Today (April 9), more than 70 film and television media units and enterprises issued a joint statement on the protection of film and television copyrights, stating that they will conduct unauthorized editing, cutting, and editing of the contents of film and television works by producers and operators of public accounts currently appearing on the Internet. Conveyance, dissemination, etc., will initiate centralized and necessary legal rights protection actions; call on short video platforms and public account producers and operators to earnestly raise their awareness of copyright protection. The statement stated that purifying and optimizing the copyright environment for producers and operators of short video platforms and official accounts, and forming a good industry ecology of “authorize before use” is an important part of strengthening the rule of law and realizing the strategy of strengthening the country.

Considering that some people may not see the end, let’s put the point of view first: I personally think that authorization is supported, but monopolizing traffic in the name of authorization is problematic. I didn’t intend to answer it, but I have an assumption and I don’t know. No, it’s just that this file may be useless…Because where there is change, there will be business. I want to make an assumption. Will anyone make money by authorization in the future? “Get the xxx copyright for a price of 1,000?” “The transaction price of 10,000, MCN will be used forever?” “Double Eleven, the free license is limited to 100 people, come grab it.” Then a film and television company saw this situation, I just thought, we will authorize all for free (or just 0.01 yuan), let the majority of up owners help us to create a second creation, and then there are new film and television works that indicate that we do not sign any platform, we will authorize it to the general public, you can rest assured that the second creation, Take it, even if we are on the platform, the authorization is all free. Everyone sees that it is free, so we will rob and create a second creation. This work will achieve a better publicity effect, and other works will be jealous, and we will ask for authorization. It’s also free, so everyone is vying to go to Second Creation again. Perhaps some head video software such as iQiyi and Mango wanted to sue these film and television companies, but they were overturned by the voice of the general public. Immediately after everyone found that this free authorization thing was done by people, then I did it, so more and more free authorization… So this file became a piece of waste paper… As soon as the news came out, I went to ask a question on Tencent A senior in the video asked him what he thought of this matter… He said that regardless of the industry, he also suffered. I asked why? He said that their workload may increase. Remember that the disappearance of things does not mean that the needs will disappear. Those who edit videos to this website will be asked to make more videos to meet everyone’s needs, including ghosts and animals. The purpose of is to retain and increase the audience, so that they will only go to the corresponding app to watch the Erchuang video. He also said that their colleagues are discussing, afterwards, many people may come to them for the copyright of the variety show, and then there will still be ” x copyright partners, bring you the latest interpretation”, this kind of changing direction may increase…so the meat will always be the head, and many small ups who want to mix and edit the film and television may survive the pressure further. Because of this situation, as a film and television er, I feel sorry for the first time that the video bloggers and marketing accounts in the film and television area… The document mentions purifying the short video environment. Rather, it was a slash. I believe you have definitely seen this kind of whole clip after opening Baidu. I can make 50 clips a day. But you said that this unskilled job is someone who sees someone likes it. ? Really! Some people just want to revisit the clips of these movies they have watched when they are bored, so people actually watch them. But what will happen to this in the future? It will become that every segment seems to be marketing and advertising. I hope you look at it soon. Because they are all officially authorized, most of them have a bit of profit pursuit. Then let’s talk about the up-hosts of the film and television area. If there is no picture, how they explain it will become a person talking in the picture, and we will look at the person’s face. For tens of minutes, I might not be able to watch it anyway, and finally there was a picture with a picture. It turned out that it was an advertisement at the end. The film was actually very ordinary, but he was blown to the sky because he is an authorizer and a good fan. People… But at the same time, this is also a way to protect the IP of the film, because although authorization may seem useless, it actually means that you are allowed to create a second creation. Is the second creation to make money? (Well, some are indeed.) But from the perspective of film and television, it is a more entertaining propaganda, a kind of communication. So I support changing to authorization, but if “authorization” becomes a way for several video sites to monopolize traffic, then I disagree. Therefore, based on my immature ideas above, I hope that my top ideas will be realized and nothing more.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
6 months ago

