On February 15, star Xue Zhiqian shared his impressions of the Spring Festival movie "Flying Life 2" on Weibo, and the three mobile phones he posted to shoot the movie caused controversy. Many fans and film industry accounts accused the behavior of being suspected of "stealing filming", and the "Movie Channel Rong** Center" account also immediately issued a "refusal to steal filming" initiative, and characterized Xue Zhiqian's response as "a public figure publicly posted a movie screen shooting in the film and refused to admit the mistake".
As of press time, Xue Zhiqian's screen content has not been deleted.
On February 16, the "CCTV News" account launched another topic - "There is no such thing as piracy in the law", emphasizing that screen photography does not constitute an illegal act within the limits of fair use. Xue Zhiqian immediately **, which made the relevant discussion more intense.
Then, ** and "Big V" and others have conducted a lot of discussions on screen photography, theft and other behaviors to clarify the normative consensus in the public space of the theater. The public news reporter also had a dialogue with legal scholars, lawyers, and film practitioners, trying to dig forward the screen photography controversy from multiple perspectives, and focusing on five core issues.
"Stealing photography" is illegal, but "screen photography" is not necessarily.
Legal disputes are at the heart of this matter. Violations of the law are serious charges for both public figures and ordinary people. Therefore, the "Film Industry Promotion Law" and the "Copyright Law", two legal documents that are highly related to the incident, have become the focus.
At present, one of the controversies about the "illegality" of screen photography lies in the form of the finished film.
Among them, Article 31 of the Film Industry Promotion Law has become an important basis for the discussion of "illegality". The original text reads: "Without the permission of the right holder, no one may make audio or video recordings of the film being screened." Where audio or video recordings are discovered, cinema staff have the right to stop them and request that they delete them; Those who refuse to obey have the right to request that they leave the scene. ”
The form of "static**" photographed by Xue Zhiqian happens to be in the ambiguous area of "audio and video recording" pointed out in Article 31. So, is it illegal to shoot a static ** while a movie is being shown? In this regard, Jiang Haiyang, associate professor of the School of Economic Law of Shandong University of Political Science and Law, believes that "video" mainly refers to dynamic audio-visual works and video products, and static ** does not belong to this category. In other words, the act of filming static ** in the theater does not violate the provisions of the "Film Industry Promotion Law".
However, this does not mean that filming stills is uncontroversial at the legal level. Zhang Jingjing, a professor at the School of Media and Communication of Shandong University of Political Science and Law, also reminded, "From a technical point of view, multiple and continuous static ** may also bring about an effect similar to 'video recording', and the legal norms should make a formal interpretation of whether 'audio and video recording' includes shooting static **." ”
The second controversy over the "illegality" of screen photography lies in the purpose of filming and dissemination.
In the initial controversy, the report did not make a strict distinction between the terms "screen photography" and "theft of photography". In fact, these two terms are informal legal terms, and Daniel Zhang, a lawyer at Shanghai Junyue (Hefei) Law Firm, stressed that not all "screen shots" are "stolen shots", and if they continue to be confused, they will be misleading to the public.
In the public discussion, there is no strict distinction between "screen photography" and "pirated photography".
From a general semantic understanding, piracy is similar to piracy, which is usually subjective and malicious and prohibited by law. Zhang Jingjing believes that screen photography does not necessarily have malicious intent, and whether it is illegal depends on whether it exceeds the scope of fair use.
So, what is "fair use"? Jiang Haiyang explained that whether it is profitable or commercial is the key to judgment. If the act is not for profit, but is only used for one's own enjoyment or personal research and study, and does not affect the legitimate interests of the copyright owner of the audiovisual work, it can be determined as fair use under the Copyright Law and is not an infringement.
The third controversy over the "illegality" of screen photography lies in the contract between the theater and the audience.
Generally speaking, when the actor buys the movie ticket, he has de facto formed a contract with the movie theater, that is, you have entered into a contract with the theater. Daniel Zhang introduced that on the back of the movie ticket, there is generally a similar text of "photography, audio and video recording are strictly prohibited in the theater", based on which the audience has a contractual obligation not to take screen photography, and if the actor still takes screen photography, it may constitute a breach of contract. However, Daniel Zhang stressed that "breach of contract is not the same as breaking the law." ”
There is usually a hint on the back of the movie ticket that the screen cannot be taken (picture source network).
To sum up, it can be basically determined that the behavior of "taking a few screens and sending them to Moments" can hardly be said to constitute a violation for the time being.
