" people's name " after broadcasting oneself with respect to fire, fictile character and story clue afford for thought and deliberate.
Gave writer Liu Santian 2017 will " people's name " relevant personnel tells a court, think its content and clue are suspected of borroweding novel of oneself full length anti-corruption " camera bellows " , offer well-known writer week Mei Sen and wear below 7 publication units " people's name " , recoup pecuniary loss 18 million yuan.
On April 24, 2019, shanghai Pudong court makes first instance adjudicate, think the accused does not form tort, reject the lawsuit of accuser Liu Santian to request.
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.
The court thinks 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.
You had been read " camera bellows " , whether curiosity wants to take the opportunity to be read, with " people's name " undertake contrast.
