Case 11
Copyright and Unfair Competition Dispute of Disney vs. Blue Flame. Trial Docket: (2015) PuMinSan(Zhi)ChuZi No. 1896 Appeal Docket: (2017) Hu73MinZhong No. 54
[Headnotes] The substantial similarity determination in copyright infringement cases should take into account both the similarity between two works, and also whether the similarity is the original expression. When two artistic works have substantially similar choices of specific expressions to the extent of an ordinary observer that the junior work would not have independently accomplished without the basis of a senior work, then substantial similarity can be found.
A distinctive and reputable well known product name after long use may become a proprietary name of the well known product. Finding of likelihood of confusion should be made in connection with the classification of goods or services, as well as consuming customs of relevant public.
In individual cases, if separate causes of a c t ion accrue for copyright infringement and for unfair competition with separate legal consequences, then separate remedies may be available.
[Synopsis] Appellant (Plaintiff below): The Walt Disney Company (Disney), Pixar [Animation Studios] (Pixar)
Appellant (Defendants below): LanHuoYan Animation Co., Ltd. of Xiamen (LanHuoYan); G-POINT Film Culture Media Co., Ltd. of Beijing (G-Point); PPTV Media Tech Co., Ltd.of Shanghai (PPTV)
Plaintiffs Disney and Pixar are the copyright owners of the movie series “Cars”( 汽车总动员)1. “Lightning McQueen” and “Francesco Bernoulli” are the animated characters in the movie. These movies have generated considerable box office return, and are widely promoted and acclaimed with awards and nominations. A domestic movie 汽车人总动员(Cars Men) uses animation figures similar to McQueen and Francesco Bernoulli, and in its movie poster, uses a wheel to overshadow the Chinese character “人”(Men). Disney and Pixar sued the three defendants, the producer LanHuoYan, the distributor G-Point and the Internet broadcaster PPTV.
The People’s Court of Pudong, Shanghai is of the opinion at trial that Lightning McQueen and Francesco Bernoulli cartoon figures, by their personification of the eyes and lips, and specified color combination, constitute original expression, while the “K1” and “K2” cartoon figures in 汽车人总动员 (Cars Men) and in the movie posters adopted the original expression of Lightning McQueen and Francesco Bernoulli, constituting substantial similarity, thereby infringing the copyright of Disney and Pixar. The movie name “Cars (in Chinese Equivalents)” upon extensive use and promotion by its proprietors, have become the unique name of well known products. “Cars Men” in its movie posters uses a tire to overshadow the character “Men” so that the one character difference would be likely to mislead the public to mistake, constituting thereby unfair competition for unauthorized use of special name of a well known product. The court of first instance decrees injunction against the three defendants; payment of damages by LanHuoYan of one million yuan, of which G-Point jointly liable for 800,000 Yuan, and 350,000 Yuan for reasonable expresses for LanHuoYan and G-Point.
After the first instance decision, LanHuoYan and G-Point appeal to Intellectual Property Court of Shanghai, which dismisses and affirms.
[Judge’s Comment]
I. Determination of Substantial Similarity in Copyright Infringement In this case, a comparison of “K1” and “K2” cartoon figures in “Cars Men” and its movie posters with “Lightning McQueen” and “Francesco Bernoulli” animation shows many similar point, and determination of substantial similarity hinges on whether the similar points are substantial. To determine the “substantial” element, it has to be taken into account of both quantitative as well as qualitative aspects. Quantitative means certain number of points; qualitative means the original expression protected by copyright.
How to Determine Act of Unfair Competition of Using Proprietary Name of Well Known Product without Permission
There are three factors: (1) the name is uniquely proprietary for a well known product; (2) the accused name is similar to or identical with the proprietary name of a well known product; and (3) there is confusion or mistake among relevant public.
In the movie promotion and the posters, LanHuoYan and G-Point harbor intent to cause confusion, and actually cause confusion as a result. Such is the conduction of unfair competition for using proprietary name of a well known product without permission.
III. Accounting of the Amount o f Damages once Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition Are Established.
Judged from the acts themselves, copyright infringement is separate from unfair competition; and judged from the consequences, the former produces the legal results of reproduction, distribution, display and network dissemination of information of another’s work, whereas the latter produces the legal results of use of proprietary name of a well known product without permission leading to confusion among the relevant public, as well as extra gains for LanHuoYan and G-Point beside copyright infringement. For this reason the copyright infringement and unfair competition are separate acts independent of each other, producing different legal results, with independent damages.
