Focus of the First Instance Judgment in Xie Qiongyao v. Yu Zheng Copyright Case

Yesterday afternoon, the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court held a hearing to announce the verdict in Qiong Yao's copyright infringement lawsuit against Yu Zheng and others. The first-instance judgment ordered the four defendant companies to immediately cease the reproduction, distribution, and dissemination of the TV series "Palace Lock Liancheng" from the date the judgment takes effect. Yu Zheng must publicly apologize to Qiong Yao to eliminate the impact, and jointly with the four companies compensate Qiong Yao for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses totaling 5 million yuan. During the first hearing on December 5, the two sides debated fiercely for 10 hours, focusing on issues such as "whether Qiong Yao is the copyright holder of the script" and "whether Qiong Yao adapted the script based on 'Palace Lock Liancheng'."

At the verdict announcement yesterday afternoon, neither Yu Zheng nor Qiong Yao were present. As the case involved six key issues, including the ownership of the script "Plum Blossom Brand," under the organization of presiding judge Song Yushui, the other two judges of the collegial panel took turns spending over half an hour reading the main text of the judgment.

(Legal Daily)

[Reflection] The Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court, based on previous disputes, summarized five key issues and determined:

(1) The author and copyright holder of the script "Plum Blossom Brand" is Qiong Yao;

(2) The novel "Plum Blossom Branding" is an adaptation of the script "Plum Blossom Branding," with its author and copyright holder also being Chiung Yao;

(3) "Palace Lock Liancheng" meets the access requirement for infringing the copyright of "Plum Blossom Branding";

(4) Yu Zheng's "Palace Lock Liancheng" constitutes an adaptation of Chiung Yao's novel and script "Plum Blossom Branding";

(5) The overall plots of the two works have a source relationship in terms of creative origin.

The most contentious aspect of this case is whether the 21 plot points in "Palace Lock Liancheng," including "swapping a dragon for a phoenix," constitute plagiarism. The "Chiung-Yu" case has also sparked ongoing discussions in legal academia and practice: Where exactly is the boundary of copyright protection? How does the law distinguish between borrowing and plagiarism?

In response, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that copyright law protects expression, not ideas. To distinguish ideas from expression, one must examine whether these plots and the overall plot are generalized, generic narrative patterns or have been specified to a degree sufficient to create a unique aesthetic experience identifying the source of a specific work. If specified to such an extent that it falls below the threshold of ideas and expression, it can be classified as expression. In this case, the 21 plot points essentially form a continuous sequence with causal connections; therefore, these plot points should be categorized as specific "plots."

The Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that "Palace: The Locked City" is essentially consistent with "The Plum Blossom Brand" in terms of overall plot arrangement and progression, with only differences in the order of some plot points. However, such changes in order do not cause fundamental changes in the internal logic and plot progression of the disputed plots in the defendant's work. The defendant's work is highly similar to the plaintiff's work in plot arrangement and progression, and combined with the selection and setting of similar specific plots, it constitutes an overall external similarity between the defendant's work and the plaintiff's work, leading to a similar viewing experience. In summary, the court determined that the disputed plots in "Palace: The Locked City" have a creative source relationship with the overall plot of "The Plum Blossom Brand," constituting an adaptation of "The Plum Blossom Brand."

In this regard, Zhu Wei, a researcher at the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, commented afterward: "The 'concealment' of screenwriter infringement is mainly reflected in the difficulty of distinguishing the boundary between 'imitation' and 'plagiarism.' Imitation is a special creative mode, belonging to 're-creation' in copyright law. The new work may share some similarities with the original work but differs significantly in main storyline, character structure, and plot. Plagiarism, on the other hand, involves direct copying, where the plagiarized work largely replicates the original work's storyline, main thread, and even character composition and plot. In copyright law, imitation is free, while plagiarism is recognized as infringement."

"In fact, many adapted works are excellent pieces that re-create the original work. For example, Mr. Jin Yong's 'The Deer and the Cauldron' (Huang Xiaoming version, Chen Xiaochun version, Tony Leung version) has been adapted for the screen multiple times. Each version maintains the same main storyline but differs significantly in narrative style, character portrayal, and other details. Legal script adaptations also provide audiences with more perspectives to appreciate the original work. However, unauthorized adaptations without the consent of the original creator are typical acts of infringing on the original author's rights."