The misuse of internet celebrity expressions requires reasonable legal protection of rights.

[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
 
Case review
Recently, several companies have successively received lawyer letters from Sanciyuan Company, the authorized agent of the "Mushroom Head Series" emoji pack, stating that the accused companies used the "Mushroom Head Series" images without authorization in their promotional articles, infringing on the copyrights of Guangzhou Mosquito Animation Company and Sanciyuan Company over the "Mushroom Head Series" artistic works and derivative images, and should bear liability for infringement damages.

 

In a recently adjudicated case where a Nanjing company was sued for infringement, the court held that the accused company used seven Mushroom Head emoji images without permission in its promotional articles, infringing on the copyright owner's right to network dissemination of information. Ultimately, the court ordered the accused company to pay 4,650 yuan in damages to Sanciyuan, the agent of the Mushroom Head emoji pack. Meanwhile, the court advocated for reasonable and rational rights protection, stating that the plaintiff company should prioritize negotiation as the first option for rights protection, and discouraged artificially increasing the cost of dispute resolution.

In judicial practice, the core criterion for determining copyright infringement is "substantial similarity." The court found that the seven images used by the involved company were substantially similar to the "Mushroom Head Series" emoji pack, essentially confirming unauthorized use. Since the relevant public could access the infringing images through the company's promotional articles, this infringed on the copyright owner's right to network dissemination of information.

 
 

 
Copyright Law
Article 52
[3] Anyone who commits any of the following acts of infringement shall, depending on the circumstances, bear civil liability such as ceasing the infringement, eliminating the effects, making an apology, or compensating for losses:
(1) Publishing the work of others without permission from the copyright owner;
……
 
Article 53
The following infringements shall bear civil liability as stipulated in Article 52 of this Law according to the circumstances; if the infringement also harms the public interest, the copyright administrative department shall order the cessation of the infringement, issue a warning, confiscate illegal gains, and confiscate or destroy the infringing copies as well as the materials, tools, equipment, etc., mainly used for producing such copies. If the illegal business turnover exceeds 50,000 yuan, a fine of not less than one time but not more than five times the illegal business turnover may be imposed; if there is no illegal business turnover, it is difficult to calculate, or it is less than 50,000 yuan, a fine of not more than 250,000 yuan may be imposed; if a crime is constituted, criminal liability shall be pursued according to law.
(1) Reproducing, distributing, performing, screening, broadcasting, compiling, or communicating to the public via information networks a work without the permission of the copyright owner, except as otherwise provided in this Law;
……

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
In this case, after receiving the lawyer's letter from the 3D company, the defendant company promptly deleted the infringing article, which also proved that the article was not used for profit. However, under the Copyright Law, infringement "exemption" is limited to 13 situations, such as "using another person's published works for personal study, research, or appreciation" and "translating, adapting, compiling, broadcasting, or reproducing a small number of published works for classroom teaching or scientific research, for use by teaching or research personnel, but not for publication or distribution." Therefore, this case does not fall under these 13 situations and cannot be exempted.
 
It is noteworthy that the court proposed "reasonable and rational rights protection," stating that the plaintiff company "should regard negotiation as the first choice for rights protection." This shows that although the plaintiff, the 3D company, was protecting its rights according to law, the court did not approve of this practice of "batch litigation" that overuses judicial resources. While we often say to take up the weapon of law to defend our rights, it must be used reasonably and rationally in practice so that the law can truly benefit the public and society.