10 Typical Cases of IPR Protection —— Case Example 1

According to the law, the accused platform’s function of “shooting the same video” constitutes infringement
To guide the short video industry to develop in accordance with the law
——T Music Company & T Entertainment Company v. W Company over infringement of right to network dissemination of information

[Case Summary]
  On December 26, 2015, T Music Company signed with K Company, the authorizer, a "Letter of Authorization with a List of Exclusively Authorized Works”, and obtained the exclusive authorization of right to network dissemination of information of certain musical works, including the songs involved in the case. The authorization is exclusive and transferable in nature, with a period extending from December 26, 2015 to December 31, 2018. On July 1, 2017, T Music Company signed a "Letter of Authorization” with T Entertainment Company, licensing non-exclusive right to network dissemination of information of the above-mentioned musical works to T Entertainment Company. In September 2017, T Music Company and T Entertainment Company found that W Company provided users with playback service regarding the aforementioned musical works in one of its short video applications without permission. T Music Company and T Entertainment Company believed that W Company’s actions have infringed their legitimate rights and interests, therefore resorted to legal actions.
[Ruling Results]
The court held that regardless of the channels through which the song involved in the case existed in the music library of a short video application owned by W Company, its users could obtain recordings from the music library at a time and place selected by the individual. Without the right holder’s permission, it constitutes infringement of T Music Company and T Entertainment Company’s rights to network dissemination of information. Moreover, Company W were unable to prove that the infringing products were indeed uploaded by Internet users, and the technical services provided by the works involved in the case did not qualify as general defenses, and therefore should be held responsible for the infringement thereof. The court has given consideration to the popularity and influence of the works involved, the extent of Company W’s subjective fault, business scale, nature of the infringement, duration, consequences caused by the specific use, and the plaintiff’s reasonable expenses to stop the infringement. As a result of discretion, T Music Company and T Entertainment Company were ruled to compensate for the losses and the reasonable expenses stop the infringement with a total sum of 15,000 yuan.
[Significance]
The short video application of W Company is a short video platform with great influence in China. It provides a function named "shooting the same video", which is extremely popular among users. In this case, the court conducted an in-depth analysis on the nature of the technical service of the function on TikTok platform, and identified that what it provides is not just information storage services, but  a comprehensive service that involve preservation, extraction, and assisted editing and generation of new videos, which constitutes infringement. This case is significant as a reference for identifying the nature of similar functions on short video platforms, serving as deterrent to the infringement of right holders’ right to network dissemination of information, which is conducive to guiding the short video industry to develop in accordance with law.