What did they do by relying on “copyright”? No ads → 15 seconds → 30 seconds → 60 seconds → 90 seconds → more exciting after the ad → Member-only advertisement​I am a person who has watched a TV series at a certain station~ Again, as long as the show is on At that time, don’t overdo it. I think it’s more pros than cons, because some clips of a certain station and a certain sound are more interesting and attractive than the original TV clips. I went to watch the original TV series several times because I felt it was good to watch a certain station. The editing and water injection of the TV series are persuaded to retreat, go back and continue to a certain station and shake ~ Isn’t it because the short videos in the past two years have been smashed, and the major films and televisions have been injected with water and flickered filming, only looking at the money but not the quality, which led to watching The public can only see the clips that can be really watched in the short video. Really respecting film and television works should start from your own

heloword
6 months ago

Just put it straight, in the future, there will be more and more shi-like films, and they will be fed directly to your mouth, and they will force you to admit that this is really delicious. This wave, on the surface, seems to be aimed at Scissorhands, but actually aimed at the group of people engaged in film evaluation. The copyright of the video you cut with my TV series is with me. I will sue if I want to, and if I sue it, I will win. Should I sue or not? It’s not like watching this video is blowing or stepping. They are reluctant to tell if they blow, the positive effect is outstanding. Isn’t it good to keep the drainage? Step on me, criticize my drama for being like a shit, okay, you infringed my copyright! Get off the shelf quickly! If you don’t get off the shelves, you will be bankrupted! Who will be the critics from now on? One is to blow vigorously, or publicly praise it, which seems to be the actual marketing of the film review; the other is the copyright owner secretly rubs and rubs, and when it encounters others, it steps on it, and it blows hard on its own. In a word, what you can see in the future must be what the copyright owner wants you to see. In the future, you may have more and more doubts. Why are everyone talking about such a shining film? Is it really that my appreciation level is not enough? Or is everyone starting to like to eat shi? Over time, you will find that there is nothing left. Yes, one more thing, does this mean that the scissors hands are safe? How can it be! You have done a good job of this video. The copyright owner has a look, hey, this video is not bad, it has a lot of traffic! Come and get it! This is our film, that’s our thing, bring it! what? You said editing and creativity are your own? Unwilling to give? Then don’t blame me for being polite~ Close the door, let the legal affairs, tell me! And this report is sure to win, because the copyright belongs to me! You reluctantly removed the video. Turning around and looking at the official account, it posted a mirror plot that is similar to yours, because the resources are high-definition, and you get more likes than yours. There is also a group of actors and fans who are blowing copyright. Dad is awesome! You angrily want to take up legal weapons to protect your own ideas, tell him to plagiarize, okay, you fight against the entire legal department alone, drag it for a year or two, and there is no shit, and if you lose, you will lose a few cents. You lose such a high cost of time and energy. So I advise you Scissorhands, if it is not for the selfless dedication of actor fans, don’t spend too much effort for love, just make someone else’s wedding dress for nothing, and even make yourself a mess.

helpyme
6 months ago

It can be described as a depth bomb. 1. It will increase the cost of short video editing and transportation. Either buy the copyright or bye bye. 2. A group of film and television overlords have grown up, and those companies that can obtain copyright now have a moat. 3. The possibility of a few dominance is very big, from the previous fight for talents to now fight for RMB. 4. The method of cutting leeks by teaching people to do video editing and transportation can no longer be used. 5. Some of the self-media that engages in video editing will switch to other industries, which brings competitive pressure to other fields. 6. Film and television copyright is only the first step, and there will be a shadow of intellectual property rights in all aspects. 7. Intellectual property rights protect innovation on the one hand, but also temporarily frustrate certain fields because of the existence of copyright. 8. Lawyers who engage in intellectual property rights can have a wave of prosperity. This wave of rights protection started, and the profits took off. 9. All walks of life are paying attention to the protection of intellectual property rights. Our company has also established an intellectual property team, and intellectual property is affecting all aspects.

