China Court’s Injunction Ruling: the Auction Company Shall Not Sell Qian Zhongshu and Yang Jiang’s Letter and Manuscripts

360截图-27522991_副本

(By You Yunting) As reported by Guangming News (note: the link is in Chinese), Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court ruled in recent to demand the SUNGARI Auction Firm (the “SUNGARI”) not to carry out any conducts which would infringement the copyright contained in the letters written by Qian Zhongshu, Yang Jiang, Qian Yuan to Li Guoqiang. In the previous posts, we have put forward our opinions on the issue (post 1 and post 2).

According to the report, the court ruled that:

1. As the tools to communicate emotions, exchange ideas and discuss issues, the letter is generally the literal work finished by the writer basing on his/her independent thinking, and could be the work protected in the Copyright Law. Its copyright shall be owned by the author, who is namely the sender.

READ MORE

Could Yang Jiang Prevents the Auction Off of Qian Zhongshu’s Letters with Friends?

(By You Yunting)At first, the author would like to make a digression statement: in the article “Would Tencent Take the Copyright of Contents Published by Users on WeChat?”, the author analyzed the misunderstanding arisen by the Tencent User Agreement, and after its publication, Tencent modified its agreement, by which the original article has been amended into “For the contents created by the user when using the service herein provided, its IPR shall be the property of the user or the related right holder.” The author deeply appreciates their quick acceptation of the advice.

READ MORE

Introduction to 3rd Revision Draft of China Copyright Law

On the beginning of April 2012, the National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC) released the exposure draft for revision of China Copyright Law (the “Draft”) accompanied with the interpretations on the draft. Today, we are going to introduce you the revision. (the image is the cover of China Copyright Law)

 (I) the works

(1) The original “cinematographic works” is revised to the “audiovisual works”, and the original “video recording” is deleted which will be protected as the audiovisual works;

READ MORE