Screen photography may not be illegal, but is it civilized enough?
The law is the lowest morality. Jiang Haiyang bluntly said that whether it is illegal should not be the only criterion for evaluating screen photography. In the cinema, a paid public space, "public order and good customs" is also an important value system, and in this system, screen photography should be an uncivilized behavior.
So, how should we understand the "uncivilized" of screen photography?
First of all, the bright light and shutter sound during the screen will interrupt the immersive experience of other audiences in the theater and harm the rights and interests of others to watch the movie. Flo, a master of filmmaking, once described this feeling of being interrupted: "The cinema is a complete dream-making space, and you have an absolute one-to-one relationship with the movie screen, but when the phone screen lights up, it becomes another terminal, so that the one-to-one relationship between you and the screen no longer exists." Flo also believes that the surrender of immersion is essentially a squeeze on personal space.
Secondly, screen photography may also cause other viewers to be forced to change their behavior in public places to adapt to the filming behavior of individual viewers. For example, some viewers may need to adjust their sitting posture or habits, or even choose to leave the viewing area in order to avoid the light disturbance of the screen camera.
In addition, for people outside the theater, the key picture information revealed by the screen camera** will also undermine the expectations of those who do not watch the movie. Flo believes that this will destroy the film's composition, characters, core story, etc.; In other words, it's a potential disruption to someone else's "experience expectations" of purchase.
The screen footage of the previous movie "Hot and Hot" circulated (source network).
I studied videography and know how many departments work to make a movie. No matter what device you use to screen the camera, it may cause distortion, color cast, overexposure and other problems, which will definitely cause some degree of loss to the picture texture. A true filmmaker must be unhappy when he sees his work being damaged in this way. Film and television advertising photographer McGonn said helplessly. From this level, the screen camera also obviously lacks respect for the creator. Looking at the screen shooting behavior from the above dimensions, it may escape the accusation of "illegality", but it is clearly contrary to public order, good customs and public morality.
When the "movie etiquette" crashed headlong into the sinking market.
Although there are different definitions of screen photography at the level of law and public morality, it is still worth taking a step forward as to why it has provoked more discussion rather than one-sided opposition.
According to public information, Feng Xiaogang's 1997 film "Party A and Party B" can be regarded as a precedent for Chinese New Year films in the mainland; In 2008, the "Spring Festival file" began to appear as an independent schedule; In 2013, the huge success of "Journey to the West: Demon Suppression" announced that the Spring Festival stalls had entered the era of extremely competitive blockbusters.
Moving forward with the Spring Festival stalls, there are also theaters that have been rapidly rolled out and built in third- and fourth-tier cities. During the Spring Festival, it has become one of the "New Year's customs" for the whole family to go into the theater to check in, and the sinking market composed of audiences in three or four cities and counties has become an important "box office" for Chinese films. This year, the box office proportion of third- and fourth-tier cities has reached 589%, the highest in five years.
This also means that the "movie etiquette" that was once accustomed to and familiar to many first- and second-tier city residents and niche movie fans is being re-tested by the more popular sinking market, which is also accompanied by cognitive gaps and conceptual friction.
For example, some middle-aged and elderly viewers in the county told reporters that they had never heard of the "no screen filming" viewing etiquette, and only on weekdays and holidays would be brought into the theater by their children who returned to their hometowns.
The battle over screen photography is a result of the failure of the film industry and the audience's concept to develop at the same frequency in recent years. Jiang Haiyang believes that due to the influence of movie-watching habits and the small number of local theaters, audiences in the sinking market have fewer movie-watching times, and they also lack attention to information such as movie-watching tips. Zhang Jingjing pointed out that the crux of the problem is that the publicity is not in place, and if the behavior of screen photography is more common around us, and there is no clear prompt or reminder, it will further promote the trend of screen photography.
In the view of Ms. Dong, a senior cinema manager, in recent years, as the attribute of "popular art" of cinema has become more and more prominent, cinemas have indeed ushered in more challenges. She told reporters, "How to watch movies in theaters is actually something that needs to be learned. It's just that because our film industry is developing relatively fast, when the public flocks to the theater, they may not have the relevant knowledge to watch movies. Earlier, many people in the industry, including me, didn't even have this concept. ”
The promotional materials of "Movie Etiquette" released by Ms. Dong's theater.
