Over the last eight monthsJoanI don't knowShuxhengThe copyright dispute finally came to a conclusion. On 26 november, the court considered that, as the lynching " palace chain city " had violated joan's " plumflower brand " , the first instance judgement had been handed down to the accused, who had stopped spreading the " palace chain city " , publicly apologized and compensated joan for $5 million. In the judge's opinion, the whole of the scripts of the palace chain city and the television show have been adapted to the novels of joan and the script, " plumcuit " . 28 december, quanzhou evening
The case arose on 15 april, when joan reported to the general authority for radio and television that his work, " the spectrum of plum " , had been copied by the lycée chain town, which was being written. In response, it was said that it was “a coincidence and a mistake”。
June was a famous voice writer who influenced an era, and that was the famous young writer and author in recent yearsOriginalProtecting original disputes between justice and injustice has great meaning and exemplary effects。
In recent years, the film ring has become windy. For example, the anti-thesis " the phoenix misty " was brought before a court on suspicion of copying a similar feature, the " plum books " , and became the first case in the country to be suspected of television copying. Others, such as the intransigent carrot and the madness, have also been questioned for imitating the mad stone, and shadow lover is suspected of copying the fake phoenix. As a matter of fact, in addition to the palace chain city, his other works have been challenged by netizens for copying the legends and the breakout, etc., and have been dubbed “to copy”。
How many more people will be able to attack the hearts of the audience when the copying is widespread in the film world and when the crashes and thunders are co-opted? The powerlessness of writers, writers and writers when copied often causes harm to them must deter cultural innovation. China's film industry too needs a sobering dose so that more people can look at the wind of the attack. A court trial is scheduled to copy joan, and a $5 million compensation is a sobering agent to contain the seizure: the price of a good word is a heavy price to pay for it; and it is right to establish the concept of “right before creation” and respect for the work of others。
Jung won the case, and the rest of those who were subjected to the attack will not be allowed to stand up for themselves, will be able to take up legal weapons with their enemies, and will be pushed onto the stand by those who are suspected of major raids. It is gratifying to note that the author of the death notices announced a day ago that he would be in court for the alleged copying of his novel, the evil hypnotist. There is no doubt that this has been a significant increase in copyright awareness。
However, it was not easy for joan to win the case — in the case, it was highly controversial to accuse the 21 bridge sections of the palace chain city of being suspected of copying them: whether they were just the basic setup of the script or the original expression of joan. Because the copyright act protects “expression”, i. E. The information people see on the vehicle in question, rather than some creative techniques, principles or modus operandi. In that connection, the court considered the main features of joan's work, its structure, character set-up and relationships, among others, to be the main creative expressions of joan's work, and undoubtedly a breakthrough。
There is an important legal protection against copying other works. Whether the element of creation should be regarded as an expression is of course a matter of legal clarity. Only then will future intellectual property protection be more robust. Ho yonghai