The proprietors in this case, the reputable movie producers – The Walt Disney Company and Pixar – assert the animation figures in the somewhat well known movie series Cars. This decision tries to explore the dichotomy of ideas versus expression in the copyright protection of animation figures, as well as determination of substantive similarity in copyright infringement, deriving therefrom: the specific expression of personification falls within the meaning of expression, and therefore copyrightable. If two animation figures are substantially similar in their specific choices of expression such that when viewed from the perspective of an ordinary observer, it cannot be mistaken that the latter is independently created without the basis of the former, then substantial similarity can be established. This case also elaborates on the standard of determination of act of unfair competition for using without permission proprietary names of well known product, in conjunction with likelihood of confusion by reference to classification of goods or services as well as consuming customs of relevant sectors of the public. Meanwhile, under the circumstance of complication and multiplicity in infringement cases, this decision touches upon accounting of amount of damages for multiple infringing acts, concluding that separate acts of copyright infringement and unfair competition may be independently treated and assessed with different damages.
Case 12
Dispute Over Performer’s Right of the Album Happy Times
Trial Docket: (2016) Hu0110MinChu No. 15577 Appeal Docket: (2017) Hu73MinZhong No. 203
[Headnotes] In a case of infringement of performer’s right, the issue usually focuses on performer’s identity and infringement comparison. When ascertaining performer’s identity, if the independent musician’s performance has not been officially published, his identity could be determined by the name he used for Internet publication unless shown otherwise by counter evidence. In making infringement comparison, without engaging professional authentication organization, the infringing music can be compared with the asserted music by sound waves. Meanwhile, in judicial practice, the court may not find collective copyright management merely because the proprietor has engaged in “authorization + enforcement” activities; rather, collective copyright management should be distinguished from authorization and licensing, which ought to be protected by law.
[Synopsis] Appellant (Defendant below): KuGou Computer Science Co., Ltd. (KuGou)
Appellee (Plaintiff below): KanJian Co., Ltd. (KanJian)
Defendant below: HaiyangHudong (Beijing) Technologies Co., Ltd. (HaiyangHudong)
The music album Happy Times contains 15 music pieces including First Met. 12 of the pieces involved in this case are performed by YAO Xinbei. KanJian has been authorized by YAO for Happy Times the exclusive network dissemination of information right and non-interactive network dissemination of information right.
KuGou is the operator of KuGou music platform. KanJian retains evidence by a software Charles for all relative downloaded data of album/music pieces through “KuGou Music” mobile app of the 12 pieces of music involved in this case. Then by the software Adobe Audition CS6 showed during trial the sound waves of the music at issue with KanJian’s music for comparison, the result of which is substantially identical. HaiyangHudong is the sponsor of omusic.cc, whose official website indicates that its subordinates KuGou, KuWo are also members of Copyright Society of China and of Internet Society of Copyright Union.
KanJian contends that “KuGou Music” jointly operated by KuGou and HaiyangHudong is a well known domestic music dissemination platform, who, without permission, have publ i c l y provided and disseminated the music at issue in vi o l a t i o n of the network dissemination of information right of the performer. Therefore KanJian sued in People’s Court in Yangpu District of Shanghai, praying for injunctive relief and compensatory damages from KuGou and HaiyangHudong. At trial, after being confirmed of the deletion of the music, KanJian withdrew the first claim. The court granted judgment of 10,000 Yuan for damages and reasonable cost to KanJian from KuGou, and dismissed all other claims.
Arter the first instance decision, KuGo, dissatisfied, appeals. The second instance Court of Intellectual Property of Shanghai dismisses the appeal and affirms.
[Judge’s Comment] The music industry has been facing many challenges and transformation in the age of Internet +. One trend is the rise of independent musicians and reform of traditional publication and distribution mode. Music copyright is an area of multiple interests to be protected in drafting Copyright Law, involving multiplicity of owners and types of rights, and Internet reform brings more difficulties and challenges such as determination of owner’s identity, collective copyright management and of infringement. The decision in his case is helpful guidance for determining identity of performers, music management companies, and infringement comparison for performer’s right, in the following three areas: (1) Determination of Independent Musician. According to China’s Copyright Law, an individual, a corporation or other entities that having signed a work or product is the prima facie evidence for rightful owner of copyrighted work or interest, unless proven otherwise. More often than not, the independent musician would not publish or register his work for copyright, a performer’s original manuscript might be defective in storage, and performances on various occasions might be different. For this reason, the signature should be taken as the primary evidence for a performer’s identity. Because of identical names sometimes, a court could combine such evidence as account pass code, contract between Internet platforms, or documents for the process of production, etc.