sina156
6 months ago

After reading the answers in a circle, most of them are emotional output, as if once they are labeled as “capital” and “monopoly”, everyone can shout and beat them. But this problem really has nothing to do with capital and monopoly. The legal logic of this issue is very simple. The film and television producer originally enjoys the copyright of the film and television drama, and video platforms such as Ai Yu Teng generally paid the consideration and obtained the copyright authorization of this film and television work (“information network dissemination right”, “adaptation right” “It’s all small items in copyright), sometimes it’s exclusive, sometimes it’s non-exclusive. If someone uses this work without authorization, of course it is an infringement. Regardless of whether it is a full film, a fragment, or a fragment editing “secondary creation”, it is the same infringement. This is the same as the answer that the respondent wrote on Zhihu. They all know that “All rights reserved, reprinting must be investigated.” Whether it is reprinted in full, partially reprinted, or partially adapted “secondary creation”, it is not all despised by everyone.” What about infringement? How could it be different if it changed its position. This is originally the meaning of the title of the “Copyright Law”. What does it have to do with “capital” and “leeks”? The “Anti-Monopoly Law” is anti-monopoly agreements, operator concentration, abuse of market dominance, administrative monopoly, and this topic is also ineffective. As for why Aiyuten didn’t defend its rights before, it is now starting to defend its rights. There are indeed reasons behind it. It turned out that they expected the short video platform to announce the new drama. When users watched the short video, they would go to the long video platform to watch the complete drama. As a result, he miscalculated. After the user watched “Watch xxx in two minutes”, it was really over, and he no longer had the patience to watch the whole series of 50 or 60 episodes with serious water injection. The long video platform woke up, what should I do, I bought it for millions of episodes, how can I make wedding dresses for others. So there was a rights defense incident. Let’s put it this way: The long video platform is evil. They pushed up prices by themselves and speculated the copyright of film and television from millions to tens of millions. Now they are shooting themselves in the foot and losing billions of dollars. They do have their own. Made ingredients. Serious content injection and lack of high-quality content are indeed unavoidable problems. But one code goes to one code, and even the worst content is copyrighted. There is no problem with the long video platform using the copyright obtained by paying the consideration to protect its rights. In the past, if we didn’t defend our rights, we just opened one eye and closed one eye, but it doesn’t mean that this right has disappeared. In fact, it is very simple to solve this problem. There is no need for the up owners to do anything. As long as the short video platforms such as station B, Douyin, and Kuaishou also buy the copyright of the film and television drama, and the purchased copyright includes “users on these platforms The right to edit film and television on the Internet”, the long video platform has nothing to say. Originally, this wave of long video platforms targeted station B, followed by Douyin and Kuaishou. Capital A who spent money saw that capital B who didn’t spend money got the same thing as himself, and was unbalanced, so he urged the seller to “hurry up and ask Capital B for money!”. It is not a bitter tear of “capital cutting leeks” at all. I estimate that this matter evolves to the end, it should be that the original rights of the TV series will separate the copyright of the film clip, so that the short video platform will also pay some copyright costs. As for how much the short video platform needs to pay, it depends on the final result of the game between the parties. Some people say, what should I do if I have to use film and television footage when writing film reviews? Rest assured, this does not belong to the scope of infringement in this question at all. The Copyright Law originally stipulates a hole: fair use. Article 24 of the Copyright Law. Under the following circumstances, a work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner and no remuneration shall be paid to him. However, the name of the author or the title of the work shall be specified, and the normal use of the work shall not be affected. Have to reasonably damage the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner: (1) Use others’ published works for personal study, research or appreciation; (2) Introduce, comment on a certain work or explain a certain issue, and appropriately quote in the work Works published by others; (3) To report news, inevitably reproduce or quote published works in newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations and other media; (4)Publications in newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations and other media Or broadcast current-event articles on political, economic, and religious issues that have been published by other newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations and other media, unless the copyright owner declares that publication or broadcasting is prohibited; (5) Newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, and television stations Other media publish or broadcast speeches made at public gatherings, unless the author declares that publication or broadcast is not allowed;(6) For school classroom teaching or scientific research, translation, adaptation, compilation, broadcasting or a small amount of copying of published works are provided for Use by teaching or scientific research personnel, but not for publication; (7) State agencies use published works within a reasonable range to perform official duties; (8) libraries, archives, memorials, museums, art galleries, cultural centers, etc. for display or To save the version, copy the works collected by the museum; (9) free performance of published works, the performance does not charge the public, nor pay the performer, and is not for profit; (10) set up Or copying, painting, photographing, or video recording of artistic works displayed in public places; (11) Translating works created in the national standard language and written by Chinese citizens, legal persons or unincorporated organizations into works in minority languages ​​in China Publishing and distribution; (12) Provide published works to persons with print disabilities in a barrier-free way that they can perceive; (13) Other circumstances stipulated by laws and administrative regulations.

