation. The scope of the statutory permit is clearly defined as “television”, and for this reason the video is not included in the list。
Application of licence fees. The “licence-paying” commercial model implies that copyrighters who declare that they must obtain a licence to reproduce it should be licensed; and copyrighters who do not declare that they do not need it should also be licensed and be paid a certain amount of remuneration (which, of course, respects the autonomy of the parties to “reprint free of charge”). In particular, the video published in the micro-credit public journal can be divided into two types of cases, namely, the more original one, which is “forms created in the form of films and similar films”, and the less original one, which is classified as protected by rights of access:
One is the production of films and similar films. Article 3, paragraph 6, of the copyright act provides that film works and works created by similar methods are those protected by the copyright act. Article 4, paragraph 11, of the regulations on the application of the copyright act provides that film works and works created by similar means are made in a medium consisting of a series of side or no-accompaniment images, shown or otherwise disseminated with appropriate devices. Here, we call it a video。
Video productions are the culmination of many intellectual achievements, bringing together a large number of writers, directors, actors, photographers and editors. But a film can't have so many writers. Under article 15 of the copyright act, authorship of cinematographic works and of works created by similar means is vested in the producer, but authorship, directorship, photography, writing words, composers, etc. Have the right to sign and receive remuneration under a contract with the producer。
As can be seen from the above, copyright to film works is vested in producers, who, according to current industry practice, are generally “supplied”. In order to transmit a video work similar to newsleave, we must obtain permission to produce it. Otherwise, it would constitute a violation。
Of course, self-censorship, self-directed, self-activated video productions, which are self-authorised by the management of the public domain, are self-published。
The second is video production. According to the above analysis, visual works are more original films or television plays, while video productions are less original videos: recorded performers ' performances, pure natural images, pure life scenes, etc. Under article 42 of the copyright act, producers of audio-visual recordings have the right to permit others to copy, distribute, rent, disseminate to the public through information networks and receive remuneration for their production. Article 5, paragraph 5, of the regulations on the application of copyright act provides that a video producer means the first producer of a video product。
It follows that the author of the video is the first producer of the video. On the other hand, micro-intellectual public-repeated videos, i. E. Video products, are distributed online with the consent of the first producer of the video without the consent of the performer。
Source: iprdaily
