Artist Xue Zhiqian was accused of stealing photography and caused controversy, and he himself responded twice that he did not agree with the accusation, and netizens also debated the so-called theft of photography, so what should we think of this matter?
Hello everyone, I'm Lao Liang, who pays attention to news and law. First of all, I would like to greet my friends.
It's very small to talk about this matter today, but I saw that Xue Zhiqian's second response last night involved a legal perspective, and I think I should talk about this so-called problem of stealing.
Let's sort out what happened first, on February 15, artist Xue Zhiqian posted on Weibo, saying that he went to the cinema to watch "Flying Life 2", which posted a few ** shooting movie screens. Broadway Cinematheque **blames it all**.
By February 16th, someone had turned out that more than 100 celebrities had issued a rejection of the movie piracy initiative, and then Xue Zhiqian responded with a limerick poem, obviously not thinking that there was anything wrong with his behavior, which mentioned "The deity is thanking, you are racing your face", which is generally interpreted as a counterattack against the accuser.
In the follow-up, there were ** to turn out some of the previous interviews, some quoted **6 reports that this was theft, and there were also quotations ** a set of statements saying that stealing photography is not a legal concept, this topic is a bit problematic, it is better to say that Xue Zhiqian may be a reasonable use.
In the follow-up, the director of "Don't Stop at the Annual Meeting" spoke out against the screen shooting, and what else was hot searched on "The First Year of Stealing Photography", I don't know if there are any new voices now.
Originally, I didn't think this was a big deal, but I saw that Xue Zhiqian also said that stealing photography is not a legal concept, and I think it's also quite interesting, and I want to participate in the discussion and share a little point of view for reference.
This matter is said on three levels.
First of all, at the legal level, it is true that piracy is not a legal concept, and I remember that it was not about shooting movie screens earlier, but there are some special films in Japan, and there is a word "theft" in it, which is written in the forum when it is transmitted to China.
In fact, it means **, and now I don't know how it was used in movies at the earliest.
One of the earliest I found was a report by the Yangtze Evening News in 2002 that the earliest pirates of the movie "Hero" apologized, and it mentioned that these people were pirated in theaters.
Now in layman's terms, ** or pirated filming in the cinema should refer to the act of filming without the permission of the right holder. If we remove the sense of color, it can be called an unauthorized screen, of course, the screen is not a legal concept.
Although it is not a legal concept, it is not that there will be no legal consequences, and the old man and the unfinished building are not a legal concept, you go to the creditors and buyers to say that this is not a legal concept, so it's okay, you see what the reaction is.
Let's say that this kind of unauthorized filming may lead to infringement, if it is for profit, the infringement is more serious, and the highest possible violation of the criminal law is copyright infringement, but this threshold is that the amount of violation is relatively large; If the amount of infringement is average, it may be a violation of the Copyright Law, and administrative penalties can be imposed, such as fines, confiscation of illegal gains, etc.
If it is not for profit, but a certain amount of losses are caused, it may be required to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact, make a formal apology, compensate for losses, etc., in accordance with the Civil Code. Of course, this is not mutually exclusive, and there may be incidental civil lawsuits for the purpose of profit mentioned above.
Someone here brought out the "Film Industry Promotion Law", which does mention audio and video recording activities without the permission of the rights holder, and some people talk about whether taking pictures is not counted, but in fact, this is an administrative regulation, which only stipulates that it can be stopped, and does not mention how to punish it, and the movie theater is not a law enforcement agency, so it cannot be punished with fines and other punishments, and this law has little meaning for pursuing responsibility after the fact.
So at present, looking at Xue Zhiqian's description, it is obvious that he does not have the purpose of making a profit, and it is impossible to involve criminal and administrative responsibility.
In fact, the CCTV report cited by many people also mentioned that there is a fair use clause for copyright, for example, in order to introduce or comment on a certain work or illustrate a certain issue, appropriately quote the published works of others in the work.
So whether Xue Zhiqian is fair use or not, obviously he thinks he is, but unless the right holder sues, there is no way for ordinary people to judge fair use.
Let's talk about a basic common sense, whether it is a lawyer or a professor, in fact, they have no power to judge whether it is infringing, and it can only be said that there may be legal risks, which is for the judge to judge.
Of course, if he got the permission of the right holder from the beginning, then there is no legal risk, but what kind of license the right holder gave him, whether it was licensed at the time or recognized after the fact, this is not very clear, because according to his description, he does not seem to have gone to the premiere, and it is not clear whether this movie is a special time for him to greet people, or he just bought the ticket by himself.
