Copyright infringement of the novel claim 60,000 compensation 2000

Absrtact: Although the copyright owner put forward more than 60,000 yuan claim, but the court finally only awarded 2000 Yuan.

Since last year, the copyright owner of a little-known martial arts novel has received tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for many of the websites that have reproduced it. However, this time, although the copyright owners put forward more than 60,000 yuan claims, but the court finally awarded 2000 yuan.

Infringement of copyright in fiction

Claim 60,000 awards 2000

"Ecstasy one Command" is a small famous martial arts novel. February 1, 2007, the author of Dayenqing, a writer with a pseudonym and a red novel, signed a copyright transfer contract with Beijing three-oriented Copyright Agency Ltd. "Ecstasy one Instruction" in addition to the right to signature, film and television adaptation of the right to transfer the copyright to three for the company, the transfer period from the completion of the work to the date of the transfer of copyright contract period 10 years expire.

April 23, 2007, three for the company found in Jiangxi Line of Knowledge Education Online Co., Ltd., Jiangxi Knowledge Education Software Co., Ltd. all the Web site www.akedu.com.cn without permission, unauthorized to "ecstasy a directive" in the online dissemination. To this end, three to the company to the online companies and software companies to court, asking them to compensate for economic losses of 64,900 yuan and to prevent infringement has paid a reasonable fee of 3000 yuan, and bear the costs of litigation.

The court held that the online companies, software companies without three to the company license, the "ecstasy" through the information network to the public, violating three of the company's information network transmission rights, should bear the civil liability for damages.

Because three companies cannot provide evidence to prove their actual losses, there is also no evidence to confirm the illegal income of online companies or software companies, considering the type of infringing works, popularity, the duration and consequences of infringement, as well as the three of companies facing the company to stop the infringement of the reasonable fees paid, and other factors, the court decided online company, The software company's joint compensation three for the company's economic losses, including a reasonable cost amounted to 2000 yuan.

To the Court 2000 Yuan compensation judgment, three face the company and filed an appeal. Third, the company believes that online companies, software companies operating www.akedu.com.cn Web site, for commercial purposes in its Web site to disseminate a high profile of "ecstasy," the infringement of the two companies should be issued three for the company's "Work permit use notice" as the basis for compensation, The total cost of compensation includes a reasonable fee of 67,900 yuan.

In the first trial, three for the company has put forward its own "work license use notice", but the court held that, because three companies to provide the "Work permit use notice" is its unilateral announcement, and can not be used as compensation basis.

Read only for specific pages

The defendant thought the plaintiff's loss was small.

Online companies and software companies have argued that the "Ecstasy command", which they have purchased through normal channels, is a product of the "V2.0 Electronic Library", which contains nearly thousands of e-books and is used in the process of developing new software, and does not infringe upon the copyright intent of the works involved. Also did not actively disseminate the work involved in the act.

Furthermore, the addresses used by online companies and software companies in developing new software are only developed in-house and testers know that there is no link to the address in the www.akedu.com.cn Web site they operate, and no one can read the Ecstasy-one command.

Online companies, software companies also said that three for the company in the forensics can only through a specific network address to find the work, but not through a variety of links to find the work involved. Obviously, there are very few people who can read the work in this way to the server, nor do they advertise the address, so for the three companies, the loss is minimal, even if the resulting loss is incurred.

For three of the company-oriented "work permit use notice" as a loss, according to the "published writing works remuneration provisions" pay remuneration, two defendant company said, "The work permit use notice" is only a one-sided solicitation, can not be used as the basis for calculating actual losses; "Remuneration of published writings" Only applicable to print works published in paper media, electronic publications, online use of works and so on are not applicable.

Two accused companies also believe that three of the company found them infringement, through the notary to carry out the evidence preservation. However, after the evidence preservation, three for the company did not take the necessary measures to protect their intellectual property rights, did not inform the online company, software companies to delete the "ecstasy" to stop the infringement, and did not issue relevant prompts or warnings, but only after obtaining evidence of infringement to take a single lawsuit means to obtain benefits As a result, they are willing to pay a reasonable fee of three to the company for litigation, but they are required to waive compensation.

Three appeals rejected

Maintain compensation for 2000 yuan in tort

The Court of second instance holds that the copyright of "ecstasy one instruction", except for the right of signature and film adaptation, should be protected by law in three for the company through the copyright transfer contract. Online companies, software companies, without the permission of the copyright owner, in its operating website published "Ecstasy One Command", spread, violating three of the company's information network and the right to receive compensation. Although the Web page can not be published through online companies, software companies outside the portal, the general public can not easily read through the network link, but does not exclude some network users into their specific web pages to read, therefore, can not deny their information network dissemination behavior.

Because three companies are informed of infringement and forensics did not immediately to the infringer to take relevant tips or warnings, resulting in online companies, software companies can not take the removal of infringing content and other measures to eliminate the consequences of infringement. The online company, the software company thinks its behavior even if improper, will only give three to the company to bring the small loss, and thinks three companies are not timely informed, so that it can not delete the infringing content in time, "the V2.0 Electronic Library" is legally purchased and used only for new software development, Willing to pay three of the company for the lawsuit to pay a reasonable fee, not liable for compensation. In this regard, the Court held that the trial court based on the circumstances of the infringement and the subjective malicious degree, the number of clicks and other factors discretionary compensation amount is not improper, the original decision found the facts clearly, the applicable law is correct, should be maintained, dismissed three of the appeal to the company.