A media company in Chengdu believed that its film "Perfect Lover" was "almost completely copied" by the movie "Sweeping Drugs 2: Showdown Between Heaven and Earth", and told 7 people, including Andy Lau, to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for nearly 100 million yuan.
According to the notice of acceptance presented by the plaintiff, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court informed it on July 21 that "the court has decided to file and accept the case." On August 11, a Red Star News reporter confirmed to the court that the court had accepted the case and was currently serving the defendant (complaint).
The plaintiff receives a "notice" of acceptance by the court
"Perfect Lover" sued "Sweep 2" for "complete" plagiarism
Chengdu Global Bona Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Chengdu Bona Company") filed a complaint against Andy Lau, Huanyu Entertainment Co., Ltd., Guangdong Shengge Media Co., Ltd. and other seven people to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
Chengdu Bona Company sued that the film "Sweeping Drugs 2" produced by the seven defendants in 2019 almost "completely" plagiarized the plaintiff's 2006 film "Perfect Lover" in terms of character settings, narrative structure, story background, character relationships, important plots, ending expressions, character occupations, shooting expression methods, character poster design, title design, costume design, etc.
Chengdu Bona Company claimed that the above-mentioned acts of the seven defendants seriously infringed the plaintiff's copyright and other related rights in respect of his works in accordance with the law, and the serious infringement of the seven defendants occurred during the period when Ah Sheng, chairman and director of the plaintiff company, participated in the publicity work of the "post-disaster reconstruction" of the 5.12 Wenchuan earthquake, thus causing great mental harm to Ah Sheng; on the contrary, the defendants obtained huge illegal benefits based on serious infringements.
Chengdu Bona Company described in detail in its complaint that the "character settings of the two films are exactly the same". The characters of "Perfect Lover" are set as the stories of 4 men: the story of the enmity between the male Liang Feng (A Sheng), the male er Ding Li, the male third policeman Zhang Qiang, and the elder Yao Kun (righteous father) who was once supported by the male one and the second male.
The character setting of "Sweeping Drugs 2" is exactly the same: the story of the feud between the male One Yu Shuntian (Andy Lau), the male er Dizang (Gu Tianle), the male third policeman Lin Zhengfeng (Miao Qiaowei), and the elderly Yu Nan (uncle) who is jointly supported by the male one and the second male.
"The narrative structure is exactly the same": In "Perfect Lover", the male one and the second man have both been favored by the male fourth elder (the righteous father), and after some success in the jianghu operation, the two parted ways when faced with the choice of good and evil life. The third man is not only a police case handler, but also a male one and a male two acquaintance interspersed in it, but he is struggling to find the real criminal, and finally through the conscience of the male one, he discovers and leads the snake out of the hole by extraordinary means, kills his relatives in righteousness, and can claim social justice.
In "Sweeping Drugs 2", the male one and the second man have both received the favor of the male fourth elder (uncle), and it is also after the success of the jianghu operation, the two are faced with the choice of justice and evil life, and the male third is also both a police case handler and a male one and a male two acquaintance interspersed in it, but also suffering from not being able to find the real criminal, and finally through the conscience of the male one, the snake is lured out of the hole by extraordinary means, the righteousness is exterminated, and social justice can be claimed.
Andy Lau and seven other defendants were subject to nearly 100 million yuan in claims
The Red Star News reporter noted that in its complaint, Chengdu Bona Company also analyzed and pointed out that "Sweeping Drugs 2" copied "Perfect Lover" from the aspects of "main character background, character relationship", "main contradictions and story main line of the story", special props and costume design.
Chengdu Bona Company complained that "Perfect Lover" was distributed on DVDs and VCD CDs nationwide in 2006, and distributed nationwide on "Youku Network" from 2007 to 2019, and in 2007, it won the top three films on demand on Youku.com throughout the year, and the Youku release version was named "Spring Don't Love" (also known as "I Want to Say I Love You Again"). On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the film, the "director's cut version" of "Perfect Lover" was released again nationwide in "Sohu Video" from the end of 2016 to 2018. "Sweeping Drugs 2" was released in July 2019.