When the eyes returned to the starting point of the film from the audience, the film review program anchor Sido once said that the screen camera was not strongly blocked, and it may also contain the acquiescence of the filmmaker. "Some filmmakers feel that the audience is willing to shoot a ** and post it on social platforms, which proves that my movie has the power to spread and I can sell better. But this may be seen as a disguised encouragement by less experienced viewers, which Flo believes is "a big drain" and a desperate effort.
Miss Dong said with emotion: "Now it is the county audience, and after that, more and more rural audiences may enter the cinema, and movie education should always be on the road." ”
Spontaneous "reciprocal punishment" by fans is not advisable.
When they are in the same public space, the competition between people with different perceptions of the rules has actually been quietly going on. For example, some fans will carry a laser pointer when entering the theater, and when they find a photographer, they will use the laser to irradiate the audience to remind and "punish", and some fans believe that this is a "reciprocal punishment" for those who do not abide by public morality, and it is a means to protect their own rights and interests.
However, scholars and practitioners alike believe that this is not advisable. Xue Haiyang prompted: "Fans use laser pointers to shoot people on the screen, which lacks legal basis, and may even cause infringement consequences because of shooting others' eyes." Based on the actual experience of cinema experience, Ms. Dong judged that this may provoke greater conflict and affect the experience of the audience at the same venue, so she is not recommended.
When the audience needs to bring their own laser pointer to watch a movie, it means that the default screen camera is universal. McGuffin's perspective is more idealistic, "I will always assume before entering the cinema that the audience in this scene is civilized and quality, and everyone can watch the movie in peace, and I don't want to put this lock on myself in my heart." ”
McGuffin even called for him to take pictures of ticket stubs.
Public spaces need to promote upward consensus
"Consensus" is not naturally established, a concept can be condensed into common sense that the public generally agrees and follows, and often needs to bridge the cognitive gap of various groups of people dominated by differentiated factors such as economy, education, and region, and it also needs to flow and change with the times. The concept of "no screen shooting" has risen from the "consensus" of movie fans to the "consensus" of film consumers as a whole, and it still needs all parties to work together to advocate a standard for the ideal state of "as it should be".
Some netizens believe that the function of the cinema has changed at present, and the movie essentially has the attributes of consumer goods as a "cultural product", so when the audience spends dozens of yuan to buy movie tickets, it should include services that can be screened to meet their social display needs.
This point of view is not unreasonable, consumers who only enter the theater once a year, it is difficult not to take the theater as a "scenic spot" and an occasion for relaxation and entertainment, and the prevalence of check-in culture has also made screen photography more "habitual", an audience member said: "Now the ticket price of the movie is relatively high, I think it is a bonus service to shoot a few **, otherwise who will still enter the cinema, and wait for the resources to lie down at home to watch it, isn't it more comfortable?" ”
However, Ms. Dong does not believe that cinemas should compromise every step of the way in order to attract consumers. She said seriously: "If the audience thinks that if they spend money and don't break the law, they can do whatever they want, I think this is a misconception. Just like the high-speed rail public release**, before the advent of smartphones, this may not be a problem, but now everyone gradually agrees that the public release is immoral, which is the development direction of cinema culture for good profit. ”
Zhang Jingjing also believes that "mass entertainment" and "social needs" do not conflict with "abiding by public morality", and the industry should better meet the needs of mass entertainment and social interaction under clear specifications. For example, Miss Dong said that the movies "Lingbud Journey" and "Barbie" all provide exquisite hand cards or standing cards for the audience to interact and check in, which not only satisfies the audience's consumption desires but also does not affect the viewing experience, which is a more flexible way to respond to the present, which is worth learning.
The quality of citizens should be guided upward. "Ms. Dong has witnessed more audiences entering the theater and is more aware of the pulls that may arise when the number of moviegoers reaches such a huge magnitude. Because of this, she hopes that the film industry will continue to develop benignly and healthily from the sunny soil, "I believe that people's hearts are still willing to aspire to go up, and the National Copyright Administration, radio and television departments and other units have also been promoting the progress of the concept of watching movies." ”
The National Copyright Administration has issued an anti-screen propaganda **.
Jiang Haiyang believes that this public controversy is also an opportunity for the whole society to "grow together", "everyone has a more complex and multifaceted understanding of copyright protection issues and public order and good customs in the discussion, which helps to promote the formation of consensus and improve relevant laws and policies." ”
Volkswagen ** Volkswagen News Client Reporter Zhang Ruixue).