(By Luo Yanjie Unfair competition refers to an operator’s misconduct that violates principles of fairness, justice, and good faith; it is also considered any behavior that violates widely adopted commercial ethics. As for copyright, as a kind of exclusive right, it mainly focuses on granting the right holder a monopolistic right in conformance with the law, and thereby grants the right holder monopoly rights as well as a competitive advantage through the exploitation of his/her own intellectual works.
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The scope of the statutory license includes the manufacturing of the audio recording, and also includes the distribution of the work afterwards. Judging from the latest case, the written statement of the right holder must explicitly exclude the application of statutory license, and cannot simply exclude it by claiming “chasing any infringement.”
The statutory license provided in the Copyright Law is to prevent a monopoly in the music market, but the law also regulates that the right holder has the right to exclude that license. ” However as to what kind statement shall be made within such exclusion statement, we have found no such regulation in law. According to the case described in this essay, the recording industry tends to use the term “copyright reserved, and infringement chased”, which in fact is not within the scope of the license due to the followings:
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: In software infringement lawsuits, the plaintiff shall demonstrate itself as the rights holder of the software involved and the “substantial similarity” of the defendant’s software with its own. On the opposite side of the coin, once a defendant counters by claiming that no infringements have been made, it shall present relevant evidence; otherwise, it shall bear any disadvantages resulting from the failure to present proof of a lack of infringement. As for the case described in this essay, although it involves open source software, no definitive solution has yet been made to solve this particular legal program, to our disappointment.
Abstract: The Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, but they also compete with each other. In the case introduced in this article, the first instance court denied the copyright infringement claim, but confirmed liability under the principles of unfair competition. This seems to be logically contradictory, and the court in the second instance corrected this glaring mistake.
(By Luo Yanjie Unfair competition refers to an operator’s misconduct that violates principles of fairness, justice, and good faith; it is also considered any behavior that violates widely adopted commercial ethics. As for copyright, as a kind of exclusive right, it mainly focuses on granting the right holder a monopolistic right in conformance with the law, and thereby grants the right holder monopoly rights as well as a competitive advantage through the exploitation of his/her own intellectual works. In this particular aspect, it shares a similar purpose with the Anti Unfair Competition Law. For this reason, the Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, yet on the other hand they also compete with each other.
(By Luo Yanjie) Previously, we introduced how to determine the copyright holder of cinematographic works, and today we would like to continue by introducing how to determine copyright ownership of musical works. Similar to cinematographic works, we have confronted situations in infringement cases in which it is difficult to determine the copyright holder of musical work. For example, in one case the copyright conducted in mainland China was licensed by an overseas rights holder, but the name in the signed and issued license was different from what was written on the original CD. Although the issue might have come from a mistake in the translation, it still created a real obstacle for the rights holder. Now, let’s take a look on the way to determine the copyright holder of musical work in China.
(By Luo Yanjie) In a previous infringement case against cinematographic we handled, the plaintiff submitted several articles of evidence to the court, which showed that the work belonged to different copyright holders: according to a certificate issued by the Hong Kong Copyright Center, it was Copyrighter A’s property while the subtitle authorship rights belonged to Copyrighter B. And yet, as demonstrated by a license agreement, C shall be the exclusive holder of the copyright. That made the plaintiff argue for his ownership of the copyright. In fact, due to the complexity in determining copyright ownership, contradictory disputes like the one described above are quite common in actual practice. In today’s post we will share our understanding of the issue.
By Luo Yanjie
Getty Images (NYSE: GTY) (the “company”or “Getty”) is a company globally known for its picture license business for third party’s use. In general, the company shall appear in the court as the plaintiff, yet as reported in recent (note: the link is in Chinese), Getty was charged in Beijing Haidian People’s Court. The story is: Getty was found by a Chinese statute designer of unlicensed collection of his works into the company’s data base, which was on sale to the public; therefore, he filed a lawsuit against Getty, demanding a compensation. After the hearing, Getty was judged non-fair use in the case, and shall compensate the plaintiff RMB 5, 000 and an apology.
By Luo Yanjie
In our past post “How Sony Can Avoid Copyright Risk”, we gave our legal opinion in the copyright infringement charged against SONY. And in that case, SONY integrated the function of networking in a type of its TV products, by which the consumer could watch the cartoon produced by an animation company after registering its TV and the application for an account on an appointed websites under the instruction of SONY. The animation company sued SONY and the website in Beijing after detaining the infringement.
As reported (note: the link is in Chinese), SIMENS PLC Software won the copyright dispute over its software against Excelstor Technology (Excelsor), a company headquartered in Shenzhen, in Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, with a sentence to stop the infringement and compensation of 1.16 million yuan for the infringement. There are two eye catching points in this case: 1) the court aided SIMENS in evidence preservation to detain the computers of Excelsor’ s design department, which are detected of NX Unigraphics copyrighted by SIMENS, and that is rare in the cases of this kind; 2) the judged compensation surpassed the legal limit. The post today mainly focuses on the 2nd point. (the image today is the logo of SIMENS)
I. To legally determine the fault ascertainment standard of Safe Harbor Rule
Ms. Zhang suggested to drafted the standard of “known or shall be known” as the legal standard of the ISP fault ascertainment, meanwhile, the obligation of ISP shall also be listed in the modified law while no too high obligation shall be set.
Bridge IP Law Commentary’s opinion: There’s no legal standard on the ascertainment of ISP fault in Copyright Law, with the standard is referred to partly in the Article 36 of Infringement liability law, “Where no measures have been taken by IPS on knowing the infringement or violation by users against others, the ISP shall take the joint liability with the infringer.”
—Analysis on the law Nature of the Works of Word Stock
Today’s essay follows “Legal Commentary on the case of Founder VS P&G and Chinese Character, I”
(2) The Founder Word Stock is the composite works
The Stock here refers to the Founder Word Stock composing all the individual words in it rather than the stock software. The new works come from the selection or arrangement of the existing works is called the composite works. In our opinion, it’s necessary for Founder to apply the copyright registration for the whole Stock since only focusing on the determination of the copyrighted works over the Stock Software or the individual words is not enough. And such registration could benefit the protection over the Stock against any other infringement, such as to print a book or magazine in the script in the Stock with no license.
—Analysis on the law Nature of the Works of Chinese Character Word Stock
Highlight: Today and tomorrow, Bridge IP Law Commentary will introduce and analyze you the case of script copyright conflict between Founder and P&G, and also the system of word stock works behind the case. And the following is the first half—the introduction on the case and the part analysis on the nature of the works of word stock.
On the morning of 5th July, 2011, the appeal of the Founder Electronics (HKEX:0418, 0618) was rejected by the No.1 Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing in its case of the script copyright conflict against P&G (NYSE: PG), and the decision of the first hearing was supported. The final judgment maintains an ambiguous attitude towards the determination of “飘柔”, the localized name of the Rejoice brand of P&G , to be a fine art works, neither to support it or opposite it.
Highlights: The article analyzes the case that SONY sued for the infringing content of internet Video-On-Demand service integrated in TV set and the provisions of port principles in China Copyright Law.
It is reported that SONY (TYO: 6758, NYSE: SNE), along with a VOD website, was sued by a Chinese cartoon company (the “copyright owner”), and Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court has accepted the suit.
As news reports, the copyright owner claimed that SONY integrated the internet unicast service software in certain type of its TV set. Furthermore, with SONY’s TV set instruction, the consumer could watch the content of infringing program after registering the serial number of TV online and an account with a website in sequence.