Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the conflict between a food influencer, Sui Bian, and the MCN (Multi-Channel Network) that previously managed his account, highlighting issues of revenue sharing, account ownership, and creator rights in the digital content industry [4][15][17]. Group 1: Conflict Overview - Sui Bian, a food influencer, gained popularity through his original account "Te Chu Sui Bian" but left the MCN after their contract expired, leading to a legal dispute over account ownership and competition agreements [9][11]. - The MCN claims to have invested hundreds of thousands in developing Sui Bian's brand and asserts that the account ownership should remain with them, citing a non-compete clause [15][22]. - Legal experts suggest that the enforceability of non-compete clauses in this context may be questionable, as they often require compensation and a formal employment relationship [15][17]. Group 2: Revenue Sharing and Labor Conditions - Reports indicate that Sui Bian received only 500 RMB per commercial deal, while the MCN charged clients between 48,000 to 85,000 RMB for promotional videos, raising concerns about fair compensation [16][33]. - The contract required Sui Bian to produce 16 to 30 videos per month, which some critics label as "exploitative" working conditions [16][35]. - The MCN claims Sui Bian failed to meet performance targets, while he argues that the compensation structure was inadequate for the workload [16][22]. Group 3: Public Perception and Content Authenticity - The public largely supports Sui Bian, viewing the MCN's tactics as capital exploitation, and many believe that the editing and scripting of content are standard practices in the industry [17][18]. - The MCN attempted to release unedited footage to demonstrate Sui Bian's reliance on their support, but this backfired, leading to accusations of "self-exposure" and further damaging their reputation [17][31]. - Sui Bian's new account focuses on traditional culinary culture and has quickly gained followers, indicating a successful rebranding despite the conflict [17][18]. Group 4: Industry Implications - The situation highlights the need for MCNs to evolve from a controlling model to a service-oriented approach that respects creators' brand value and rights [17][58]. - Legal recommendations suggest that creators should clarify account ownership, name usage, and content control in contracts to avoid future disputes [17][18]. - The case may influence future regulations regarding creator rights, particularly with the proposed "Account Personality Rights" concept in upcoming legislation [18].