Workflow
著作权侵权
icon
Search documents
快手陷"多事之秋":因侵权被判赔8910万、前高管涉贪丑闻曝光、大主播再退网……
Guo Ji Jin Rong Bao· 2025-08-26 23:28
最近一段时间,短视频平台快手麻烦事不断。 近日,据多家媒体报道,快手因侵害《德云斗笑社》和《长相思》著作权,被两地法院判赔8910万元。 具体来看,快手因未经许可传播《德云斗笑社》第一季和第二季、《长相思》(第一季)侵权纠纷两案,分别由广东省高级人民法院、重庆市高级人 民法院作出终审判决。两家高级人民法院均认定该短视频平台存在大量侵权行为,判令其立即采取过滤、拦截等有效措施阻止侵权视频传播,并分别赔偿 权利人经济损失及合理开支6000万元和2910万元。 8月26日,记者向快手方面求证此事,截至发稿尚未得到回应。 短视频行业长期存在内容侵权乱象,"几分钟看完一部电影""几分钟看完一集电视剧"等大量侵权剪切版视频被广泛传播,电影、长剧集和热门综艺等 影视内容的版权方是重点被侵权对象。 在此过程中,短视频平台显然监管缺位。以《德云斗笑社》侵权案件为例,据报道,该短视频平台在节目热播阶段,通过自身官方账号直接发布了侵 权视频,此外,平台内未如实披露用户真实信息的侵权视频数量多达2000余条;侵权视频在快手平台上持续出现,有大量视频超过7个工作日仍未得到处 置,平台存在故意放任侵权行为泛滥的情况;在前后近三年的时间里 ...
快手侵权《德云斗笑社》《长相思》终审判赔8910万
Xin Lang Ke Ji· 2025-08-25 05:17
【侵权《德云斗笑社》《长相思》,#快手被判赔8910万#】近日,广东省高级人民法院、重庆市高级人 民法院就快手侵害热播节目《德云斗笑社》(第一、二季)和《长相思》(第一季)著作权两案,分别 作出终审判决。两地高级人民法院均认为快手存在明显的过错,侵权情节严重,适用1 倍惩罚性赔偿, 分别判决赔偿《德云斗笑社》和《长相思》独家信网权权利人6000万元和2910万元,并支持将过滤和拦 截等措施纳入必要措施,要求短视频平台有效防控侵权传播。 #快手被判侵权# ...
中望软件(688083.SH):Autodesk起诉公司及有关主体著作权侵权等事项
Ge Long Hui· 2025-07-30 07:53
Core Viewpoint - Autodesk has filed a lawsuit against the company for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of existing agreements, seeking various legal remedies [1][2] Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California [1] - Autodesk's claims include requests for both preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent further infringement and misappropriation [1] - Autodesk seeks damages for actual losses, lost profits, exemplary damages, and litigation costs [1] Group 2: Company's Response - The company does not acknowledge Autodesk's claims and intends to take strong measures to defend its interests [2] - The company emphasizes its commitment to research and innovation, asserting that its software has independent intellectual property rights [2] - The company has over 20 years of experience in industrial design software and has developed a core technology and product matrix focused on various CAD and simulation tools [2] Group 3: Legal and Financial Implications - The specific amount involved in the lawsuit has not been disclosed, and the case has not yet gone to trial [2] - The final impact on the company's financial performance remains uncertain and will depend on the court's ruling [2]
生产假冒泡泡玛特,主犯被判4年、罚金60万元!
证券时报· 2025-07-17 15:04
Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a court ruling in Beijing regarding a copyright infringement case involving counterfeit toys from the brand Bubble Mart, highlighting the legal consequences faced by the perpetrators and the scale of the illegal operation [1]. Summary by Sections Case Details - On July 16, the Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing sentenced the main perpetrator, Zhu, to 4 years in prison and a fine of 600,000 yuan for commissioning the production of counterfeit Bubble Mart toys [1]. - From July 2023 to January 2024, Zhu illegally produced counterfeit "Temperature" and "Night City" series toys, paying over 600,000 yuan to accomplices for production [1]. - Over 80,000 counterfeit toys were seized by law enforcement, with a total value exceeding 400,000 yuan [1]. Legal Findings - The court found that Zhu's group illegally reproduced and distributed copyrighted artistic works without permission, with illegal business revenue exceeding 1 million yuan, constituting "particularly serious circumstances" of copyright infringement [1]. - Zhu received a lighter sentence due to his confession, lack of prior criminal record, and the return of 120,000 yuan in illegal gains [1]. - Other accomplices, including Ning and Peng, were sentenced separately for copyright infringement, while three individuals involved in selling the counterfeit products faced criminal charges for selling infringing copies [1].