(2) Determination of Collective Copyright Management. According to the Regulations of Collective Copyright Management, no organization or individuals, except collective copyright organizations, may engage in collective copyright management. In judicial practice, the court should not find collective copyright management for a music management company simply because it is authorized by multiple right holders for copyright enforcement on multiple works, or the copyright holders’ lawful rights of property for authorization and assignment enjoyed under Article 10 of the Copyright Law, and rights for considerations will be unreasonably restrained.
Infringement Comparison Method for Musical Works. Even for the same piece of music, differences exist for different performance, which is hard to detect for a non-professional outside music profession, but professional determination will inevitably prolong the litigation, and add up the litigation cost. From the technical point of view, the musical performance is digitally recorded which can be expressed in sound waves. Different digital music will show different sound wave. The sound wave can be presented by computer software, and the differences or lack of it can be visually observed, for simplified comparison between the accused music and the asserted music even by non-professionals.
Case 13
Infringement of Network Dissemination of Information Right for American Getty Images
Trial Docket: (2017) Jin0101MinChu No. 2043
[Headnotes] Currently with the development of technologies and popularization of Internet, digital evidence is more and more used in judicial practice. In this case, plaintiff introduces several pieces of digital evidence obtained from different sources including the evidence producing party itself, the national administrative authorities, and the opposing party (or unofficial third parties). The court makes various analyses and determinations as to authentication of genuineness of such evidence, especially the heatedly disputed evidence verifiable through credible time stamp. In this case the standard of verifying credible time stamps may be useful for other cases.
[Synopsis] Plaintiff: China Foto Press
Defendant: Agricultural Bank of China, Gansu Branch (ABC Gansu), Agricultural Bank of China (ABC)
Getty Images Corp. of the United States is copyright owner of four photographs at issue. Plaintiff, being the property owner of the related photographs in China, claims that ABC Gansu, without permission, uses the photos in its sina.com weblog, in violation of plaintiff’s network dissemination of information rights, asking for injunctive relief against ABC Gansu, and seeking joint liability against the two defendant, since ABC Gansu is only a branch, for damages and reasonable expenses of 131,000 Yuan.
The court holds that first of all under Regulations for Implementing International Copyright Treaties, and the Berne Convention for the Protection Literary and Artistic Works, both United States and China are Convention member states, and therefore the American company Getty Imagies’ work and copyrights are protected under China’s Copyright Law. Meanwhile, a Letter of Authorization, legalized in the Chinese Consulate to this country indicates that Getty Images is the owner of all the photographs displayed in its website www.gettyimages.ca, which is verified in court by logging onto the website showing all the photographs at issue bearing the watermark “getty images” which constitutes the signature on the photographs, and therefore the ownership of the copyright. Moreover, according to the contents of the Letter and the displayed photos from the website www.vcg.com operated by it, the authorization covers the photographs at issue, verifying the network dissemination of information right for these photos, as well as the right to assert against infringement in its own name. Besides, by the evidence adduced from ABC Gansu, the credible time stamp of the digital evidence is admitted in court by defendant ABC Gansu, the court fins infringement of network dissemination of information right against the defendant and orders for injunction and cost in the amount 16,000 yuan, but dismissed plaintiff’s claim against ABC Gansu because defendant’s activities are the responsibility of other civil entities ABC Gansu.
[Judge’s Comment] With the development of Internet technologies, digital evidence as a type of evidence is used more and more. In this case, plaintiff introduces several pieces of digital evidence variously from one party, state administrative authorities, the opposing party (or unofficial third parties), which the court makes different analyses and determinations as to authentication methods of the genuineness of the digital evidence.
First of all, for the digital evidence introduced by the party itself, the court requires the original to be: presented by the party itself in court for display through accessing live website, to be cross-examined by the other party.
Second, for the digital evidence obtained from state administrative authorities, since the governmental official websites are less likely to be tampered with, the court may conduct ex officio verification on such evidence.