yahoo898
6 months ago

As a law teacher, let me answer this question. What is the biggest impact? You may not see the ghost animal video on station B, hahahahahaha. Although I am not specifically studying intellectual property law, as a professional in the field of law, I am still following various policy developments. Since the seminar on intellectual property rights was held at the beginning of the year, attention to intellectual property rights has been unprecedentedly high. Guo Jingming and Yu Zheng lined up to apologize, and the joint statement of film and television companies now shows that the protection of intellectual property rights will be a general trend and direction in the future. But for those of us who eat melons, our daily happiness diminishes. For example, you want to see the interpretation of a certain movie, sorry, no copyright, you want to watch a clip of a ghost video, sorry, no copyright. The consequence of this is that some large self-media people are getting bigger and bigger, because they have capital support, and self-media people who do not have capital support can only go into decline. Very good, in line with the rules of the game in a market economy. In addition, the most important thing, the most important thing, the most important thing. If you want to be a lawyer, let me get a patent attorney. You will thank me in the future. Hurry up and like it and follow it.

leexin
6 months ago

An important part of the realization of a strong country strategy? ! ! To be honest, many of the current film and television dramas have chaotic plots and various slots flying in the sky. I really haven’t edited and transported them. The so-called only things they think can reflect our culture. It’s nothing more than everyone’s public accounts and video platforms that make them unhappy. For example, I remember that the TV series “Tear the Devil” existed many years ago. It was not edited by various gods. I really don’t know there are so many in it. The operation against the sky. If it really needs their authorization to move the clips as they said, I think the producer of this shredded man will not authorize it for any amount of money, maybe he will give it a rake, saying that the video owner does not respect us. The armed forces behind enemy lines… copyright protection should be in place. For example, if you can watch the whole episode directly on some short video platforms, it must really infringe the copyright owner and the network platform, but if only flattering voices are allowed , No criticism from others is allowed, then I think these film and television companies are really using copyright protection to continue to make some fast-food movies, continue to make unorganized and logical, and only ask for their own bad movies. The point is that they think it’s not enough to be cool, and they have to ask us to be cool and to like it. If you really want to compete, polish your work. Your work is good. For example, Stephen Chow has some good works. Even if you edit spoofs, you will not spray him as a bad film. On the contrary, it will be spread even more with the help of everyone’s publicity. An important part of the strategy of strengthening the country is cultural self-confidence. Those bad film producers, are you qualified to tell me about cultural self-confidence, are you qualified to talk about the strategy of strengthening the country?

greatword
6 months ago

In fact, what is the underlying reason for this problem? Many answers boil down to content flooding, excessive advertising, pre-ordering and other clever charging behaviors such as prestige. These factors are indeed a big problem for video sites, but what is the root cause of short video sites that cannot compete? Because people now have no time. Do you know how extravagant it is to chase drama? People nowadays don’t have time. It is precisely because of the Internet economy that these Internet platforms engage in. And what is behind these Internet platforms? It is financial capital that uses 996, education, loan sharks and other squeezing methods to make workers face the situation of only fragmented rest time. Traditional TV stations have more advertisements, and TV shows are not much better. They can’t fast forward, but older people still Look, because older people have time, even if they are bored, they can pass the time. Do young middle-aged people have time? No. Who caused it?