Chengdu Bona Company believes that its film was published first, the defendant's film was published later, based on the wide range of publication of the plaintiff's works, a long time span, and strong social influence, the defendant fully had the objective conditions to contact the plaintiff's films, and the defendant, without obtaining the plaintiff's authorization, almost completely plagiarized and plagiarized the plaintiff's works, the circumstances were very serious, the nature was very bad, and the defendant seriously infringed the plaintiff's right to adapt and produce the work.
Chengdu Bona Company claimed that the defendant's film "Sweeping Drugs 2" received a box office revenue of 1.3 billion yuan, and the defendants obtained huge illegal benefits based on the infringement, which correspondingly caused the plaintiff to suffer huge economic losses, and in order to safeguard their legal rights, they hereby filed a lawsuit.
Chengdu Bona Company filed six litigation claims in its complaint, including requesting the court to find that the seven defendants had infringed the adaptation and production rights of the plaintiff's film "Perfect Lover"; ordering the above-mentioned seven defendants to stop all relevant distribution activities such as the theater broadcast, television broadcast, information network dissemination, audio and video production and sales of the movie "Anti-Drug 2: Showdown Between Heaven and Earth"; and ordering the defendant Andy Lau to publish a public apology statement approved by the plaintiff in a prominent position on Sina.com, Sohu.com, and Phoenix.com Ordered the above-mentioned seven defendants to jointly compensate the plaintiff for 99,999,999 yuan; ordered the above-mentioned seven defendants to bear the reasonable expenses of the plaintiff for the case of 600,000 yuan; and ordered the above-mentioned seven defendants to bear all the litigation costs of the case.
The Red Star News reporter noted that on the evening of August 10, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reported the acceptance information of this copyright dispute case on its public account "INTELLECTUAL Property Beijing". As of press time, the seven defendants had not publicly responded to the litigation dispute.
Experts: Whether there is plagiarism depends on interlocking evidence
Prove that "even if it is a coincidence, it cannot be so coincidental"
How about the movie "Perfect Lover" played and reviewed online? Red Star News reporters retrieved the film "Spring Farewell" on "Youku Video", but they could not watch it because there was "no playback source", and there was no relevant "introduction". Douban online, this 105-minute long movie, "no" Douban score, there are "bean friends" bluntly said that they have not seen it.
Is it difficult to determine "plagiarism" in such copyright disputes? How to judge whether a work involves plagiarism or not? The Red Star News reporter interviewed Zhu Wei, deputy director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law.
"This case involves related rights such as the right to adapt and the right to produce the work." Zhu Wei analyzed that the screenwriter of a work will have a grasp of the entire plot, the director is shooting according to the screenwriter's script, the copyright party of the work belongs to the producer, that is, Andy Lau himself, from this point of view, Andy Lau is a suitable defendant, but whether the specific can constitute infringement depends on the plot comparison of the two films.
Zhu Wei said that the difficulty in determining the "plagiarism" behavior in such copyright disputes is that sometimes there will be similarities in the storyline, such as the plot of revenge, etc., but to make a detailed comparison of the relevant plots of the two works, such as the comparison of logical relationships, the comparison of character design, the comparison of language expressions, the comparison of endings, etc., it is necessary to prove that "even if it is coincidental, it is impossible to be so clever" through a set of evidence. Whether it is "plagiarism" or not, in the end, depends on the relevant evidence.
Zhu Wei mentioned that the relevant evidence in this case is relatively easy to collect and present evidence, both works have been published, the order and time relationship are very clear, which is different from the evidence that some unpublished or unshot works involve "plagiarism".
"In terms of plot judgment, as long as you watch these two movies, you will actually find out whether there is an adaptation in the end." Zhu Wei said that if you just change the name to carry out secondary creation, then the infringement is of course established. If only the plot is a bit similar, it is actually two different works, and the situation of "pure coincidence" is not impossible, which requires the court to make a comprehensive judgment based on the evidence.
Zhu Wei admitted that he had never seen either of these movies. "If I had seen it, I might have a deep feeling [whether it was infringing or not]." In his view, the preparation time for litigation in such disputes would be very long. During the court trial, the two parties had to make a detailed comparison of whether the specific plots of the two works were similar, including the need for a large number of court presentations, and the subject matter of the case was very large, and it was difficult to determine whether it was "plagiarism" in these aspects.
Red Star News reporter Gao Xin reported from Beijing
Edited by Tan Wangyu
(Download Red Star News, there are prizes for the newspaper!) ）