“法定许可”条款如何助力邓紫棋翻盘版权官司

Core Viewpoint - The case of singer G.E.M. Tang and her former agency Hummingbird Music highlights the significance of the statutory licensing system in China's copyright law, which has provided a legal avenue for artists to navigate contractual disputes and reclaim their rights [1][4]. Group 1: Statutory Licensing System - The statutory licensing system under China's copyright law is seen as a crucial tool for artists, allowing them to reproduce and distribute music without needing prior permission from the original copyright holders, provided they pay the required fees [1][5]. - This system aims to facilitate the dissemination of music works, promoting broader access while balancing the rights of copyright owners [3][5]. Group 2: Legal Precedents and Implications - A notable precedent involved singer Dao Lang and his contract with a cultural company, which ultimately led to a Supreme Court ruling affirming that once a music work is publicly available, others can use it under statutory licensing without needing additional permissions [3][5]. - The ongoing legal battle between G.E.M. Tang and Hummingbird Music raises questions about the applicability of statutory licensing in Hong Kong, where different legal standards may apply compared to mainland China [7][9]. Group 3: Contractual and Copyright Issues - The complexity of copyright law is underscored by the potential for disputes over contracts signed at a young age, as G.E.M. Tang claims her original contract was signed under duress, complicating the legal landscape [7][8]. - The involvement of collective management organizations, such as the Hong Kong Composers and Authors Society (CASH), adds another layer of complexity regarding the transfer and management of copyright rights [8][9]. Group 4: Market Impact and Future Considerations - The uncertainty surrounding the legal status of G.E.M. Tang's music may lead to market hesitance among consumers and stakeholders, emphasizing the need for clear legal resolutions [9]. - The case serves as a potential precedent for other artists facing similar contractual challenges, highlighting the importance of understanding copyright laws and their implications for artistic freedom and financial security [9].