loveyou
6 months ago

There is still no authorized channel for ordinary individual users. As an individual, it is simply impossible to contact the copyright owner to obtain the editing rights. Even if the copyright owner is contacted, the copyright owner asks you what editing is used for? Entertain yourself? Go crazy. It seems that there is no such thing as “editing rights”. I only learned that film and television have the right to adapt, hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands, dozens, few. If it is really open to the whole people, I think it should not be that expensive, but at least it will have to be a few hundred, right? You take this entertainment? Properly rich second generation. So why not change your mind, simply open a national public authorization channel, users apply for copyright use (editing, secondary creation, sharing clips), etc., and the price is clearly marked. In fact, in addition to the current film and television works that are still charging, many documentaries and old films are basically free to watch, and there is no direct income for the platform. So, the use of public editing for this part of the film and television works will not only have no bad impact, but it will also increase new income channels, and it is not beautiful for old trees to send new flowers. However, this may not be very friendly to newcomer editors, can not afford it, and it is not cost-effective, but for those players who have already realized hundreds of thousands of millions of fans by editing videos, they are still very happy to buy it-look at the price. After all, no one wants to lose money. Regarding not being friendly to newcomers, I think it is possible to apply for copyright use, and the fee can be divided in proportion to the income. Now everyone knows the editing video sharing platform (Tik Tok Kuaishou, even knowing it). As long as these platforms interact with the copyright party of the film and television, the newcomer can provide the copyright party with their own use platform and playback address. After your edited video is profitable, it will start to be divided. This can be entrusted by the editor of the short video platform to the copyright. Fang pays. PS: No company wants to develop a copyright authorization distribution platform that collects pictures, videos, software, and articles (without distinguishing what types of copyrights are)? Optional different authorization methods and different payment methods. As long as you have a creation, you can entrust it to this platform to display it. If someone is interested, you can place an order online. You can decide how to trade, or you can use the system’s built-in charging method (one-time payment, partial payment, and use according to copyright. Proportional sharing, or integration). With such a platform and open authorization channels, anyone can obtain authorization, openly carry out secondary creation or quotation, and truly enter the era of innovation!

strongman
6 months ago

Editing on the film and television platform: There is a bit of a gap here, no, cut it out. There is a little red liquid here, no, cut it out. Wow! It’s a bit bloody here, not to mention it, cut it out. Wow! There is a swear word here, cut it out! Well, I only cut it for three minutes in total, and it doesn’t affect it. Just collect the money as a genuine one! Audience: Huh? That person just died? How did you die? Ok? What did that person say just now? Isn’t it explaining the plot? Ok? Ok? Am I short of your traffic? Short video clip: What kind of hot chicken movie, all nonsense, cut out. This kind of literary drama has no effect on the plot, so cut it out. What kind of stuff, it’s all about ad placement and cutting off. Eh? This is very important, there are details, slow down and cycle, and then mark a red circle. Eh? This line fills in the previous hole and explains the previous problem, so let’s analyze it for the audience. Damn it! This girl is a bit comfortable in this scene, and the occasional welfare isn’t a marginal shot. Audience: I want to watch this drama recently, but I don’t have time. Forget it, just watch the introduction on the short video. Wow, it’s a bit exciting. Oh! It turned out to be so, but finally understood. Yeah, this movie is interesting. Find a resource and take a look. Huh heh?

