Which secondary creations are the fair use of copyright?
I just wanted to learn to join the short video industry, but I saw that more than 70 film and television companies and industry associations issued a joint statement to protect their rights. Without authorization, they are not allowed to edit, cut, move, and disseminate the film and television works!
So can short video editing still be done? What is considered non-infringement?
First, most of the short video clips are not “fair use” but “shielding ears and stealing bells”. Fair use means that the use of the work does not hinder the normal use of the original work and does not unreasonably infringe the legitimate rights and interests of the original author. The copyright owner permits the act of using the original work without paying for it. Therefore, I believe that when judging whether the editing of short videos is fair use, based on the provisions of the Copyright Law on “fair use”, and at the same time, consider whether the editing of short video works will unreasonably harm the interests of copyright owners. Article 24 of China’s “Copyright Law” stipulates that the fair use of a work under the following circumstances may be 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 work shall not be affected The normal use of, also has to reasonably damage the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner: (1) for personal study, research or appreciation, using other people’s published works; (2) for introducing, commenting on a certain work or explaining a certain issue, Appropriately quote the published works of others in the works; (3) To report news, inevitably reproduce or quote the published works in newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations and other media; (4) Newspapers, periodicals, and radio stations , TV stations and other media publish or broadcast current-related articles on political, economic, and religious issues that have been published by other newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, TV stations and other media, unless the copyright owner declares that publication or broadcasting is not allowed; (5) Newspapers and periodicals , Radio stations, television stations and other media publish or broadcast speeches delivered at public gatherings, except where the author declares that publication or broadcast is not allowed; (6) For school classroom teaching or scientific research, translation, adaptation, compilation, broadcast or small copying has been Published works shall be used by teaching or scientific research personnel, but shall not be published and distributed; (7) State agencies use published works within a reasonable range for the performance of official duties; (8) Libraries, archives, memorials, museums, art galleries, etc. Cultural centers, etc., to display or preserve versions, copy the works collected by the museum; (9) Free performances of published works, the performance does not charge the public, nor does it pay the performers and is not for profit; ( 10) Copying, painting, photography, and video recording of artistic works installed or displayed in public places; (11) Translating works written in the national standard language that have been published by Chinese citizens, legal persons, or unincorporated organizations into minority languages Written works are published and distributed in the country; (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. Therefore, fair use is a legal requirement, and it is not a “fair use category” for the video producer to mark a “fair use”; we have seen pirated resources including early subtitle groups that read “This video is for personal learning purposes. Download and delete within 24 hours”, but its essence is directly the original video copied and pasted. I don’t think it’s “fair use” but “covering the ears and stealing the bell”. The same is true for many videos of “Watching XXX in 1 Minute”, the essence of which is right The fast-forwarding and interception of the original film does not reflect the originality of too many editors. At the same time, it is also likely to make people lose the freshness of the original film after watching it, and to reduce the interests of the original copyright owner in a disguised way. 2. The way out for short video authors should not be limited to discussing how to include the work in the category of “fair use”, but should consider how to make the edited work “original” and constitute a new work. According to the second “Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China” Article, the work referred to in the Copyright Law, refers to the creative and intellectual creation achievements in the fields of literature, art, and science that can be reproduced in a tangible form. The constitutional elements of a work in the sense of the “Copyright Law” generally include three aspects: ideology, expression, and originality. Among them, originality is an important criterion for judging whether a work constitutes a “work in the sense of copyright law”. Therefore, only if short video clips are original and reproducible can they become the object of copyright protection. 1. Nowadays, many young people don’t know about spoof editing works. I think the sensational editing + the story of the originator of the spoof film “A bloody incident caused by a steamed bun”, let’s talk to you briefly: In 2005, Mr. Chen Kaige worked hard to shoot The movie “The Promise” was ridiculed by netizens as “extremely boring”. The summary is as follows: a woman was tempted by a bun full of gods in her childhood. Gaining the ability to love, finally staged the tragic love story that the goddess and the three strong men had to tell. Later, a short video “A bloody murder caused by a steamed bun” turned out to complain about the movie. This short video completely used the clips of the movie Promise. By adopting different permutations and combinations, it formed a collection of passion, passion, aesthetics, and aesthetics. It is a masterpiece of philosophy and spoof. Fortunately, it is not listed in the theater, or it is estimated that the attendance rate is higher than the original. The synopsis is as follows: (If you are interested, you can search for the original film by yourself) In Yuanhuanhuan Entertainment City, model Zhang Qingcheng and Manager Wang had an argument about wages, and finally fought, and then got help from mysterious people. The police gradually locked the target by touching the row and brought the criminals to justice. In the court trial, there was a flip again, and finally three men and one woman staged an ethical drama. Director Chen couldn’t sit still for a moment, saying: “One can’t be shameless to this point~~~” Prepared a petition and sued Hu Ge, the author of “Bantou”, to court (Later, I didn’t file a lawsuit because the director is not the copyright owner. Director Chen estimates You can only prosecute disputes over the right to reputation) but this matter has aroused wide-ranging thinking. From the perspective of intellectual property rights, I personally believe that Hu Ge’s work is a new work through different permutations and combinations due to the originality of its content. And it is a new work full of irony. 2. Critical editing works. I personally like some in-depth film review films, such as Da Cong watching movies. I think this kind of commentary works also constitute works in the sense of copyright law. I think the parts quoting the original film also belong to Fair use category. The purpose and significance of quoting the original film is to strengthen the rationality of its “comment”. In this case, partial or even full quotation of the work for the purpose of reviewing the work may be considered as fair use. It meets the requirement of “(2) To introduce, comment on a certain work or explain a certain problem, appropriately quote others’ published works in the work” in fair use. At the same time, such works often sort out the causes and consequences of the original work, production background, introduce hidden plots and easter eggs, and combine some of their own thinking about the original film and guesses about the future plot direction, which will stimulate the audience’s interest and fun in watching the original film. 3. From a long-term perspective, alliance rights protection will help short video editing practitioners to survive the fittest. The rights protection activities of the alliance increase the infringement costs of infringers, and also make many original short video authors become restrained. In the future, the original authors and short videos Sitting will definitely go through a period of running-in. However, even if the infringement has existed for a long time, it should not be taken for granted that its behavior is reasonable. In fact, the right holders are often disadvantaged groups. The problems that have been faced in domestic intellectual property cases, especially copyright disputes, are low infringement costs and high rights maintenance costs. For the rights holders: the alliance rights protection can help reduce the rights protection costs of the copyright holders, and enable them to better produce more high-quality works in the future under the premise of guaranteeing their profits. For short video authors: more standardized editing will also eliminate the original porters, allowing more high-quality and original editing content to enter the audience’s field of vision.