Focus of the First Instance Judgment in Xie Qiongyao v. Yu Zheng Copyright Case
Yesterday afternoon, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held a hearing and delivered its verdict in the copyright infringement case brought by Qiong Yao against Yu Zheng and others. The first-instance judgment ordered the four defendant companies to immediately cease the reproduction, distribution, and dissemination of the television drama “Palace Lock Liancheng” from the date the judgment takes effect; Yu Zheng to publicly apologize to Qiong Yao and eliminate the adverse effects; and Yu Zheng, together with the four companies, to jointly compensate Qiong Yao a total of 5 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses. At the first hearing on December 5, both parties engaged in a 10-hour heated debate in court, focusing on issues such as “whether Qiong Yao is the copyright owner 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)
The Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court, based on the previous disputes, summarized five focal issues and determined:
(1) The author and copyright owner of the script "Plum Blossom Brand" is Qiong Yao;
(2) The novel "Meihua Lao" is an adaptation of the script "Meihua Lao," and its author and copyright owner is also Qiong Yao;
(3) The Palace Lock and Liancheng satisfied the access requirement for copyright infringement of Mei Hua Lao.
(4) Yu Zheng's "Palace Lock Liancheng" constitutes an adaptation of Qiong Yao's novel and screenplay "Plum Blossom Brand";
(5) The overall plots of the two works bear a relationship of creative origin.
The most fiercely debated aspect of this case was whether the 21 plot points in “The Palace: Lock of the Heart”, including the “switching of a dragon for a phoenix”, constituted plagiarism. The “Qiong Yao v. Yu Zheng” case also sparked ongoing discussions in both academic and practical legal circles: where exactly is the boundary of protection under copyright law? How does one legally distinguish inspiration from plagiarism?
The Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that copyright law protects expression, not ideas. To distinguish between idea and expression, one must examine whether these plot elements and their overall arrangement constitute a generalized, generic narrative pattern, or whether they are specific enough to produce a distinctive aesthetic experience that evokes the perception of a particular source work. If the specificity reaches such a level that it falls below the threshold between idea and expression, it may be protected as expression. In this case, the 21 plot segments essentially form a continuous sequence of events with causal connections; therefore, these segments should be classified as specific “plot” elements.
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 response, Zhu Wei, a researcher at the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, later commented: "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 and belongs to 're-creation' in copyright terms. The new work bears some resemblance to the original work, but differs greatly in the main storyline, character structure, and plot. Plagiarism, on the other hand, involves direct copying, and plagiarized works are largely identical to the original in terms of plot, main storyline, and even character composition and storyline. In the field of copyright law, imitation is free, while plagiarism is deemed infringement."
"Actually, many adapted works are excellent creations, representing a re-creation of the original works. For example, Mr. Jin Yong's The Deer and the Cauldron (Huang Xiaoming version, Chen Xiaochun version, Tony Leung version) has been brought to the screen multiple times, with each version sharing the same main storyline but differing greatly in narrative style and character portrayals. Legitimate script adaptations also provide audiences with more perspectives to appreciate the original works. However, unauthorized adaptations without the consent of the original author are typical acts infringing upon the original author's rights."