被前经纪公司要求48小时内删除《泡沫》《光年之外》等代表作,邓紫棋回应→
第一财经· 2025-06-18 12:31
Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the copyright dispute between G.E.M. (邓紫棋) and her former management company, Hummingbird Music, regarding the re-recording and online release of her album "I AM GLORIA," which includes popular songs that are subject to copyright claims by the company [1][5][12]. Group 1: Copyright Dispute - Hummingbird Music claims ownership of the recording and songwriting rights for the songs involved in the dispute, stating that these works were created during the contract period between G.E.M. and the company [5][11]. - The company demands that G.E.M. remove the infringing content within 48 hours and that all music platforms take down the re-recorded songs, threatening legal action if these demands are not met [5][17]. - G.E.M. has responded by asserting that her re-recordings are legally compliant under China's statutory licensing laws and that she has paid the necessary fees for these versions to be released globally [17]. Group 2: Legal Basis and Actions - Hummingbird Music cites the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, emphasizing that the rights to the songs belong to the company due to the agreements made during the contract period [12][16]. - The company outlines specific legal infringements, including violations of reproduction and adaptation rights, as well as unauthorized online distribution of the re-recorded songs [16][12]. - Hummingbird Music plans to take further legal actions, including filing administrative complaints and lawsuits for damages if their demands are not met [12][16].
10块钱买一条“中华”?低价茶打擦边球仿香烟售卖
Xin Jing Bao· 2025-06-15 07:28
Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of tea products being sold in packaging that closely resembles well-known cigarette brands, particularly "中华" (Zhonghua), which raises concerns about consumer deception and potential legal violations related to trademark infringement and misleading advertising [8][20][21]. Group 1: Product Description and Consumer Experience - The tea products are packaged in boxes that mimic the appearance of cigarette brands like "中华," "荷花," and "南京," with prices around 10 yuan or 9.9 yuan per package [4][6][19]. - Consumers have reported confusion and disappointment upon receiving the products, as they expected cigarettes but received tea instead, leading to negative reviews and claims of being misled [4][10][15]. - The tea quality has been criticized, with industry experts stating that the products do not meet the standards of the advertised types, such as "肉桂" (Rougui) and "大红袍" (Da Hong Pao) [22][24]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Concerns - Selling cigarettes online is illegal under Chinese law, and the use of similar packaging for tea products may constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition [8][20][21]. - The packaging of the tea products is argued to infringe on the trademark rights of "中华" cigarettes, as the design and branding are closely associated with the well-known cigarette brand [20][21]. - Legal experts suggest that the tea products' packaging could mislead consumers and harm the reputation of the "中华" brand, potentially leading to legal action [20][21]. Group 3: Market Implications - The article indicates a growing trend of using deceptive marketing practices in the tea industry, where low-quality products are sold at low prices, often misleading consumers [22][24]. - The presence of such products in the market raises concerns about consumer protection and the integrity of e-commerce platforms, as they may facilitate the sale of counterfeit or substandard goods [22][24]. - The situation reflects broader issues within the tea industry regarding quality control and the need for better regulation to protect consumers from misleading practices [22][24].
“《大话西游》动图案”判了!将电影“名场面”做成动图表情包暗含哪些法律风险?
Yang Guang Wang· 2025-05-12 03:18
Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal risks associated with the use of GIFs derived from copyrighted films, specifically focusing on the balance between copyright protection and the concept of fair use in digital content sharing [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Context - The Shanghai Yangpu District People's Court ruled that the GIFs created from the film "A Chinese Odyssey: Part One - Pandora's Box" constituted copyright infringement, as they were not transformed enough to qualify for fair use [2][3]. - The court emphasized that the GIFs were direct extracts from the film, lacking originality and thus replacing the original content's dissemination [2][3]. Group 2: Responsibilities of Platform Operators - The court found that the network company, as the platform operator, had a responsibility to monitor and prevent copyright infringement, given the high risk associated with the content uploaded by users [3]. - The network company was deemed to have subjective fault for not fulfilling its duty to review the uploaded GIFs, leading to its liability for facilitating copyright infringement [3]. Group 3: Fair Use Considerations - The court's decision indicates that fair use is contingent upon various factors, including the nature and purpose of the use, the nature of the original work, and the potential market impact on the original work [5][6]. - The distinction between personal use among friends and public dissemination on social media platforms is crucial in determining the risk of infringement [5][6]. Group 4: Implications for Content Creators - The ruling serves as a reminder for content creators to respect intellectual property rights when using film clips for GIF creation, as failure to do so may lead to legal repercussions [6]. - The concept of "reasonable use" is designed to balance the rights of copyright holders with the interests of public creativity, but it requires careful consideration of the context in which content is shared [6].