Based on the above information, considering that neither the rights holder of the film nor the cinema operator is likely to pursue his legal responsibility for this matter, I do not think there is any real legal risk for him.
As for ordinary people filming and posting on Moments, I don't think there will be any actual risks in law, unless you really affect the very significant interests of the filmmaker, otherwise considering the cost of rights protection, generally no one will come to you, that is, the rights holder has given up the investigation, just like someone said, Guo Degang has not spoken after being filmed for so many years, that is because he gave up himself, of course, everyone has no legal risk.
In addition, some people say that it is proposed to legislate in Chinese mainland, I don't think it is necessary, if it is only for some viewing habits of the general public, this moral adjustment is enough.
But this brings to the second level, no risk in law does not mean that there is no problem in morality, if a person only lives by the standard of the law, then this person is basically scum, I think Mr. Xue should not be such a person.
Generally speaking, this kind of behavior of shooting the screen, first of all, may disturb the people of the same movie, and it is also a disrespect for the management order of the theater, of course, there may also be disrespect for the filmmaker, Director Dong Runnian now also represents a kind of opinion.
Of course, some Xue Zhiqian fans think that there is no stealing in this matter, and think that it is reasonable, and some people even propose that it is no problem to promote for others, this is not necessarily, even if it is to promote for others, the parties must agree and the practice is reasonable and legal, if it is said that today is the premiere or the producer chartered the venue, and said that we can shoot, of course this is no problem, but if it is an ordinary show, the people around are strangers who buy tickets to watch the movie, this practice is a bit problematic.
Speaking of which, I'm a little curious, who are these people behind Xue Zhiqian? Are they all here to shoot with him? Did he ask for permission from the people around him when he was filming? Did you put it on the Internet and ask for someone's consent? Did you disturb people while shooting? Do they know their image will be uploaded to social**? Let's just say you didn't use the flash, you have to lift your phone, right? This display has to light up too, right?
Of course, if his fans think that he didn't bother anyone and that Mr. Xue is morally flawless, then we don't need to bother with this issue, because if you still insist on such a statement, at least you still have a sense of morality in your heart, which is better than some people who don't care about bothering others at all.
This brings us to the third level, which is Xue Zhiqian's social responsibility as a public figure.
Zhao Liying said when she apologized before because of the fan circle problem: "As a public figure, since I have been loved by everyone, I have the responsibility to convey positive guidance to everyone." "I think that's pretty clear.
Mr. Xue Zhiqian went to shoot the screen like this, probably because of his noble status, the director and the filmmaker were regarded as guests, and the theater audience was willing to cooperate with him in shooting, but his content was posted on the Internet, so that people could see the effect of the theater screen, can it be regarded as a positive guidance? I'm a little skeptical personally.
If someone sees the picture he took and sees the hunting heart, and wants to follow the example, is this a good demonstration effect? If, in the process, someone interferes with others because of filming, or even has a conflict, is that a positive guidance?
Taking a step back, can Mr. Xue ensure that his actions do not provoke inappropriate imitation?
This is actually easy to avoid, Mr. Xue can use the stills that have been released or the screenshots of the promotional video to send this text, I don't see any need to shoot the screen picture. If there is a reason that I don't know as a layman in the entertainment industry, and this kind of screen shooting behavior is inevitable, then Mr. Xue can at least mark it when he releases it: The shooting has been authorized, and civilized viewing should not follow suit.
I think that if Mr. Xue considers his demonstration effect and guiding ability as a public figure, he can solve this problem through proper labeling and use, maybe he avoided controversy at the beginning, and now I don't know if Mr. Xue still confuses himself with ordinary netizens, or I hope that Mr. Xue is closer to the performance of high-quality artists.
Finally, some people may have to question, don't you watch movies and don't shoot on the screen? I usually take photos with the poster decoration at the door now.
I also recommend that you don't shoot the screen when watching the movie, frankly speaking, there may not necessarily be legal risks, but what kind of viewing behavior you choose, maybe what kind of viewing environment you will encounter, I still hope that our viewing environment is getting better and better.
From this point of view, I hope that I will not meet Xue Zhiqian when I watch movies in the future, I don't deserve it, so I will leave him to friends who need him more.
The above is my sharing of Xue Zhiqian's alleged theft of photography, personal opinions are inevitably omissions, and young people with different opinions are welcome to leave me a message in the comment area and barrage.
You can follow my account "Lao Liang is not depressed", I will continue to share more news and legal views, thank you.