Besides, for evidence obtained from the opposing parties (or unofficial third parties), the digital evidence is retained by electronic data notarization, and by time stamps. Of these, it is more controversial for the genuineness of the credible time stamp on the digital evidence. For this, the court confirms the verification standard of credible time stamp for digital evidence, providing helpful reference for future cases.
Case 14 Infringement of Network Dissemination of Information Right in Light of “Three Network Commingling”
Trial Docket: (2017) Zhe0192MinChu No. 400
[Headnotes] The key to make determination in such disputes is to properly define position of each business operator in light of the “Three Network Commingling.” The network dissemination of information right to provide works to the public by cable or wireless means so that the public may get the work at a preselected time and location, in which “provide” is the source of infringement. From this perspective, if this act is infringing, then examination is made as to acts of other entities.
In finding joint activities of providing, the standard should be more strict for direct infringement, while it should be relaxed for contributory acts. In other words, when considering whether another entity has collaborating relations, it may be taken into consideration of web indications, division of fees, or promotional information, etc. Under the more likely than not standard, such collaboration would constitute joint infringement.
[Synopsis] Plaintiff: Leshi Internet (Tianjin) Information & Technology Co., Ltd. (LeTV)
Defendant: Inphic Electronics Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen (Inphic); WASU Media Network Co., Ltd. (WASU)
LeTV claims that it owns the exclusive right of dissemination for the video work of The Flowers of The War; and that the two defendant without permission in their jointly operated “INPHIC i6 STB” (Set-Top Box) platform provide Internet online broadcast services to the public, in violation of the legitimate interest of plaintiff, seeking injunctive relief and compensatory damages plus reasonable cost in the amount of 100,000 Yuan.
Inphic argues that it merely provides the STB hardware, but the assembled platform and service contents are all controlled, operated on, and managed by WASU; the dissemination of the works at issue is implemented by WASU beyond its knowledge and control. Under the Sony Doctrine (Substantial Noninfringing Use Doctrine), it is not liable for any infringement, and requests dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against it.
WASU argues that the online selection of programs is done through Inphic STBs, and since it is not an operator of the STB, it cannot be a defendant in this case. Besides, plaintiff claims unreasonably excessive amount of damages. The monthly sale of STB is very low with few clients and the impact is very limited. When the STBs are used for selection, it is well beyond the hot item period. Moreover, it is not recommended, not placed in a prominent location, no fee charged, no advertisement, and no serious bad faith. Therefore, it requests the court to dismiss all the claims.
The Internet Court of Hangzhou at trial finds that key issue in this case is whether the two defendants have infringed LeTV’s right of dissemination, and if so, how much damages they should be liable for. Upon examination, it is found that Inphic is the manufacturer of STB hardware, and WASU is the operator for the TV programs assembly manager and content service provider. According to Article 3, item 5 of The Mandates of Operation and Management for Organizations Holding Internet TV Licenses issued by State Administration for Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) WASU as operator of contents service platform fails the duty to verify the contents stored in its servers. Therefore, as service provider, WASU has infringed the network dissemination of information right for the work at issue and should be held liable for it. Inphic is the manufacturer of STB hardware, having no control over the platform’s broadcast contents, and does not share in the income of the broadcast, whose rights and obligations may be determined as exonerated in reference to Internet service provider under the “Safe Harbor” rule. Although the word “INPHIC” and its website location is displayed in various places, yet it is not inappropriate for a hardware manufacturer to do so on STBs. The case is settled under the court mediation.
[Judge’s Comment] The three net works of telecommunications, broadcasting and Internet have shown more and more consistencies in technical functions while technology progresses, and their business overlaps over one another. Most litigation cases involve multiple parties, some of which have multiple identities. In such cases, the court should carefully interpret the definition of network dissemination of information right under Article 10 of the Copyright Law by finding the source of infringement as an operator who by uploading the work to its server and providing it to the public in one way or another has individually and directly infringed the network dissemination of information right, then go on to determine whether another has committed contributory infringement for joint liabilities.
Apart from this, other parties may be considered under “notice + deletion.”
Finding of a Direct Infringer
Generally, direct infringement of network dissemination of information right to a work is found where an Internet service provider uploads unauthorized work onto its server without statutory exonerations. In the new type of “Three Network Commingling” cases, it is the view of this author that whatever technical means should not be used in determining whether it is lawful to disseminating another’s contents from the accused platform. The source of any infringing act must be the uploading of a video work to a server and then deliver it to the public by whatever technical means.
