2017, the teleplay of procuratorial work anti-corruption that according to the writer novel of Zhou Mei dark adapts " people's name " heat is sowed, cause a society to pay close attention to extensively. Because think " people's name " be suspected of borroweding oneself work, " camera bellows " author Liu Santian sues Mei Sen of week of this drama playwrite, well-known writer to reach to the court manufacture 7 times jointly the person violates its copyright, requirement novel " people's name " issue 18 million yuan to wear and recoup its pecuniary loss in the round.
On April 24 afternoon, shanghai Pudong court makes first instance adjudicate to this case, cognizance the accused does not form tort, reject the lawsuit of accuser Liu Santian to request. Come from committee member of the delegate of National People's Congress of Pudong new developed area, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the reporter that Shanghai media reachs in the center of is close 50 people audit that day adjudge.
" camera bellows " sue " people's name " claim for compensation 18 million
Writer Liu Santian says, its are experienced according to the correspondent work of oneself, began to write novel of full length anti-corruption 2004 " camera bellows " , published formally in January 2011.
2017, teleplay " people's name " in Hunan TV station heat is sowed, she looks via serious careful, think this drama and novel " camera bellows " height of core incident, narrative structure is approximate, bridge of much place story paragraph similar, figure relationship designs likeness, person name is similar, and have much place specific dark buckle can confirm borrowed imitate a fact.
Liu Santian thinks, the work with its prevenient original creation " camera bellows " get copyright law protection. Mei Sen of the accused week is open piracy, borrowed, imitate and adapt its work and try tort gains profit the gender is used, its behavior has formed copyright tort. 7 manufacture to the person undertakes to work of experience case tort teleplay is made jointly and gain profit jointly, disobeyed copyright law to reorganize advantageous position of authority, produce a film mediumly likewise, sign authority, acquire pay right, ought to assume the civil responsibility of tort. Among them Mei Sen of the accused week bears main responsibility, the others is lost each infinite joint liability.
On November 1, 2017, liu Santian is sued to Shanghai Pudong court, the request is sentenced your 8 the accused stop tort, mei Sen of the accused week stops a novel " people's name " publish, sale, 8 the accused publish statement, remove an effect, compensatory accuser pecuniary loss 18 million yuan, each other bears joint liability.
Two work differ completely
The accused requests to reject accuser appeal
On December 27, 2018, shanghai Pudong court makes public open a court session to hear this case. In the front courtyard careful that day, collective argue weighs 8 the accused such as Zhou Mei dark, the accused work " people's name " with accuser work " camera bellows " it is two completely different stories, nonexistent borrowed and imitate, request court rejects the litigant request of accuser.
The accused expresses, the first, the masterstroke of two work and core incident are different. " people's name " around inquisitor Hou Liang is made the same score investigate and deal with sb corrupt corrupt case spreads out, promoted the determination of party and anti-corruption of national put forth effort and strength; " camera bellows " turn around the enterprise make and reporter Ji Zichuan and the lover relation between governor Liu Yunbo spread out, the key shows the story of government-owned businessman collusion, curule corruption. The 2nd, narrative structure is different. " people's name " the investigation action that with inquisitor Hou Liang makes the same score is narrative masterstroke, it is the auxiliary clew of the story with fresh gale factory, told about inquisitor to investigate and deal with sb the hardships in corrupt corrupt case, labyrinthian story; " camera bellows " show government-owned businessman collusion and official corruption issue only, how to punish without depict corrupt. The 3rd, story bridge paragraph different. " camera bellows " in involved bridge paragraph not much, with " people's name " far apart, the content of both depict, language, incident, character, circumstances all differs. The 4th, figure relationship design is different, " people's name " in designed more than 70 famous have the person with surname, bright disposition. Novel " camera bellows " can not compare a gender to it. The 5th, the person name of two novels is done not have any associated sex. The accused thinks, what accuser mentions in indictment is specific dark buckle, cannot confirm likewise borrowed me-too problem.
The accused thinks accordingly, accuser sues basis inadequacy, request court is rejected lawfully.
Court: Accuser appeal does not have fact and legal basis, first instance is rejected
The court thinks, what copyright law protects is the expression of work, and the thought that does not extend to work. Work of tort be accusinged is in only contact and the case with identical or similar materiality is formed to fall on expression with the work of obligee, just form tort.
Great majority of work of novel, movie and TV originates real life, it is normal that the work that different person creates is put in certain close circumstances, setting to wait to all be belonged to. It is the creation that encourages work at the same time, still should allow to be drawn lessons from reasonably. When work copyright tort decides, the element that should judge obligee to advocate first is to belong to the idea that does not get copyright law protection, still belong to those who get copyright law protection to have Promethean expression, the expression that wants eliminate to belong to public domain at the same time and expressive means are conveyed finitely.
After filtering not to suffer the content that copyright law protects, the expression of the respect such as relationship of the integral structure that the key that whether work makes tort is about to see two work, specific clue, figure and setting materiality is similar. Compare similarly in work materiality in be opposite, the analysis that waits to structure, character often interweaves each other with the clue. Wait for the design that adopts story clue, development when the structure of work, character only, join according to certain ordinal around and perforative rise, form enough and specific, after personalized expression, just get the protection of copyright law. Similar to work structure can comprise content, clue to develop the respect such as order and action of clue administrative levels to give from the theme of work, clue integrated judgement.
Accuser novel " camera bellows " reach homonymic teleplay with the accused novel " people's name " the literal on expression of character of both neither existence is similar, the blame literal on the embody such as relationship of structure of whole of nonexistent also work, specific clue, figure is similar. Reason accuser advocates each the accused encroachs copyright to do not have fact and legal basis, this academy does not grant to support.
Accordingly, shanghai Pudong court makes first instance adjudge, reject the lawsuit of accuser Liu Santian to request.