stockin
6 months ago

I am wondering, do people just talk about [capital] + [leeks] nowadays? If the video clips are moved without the permission of the main creative team, it is inherently an infringement. The film and television media companies want to protect their rights without any fault. Some scissor hands, such as Gu Amo, edit the original film and repeat the story to make money. The production team or the copyright owner wants to protect their rights. What’s the problem? What is even more exaggerated than Gu Amo is that he simply cuts out a few minutes of footage and uses it to earn data. If we don’t attack such people, do we still need to maintain it? Many people say that the UP main editing video brings traffic to the original film. It can be said that, but don’t forget that the original film is also bringing traffic to the UP main film at the same time. Is there no flow for those bad movies that have been complained about? There are still, even, bad movies are the favorite heat of some UP owners. Many UP owners rely on editing and complaining about bad movies. If the original film’s creative team acquiesced to the editing, that’s okay, but if they object, it’s reasonable. I really don’t understand why a normal human rights action would be ridiculed and criticized. Indeed, many movies are bad, but don’t bad movies have their own rights? Can bad films be edited and sold wantonly? Others say that if the film is good enough, the audience will go to make up for the ticket after reading the introduction. Is this true or false? Even those who specialize in editing know that the films that are currently being screened cannot be cut, and the cuts are generally those that have been withdrawn or are about to be withdrawn. At this time, even if someone wants to make a ticket, where do you ask him to make a ticket? There are not many films that have the opportunity to be rescreened. What’s more, many editors don’t even mark the title. Some people say that these companies are just suppressing UP owners who complain about their works. If UP owners praise them, they will not defend their rights. Indeed, this is also an objective fact. I understand everyone’s indignation, but in theory, no matter what the company’s purpose is, he has the right to sue or not to sue. These companies did not say that they were not allowed to comment on the audience, but only opposed unauthorized editing, so this is not a manipulation of public opinion. Some people say that these edited videos have their own copywriting and opinions, and they can be regarded as their own works. Sorry, it doesn’t count. Legally, the second creation violates the original author’s right of adaptation. Regardless of the degree of this adaptation, you have also adapted other people’s works. If the other party wants to defend their rights, they can defend their rights. The result is whether you win or lose. Another question, because here is the concept of “fair use”. Moreover, everyone must be clear-what is his creative foundation? Their creation is based on the original film, and all the copywriting, opinions, and editing are derived from this original film; they do not have the original copywriting and opinions, and then borrow the original film. These are two completely different concepts. For example, some people speak lens language. He wants to introduce a certain lens language concept. At this time, I will give a few movie clips as examples. Then, his creative foundation is not the original film, the original film is only a supplement, which is very May be classified as fair use without being convicted of infringement. Many of the answers on Zhihu were [intercepted], [edited] and made into videos, which made people infuriate, but this is actually a “text editing”. Some people say that this is called plagiarism, not second creation. Why isn’t it called Second Creation? What I write is text, and what people come out is video. Of course, this is a second creation, but the degree of programming is different: some are scraped out throughout the article, and some are just excerpts. Wasn’t the Wizard Finance and Economics that way? However, could my answer be read by the master of UP with pictures, music, lighting, and voice, and then become his work? If this is the case, the so-called originality is too simple, just be a suture monster. Who is the basis of creation must always be distinguished. Therefore, some respondents support editing; they denounce their answers as being made into videos, which is a double standard. Someone may want to ask. Can’t we audiences have their own opinions? Can’t you complain about bad movies? Of course, you can spit out, you can spit out in text, or like some video bloggers, hang up a few emoticons and use some free material (there are many free editing materials on the Internet) to spit out, but if you cut the other party’s original film, then the other party will do Have the right to defend their rights. Who let you use it? Right. Of course, if the audience complains about the film and television works, and is sued by the production company and dubbed the so-called “personal attack”, then, to paraphrase Voltaire’s words, your right to speak should be defended. However, if you cut other people’s videos, retell the content, and make complaints, the production company must defend its rights, and there is no mistake. I don’t understand those who support the innocence of editing. Look at those UP owners. When their own videos are edited and used, they are all filled with outrage, claiming to defend their rights, and selling miserably, that originality is not easy, and originality is not easy—— But what about themselves? They are cutting other people’s things, okay? If you don’t believe it, move, cut, edit the videos of those UP owners and see if they are defending their rights. The reason is so simple, it has nothing to do with capital and leeks. Whether it’s a company or an individual, whether it’s a good movie or a bad movie, the original author has the right to protect his rights. If you support the innocence of editing, I can only say that you have not tasted the taste of being infringed, and you don’t know what it feels like to be stolen by someone you have worked so hard to make! These companies didn’t protect their rights before. No matter what the purpose is, it doesn’t matter. What’s important is that they want to protect their rights now, so as long as the procedures are reasonable and legal, there is no problem. As for whether they will lose traffic, the price here, they will have their own consideration before making this decision. It’s like my work has been stolen. How much does it cost to file a lawsuit and get a lawyer? It’s not worth it, that’s my business; I think it’s worth it, that’s worth it; what’s the matter if you call me a rights defender? I feel that this answer has moved some people’s cheese, and it is estimated that I will be trampled miserably. Personal humble opinion

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x