Therefore, once this source is clarified for infringement issue, you get the harness of the ox, and the rest is a piece of cake.
Finding of Collaboration
For treatment of joint activities of Internet service providers, an important factor of consideration, in reality, is whether there is objectively any joint provision of works and sharing of interests. If the operating assembly platform merely provides search, link or hyperlink services, which does not constitute direct infringement of a copyrighted work, it should be treated by “notice + deletion”
rule. If, however, the operating assembly platform by its own will has conducted compilation, categorization and push of the contents to public for easier search of the infringing work, it is then reasonable to hold that there is knowing intention for the infringement with substantial assistance, and joint liabilities for the infringement should be imposed together with the contents platform. Moreover, if two parties have reached agreement and conducted pushing, or clearly agreed on the percentage from click rates, or use mega data to extract potential customers, then subjective intentions are present for collaboratively provide the work in joint infringement without finding negligence as needed for establishing contributory infringement.
Liabilities for Hardware Manufacturers
A manufacturer of hardware provides the channel for Internet dissemination, but a software provider may control the traffic of the network dissemination of information. For this reason, a hardware manufacturer generally does not take the liability for infringement of network dissemination of information right. But in reality, it is not always possible to separate a dealer of hardware from one of software. Then, if a client merely has inserted information locator service in it, and provides automatic search link, it can be exonerated under the “safe harbor” doctrine. But if it has the aforementioned collaborative relations with the contents provider for the contents in its devices, it then should be liable for contributory infringement.
Case 15
The Case of Infringement upon the Right to Network Dissemination of Information of Written Works by Audio Book
Trial Docket: (2017) Zhe8601MinChu357
Appeal Docket: (2017) Zhe01MinZhong No. 4386
[Headnotes] Reading aloud written work is a kind of performance. The sound of reading aloud is a kind of sound recording. Audio book is a reproduction of the written work othe r than adapta t ion regardless of whether background music, sound effects, etc. are added or not. Unauthorized production or provision of audio materials infringes upon the right of reproduction and the right to network dissemination of information. Authorizing others to produce or provide audio book without grounds constitutes accessory infringement.
The disputearising from contents of copyright authorization contract can be resolved through interpretation of the clauses of the contract by reference to legal interpretation method. It needs a consideration beneficial to the protection of the author’s interests when assuming the intent indications of both parties.
[Synopsis] Appellant (plaintiff of first instance): Xie Xin
Appellee (defendant of first instance): Shenzhen Lanren Online Technology Co., Ltd. (Lanren Company), Hangzhou Chuangce Technology Co., Ltd. (Chuangce Company), Hangzhou Sibian Technology Co. , L td. (Sibian Company), Beijing Zhaohua Xishi Culture Development Co., Ltd. (Zhaohua Xishi Company)
As the copyright owner of many literary works (the works involved) such as Who Dares to Offend Me, Xie Xin found that Lanren Company illegally provided online listening service of the works involved through information network on the website it operated. He fixed the evidence by notarization. After communication, Xie Xin found from the documents provided by Lanren Company that the latter’s provision of online book listening service was authorized tier upon tier by Chuangce Company, Sibian company and Zhaohua Xishi Company.
The court ascertained, after trial, that Xie Xin signed a contract to authorize the right to network dissemination of information and of reauthorization of such right as well as “the right of production, reproduction and sale of electronic publications” of the works involved to Chuangce Company in 2013.
In 2014, Chuangce Company authorized Sibian Company to produce audio books of the works involved, and to exercise or reauthorize others to exercise the right to network dissemination of information of such works in audio format. In 2015, Sibian Company authorized Zhaohua Xishi Company to re-authorize the right to network dissemination of information of the works involved to Lanren Company to use on its lanren book listening platform. In the same year, Lanren Company signed a cont ract with Zhaohua Xishi Company to authorize the latter to use the audio books of the works involved on its platform.
Xie Xin argued that he had never authorized Chuangce Company, Sibian Company or Zhaohua Xishi Company to produce audio books of the works involved and to disseminate such audio books via network information, and that the four companies’ acts of producing and disseminating such works via network information without his authorization constituted joint infringement upon his copyright. He, therefore, brought a lawsuit in the court, requesting a judgment of joint infringement for ordering them to bear joint and several liability.
