(By Albert Chen) In 2010, Getty Images China (“Getty China”) filed a copyright infringement suit against Sinotrans Chongqing Co. (“Sinotrans Chongqing”). After the first instance, second instance, and review, the Supreme Court confirmed the copyright held by Getty China over the pictures involved in the case. The point that deserves the most attention in the case is the different understandings on whether the creation date of the copyright is an essential requirement for showing infringement.
(By You Yunting) Abstract: By the “Management Measures of Internet Information Services” (the “Measures”) issued by the State Council, China will carry out a new system of filing and recording to those non-operating Internet information services, namely those services involving the open sharing of information. These websites falling within the measures shall undertake the recording and filing procedures laid out before publishing any and all information. Yet, the situation seems to have undergone some changes with the promulgation of the working draft of the “Management Regulations of Network Publishing Services” (the “Regulations”), wherein most information released onto the network would be deemed so-called “network publishing.” As provided in the Regulations, no matter whether the service is operating or non-operating, the requirements for a Network Publishing Service License (the “License”) shall apply. It can be easily seen that such regulations are being made that are essentially beyond any lawful authorization, and are in fact contrary to rules previously issued by the State Council.
(By Albert Chen) In yesterday’s post, we analyzed why Tencent would confront with the trademark squatting, and mainly blamed it for the defect on the internal management. Today, we would continue our discussion, and share our opinions on how could Tencent take back or stop the first application by others.
Before the end of this year, no one would oppose “iPad battle” shall be the trademark dispute of the year, and yet with the breaking out of conflict on the trademark of “微信”, a LBS software from Tencent Inc. (the “Tencent”) and its English name is WeChat, that affirmation would be challenged.
By Albert Chen
Techdirt recently reported the US court has adopted scanning within the scope of fair use, and by China Copyright Law, the library could also make a special copy or digitalize its collection, as well as the communication. Today, we would introduce the statutory license in Chinese legislature.
As known to us, the using of others work demands the right owner’s consent and the payment of the royalty (unless no payment as approved by the right owner). But as aiming to promote the cultural development, the emphasis on the exclusive right protection could only damage the spread-out of the culture and information. Thus, in addition to the protection, we also see Copyright Law regulates the “fair use” of the works, under which the using by a third party shall not be approved by the right owner or to pay the royalty.
By You Yunting
In recent, CNTV, the subsidiary of China national television station (the “CCTV”), which in charge of its online business, quarreled with SMG’s BesTV (SHEX:600637) on the Olympics broadcasting. By the statement of CNTV, it owns the exclusive online broadcasting right of 2012 London Olympics in China, yet BesTV, with no license form CNTV, provided 1) the streaming of Olympic games, 2) program time-shifted playback through server storage and 3) VOD to local cooperated IPTVs, and that damages CNTV’s legal rights. So far we have heard no reply from BesTV on the accusation.