The Hangzhou Internet Court ascertained, through the trial, that Lanren Company’s act of providing online works involved without authorization constituted infr ingement, that the acts committed by Chuangce Company, Sibian Company and Zhaohua Xishi Company for successive re-authorization without legal authorization constituted accessory infringement, and that they shall bear joint and several liability.
According to specific situations such as the number of words and originality differences of the works involved, the court rendered a judgment on June 19, 2017 that the four defendants shall make payment of different compensations to the plaintiff. Xie Xin refused to accept the judgment of first instance and filed an appeal with Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, which rendered a judgment on September 25, 2017 that the appeal shall be rejected and the original judgment shall be affirmed.
[Judge’s Comment] There are three key legal disputes in this case. The first is the object of audio books and how to determine the nature of producing and providing online audio books in the sense of copyright law. The second is the rules that should be applied in the interpretation of copyright authorization contract.
The third is the liability borne by the precedent authorizer who has no corresponding right to do so.
Determination of Act Nature
Generally speaking , the production of audio books includes three steps: reading aloud , recording and post production (addition of sound, music, etc.). All the three steps has not “changed” the expression of the words of the written works, which determines that it is unnecessary to consider whether such “change” satisfy the original standard to sufficient extent , and the audio books, therefore, do not satisfy the requirements of adaptation works.
In fact, the production of audio books by written works is just a change of the expression form or carrier of the works, and it is still a production of the works as a result.
(2) Interpretation of the Contract The essence of the dispute between both parties was the scope of the authorization under the contract. Specifically speaking, it was a dispute over the connotation of “electronic publications”.
Because China’s Copyright Law provides no conception of “electronic publications” and makes no legal definition of its connotation and denotation, it is necessary to make an interpretation of such words according to the contract.
“The contract is the law between the parties”. The method for interpreting the law can be used in the interpretation of the contract for reference. Specifically, first of all, from the background of the contract signing, audio book was not popular at the time of signing the letter of authorization, due to which it is difficult to conclude that both parties dispatched the offer and acceptance or not. Second, the letter of authorization with the author’s signature submitted by all the defendants except Chuangce Company were changed by adding the contents of “producing audio books” to its electronic documents through technical means, from which it can be proved that these authorized parties believed that the production of audio books was not within the scope of authorization; otherwise, they need not to tamper with it. Third, because the copyright law is formulated to protect the author’s rights and to encourage creation, there should be an interpretation beneficial to the author when interpreting a dispute over the understanding of the contract. For the above reasons, it should be ascertained that the production of audio books is not within the scope of authorization, and the defendant’s producing acts constitute infringement.
(3) Liability from “Unauthorized Authorization”
“Unauthorized authorization” satisfies the constitutive elements of infringement. First, where the “authorized party” has an intention to conduct an act restrained by proprietary rights and then seeks authorization from the “authorized party”, “authorization act” is in fact a promotion of direct act of the “authorized party”, due to which it is no incorrect to define the authorization act conducted by the “authorized party” as an acct of helping. Secondly, although it knows or ought to know that it has no right to make an authorization, the “authorized party” still makes an authorization to its successive party, proving that it may have malicious intent or have negligence at least. Thirdly, the “authorized party” has made a direct infringement, and there is a connection between the occurrence of the act or the expansion of harmful consequence and the authorized act of the “authorized party”.
It has legal basis to ascertain that the unauthorized authorization act constitutes infringement because it satisfy the three constituent elements: “subjective state”, “objective helping act” and “direct infr ingement”. Accordingly, t h e court h e a r i n g t h e c a s e ascertained that the party directly conducting the act of network dissemination of information shall bear joint and several liability for all the infringement with its precedent parties who made such authorization.
“Voice book” or “audio book” is a kind of new cultural consumption method emerged in recent years. However, there have been no clear rules or authoritative and unified consensus for handling the disputes in this regard. The reasoning and explanation in the judgment can serve as a reference for the above questions, which clarifies the fol lowing rules: production of audio book does not constitute an adaptation of written works, but the production and dissemination of audio book should be clearly authorized by the copyright owner; otherwise, it constitutes infringement. The rules established in the case provide clear guidelines for the subjects in the industry and give full play to judicature’s positive role in promoting healthy development of the cultural industry.
