Recently, topics such as "Tan Tan's traffic has been completely removed from the shelves", "Tan Qiao's claim that he may face tens of millions of claims", and others have successively appeared on the hot search, triggering various heated discussions among netizens.

Event context

July 10th

Tan Qiao, the host of the "Tan Tan Traffic" column, tweeted that he was surprised to hear that the video of the column had been taken offline and could face tens of millions of compensation. Tan Qiao also wrote on Weibo, "It's really a good means.".

July 11th

Chengdu Radio and Television commissioned a lawyer to publicly issue a statement. According to the statement, Chengdu Radio and TV Station is the copyright owner of the program "Tan Tan Traffic", and has the right to protect the rights of the unauthorized release of videos related to "Tan Tan Traffic" on the network. The relevant rights protection work is granted to Chengdu Youshu Culture Communication Co., Ltd., and the rights protection is only aimed at the business entities of companies that make improper profits without permission, not against any individuals, let alone against individuals who have "claimed tens of millions of yuan".

On the evening of July 11th

Tan Qiao posted a video on Weibo in response to a TV statement, stating that he had contacted the public welfare platform to properly handle the traffic incentive benefits and live gift benefits provided by the platform, in addition to necessary expenses. After that, Tan Qiao believed that there was a dispute over the ownership of the copyright (copyright) of the program "Tan Tan Traffic", and pointed out that there were also many unreasonable and non compliant aspects in the authorization of the travel technology company.

July 15th

Tan Qiao posted a microblog again, denying the statement that "the court has determined that the copyright belongs to (Chengdu Radio and TV Station)," and claiming that he may claim the copyright of "Tan Tan Traffic" in the future.

After sorting out the context of the above events, we can see that this hot topic is a dispute over the ownership of the program "Tan Tan Traffic".

Should we first determine whether the program belongs to a work under copyright law? What type of work does it belong to?

According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2020), only works can enjoy copyright in accordance with this Law. "Works refer to intellectual achievements that are original and can be expressed in a certain form in the fields of literature, art, and science.".

In other words, not all videos are works. In academic theory and judicial practice, it is common to distinguish whether a video is an audio-visual work (copyright protection) or a video product (neighboring rights protection) based on whether it is original. For example, it is also a MV (short music film), some of which are completed based on intellectual creative activities such as directing, performing, filming, editing, and synthesis, and have originality. They are audiovisual works; Some are based on the mechanical recording of live character activities (such as beach walks, personal speeches, etc.), which are not original and belong to video products.

If the parties bring a lawsuit to the court over the ownership of the program "Tan Tan Traffic", the court should first examine and determine whether the program "Tan Tan Traffic" belongs to an audio-visual work or a video product from various aspects such as the shooting method of the video, the selection and design of the video content, and the editing and synthesis of the later stage.

If the court determines that the program video of "Tan Tan Traffic" is an audio-visual work.

Article 17 (2) of the Copyright Law stipulates that "The ownership of copyright in audio-visual works other than those specified in the preceding paragraph (film works, teleplay works) shall be agreed upon by the parties concerned. If there is no agreement or unclear agreement, the copyright shall be enjoyed by the producer, but the author shall have the right of authorship and the right to receive remuneration."

According to Tan Qiao's micro blog, at the time of creation of the program "Tan Tan Traffic", no agreement was signed. In addition, the relevant staff of Chengdu Traffic Management Bureau responded to the incident by saying, "We have verified with the relevant departments that the copyright of Tan Tan Traffic does not belong to the traffic management department.". It can be temporarily speculated that Chengdu Radio and TV Station is the producer of the program "Tan Tan Jiao Tong", and the relevant copyright of the program belongs to Chengdu Radio and TV Station. A judgment issued by the People's Court of Chengdu District, Tianfu New Area, Sichuan Province, disclosed on the Internet also made the same determination.

It should be noted that Tan Qiao claims to be the producer of the program "Tan Tan Traffic" and that Chengdu Radio and Television Station should not enjoy independent copyright. If Tan Qiao files a lawsuit to confirm the copyright ownership of the program "Tan Tan Traffic", the court should comprehensively determine it based on the evidence provided by both parties.

If the court determines that the program video of "Tan Tan Traffic" is a video product.

Article 44 (1) of the Copyright Law stipulates that "Audio and video producers have the right to permit others to reproduce, distribute, rent, disseminate to the public through information networks, and receive remuneration for the audio and video products they produce." However, the video of the program "Tan Tan Jiao Tong" was recorded by Chengdu Radio and Television Station, so the video producer's right to the program belongs to Chengdu Radio and Television Station.

In this case, Tan Qiaoke advocates that his conversations with others in the program "Tan Tan Traffic" constitute oral works. "If Tan Qiao can prove that the television station's originality of the program is not high, and the television station only recorded the original oral works created by Tan Qiao, then the program" Tan Tan Traffic "belongs to the recording of the oral works created by Tan Qiao, and the copyright can be enjoyed by Tan Qiao, while the television station only enjoys the rights of the recorder.". For example, when Chengdu Radio and TV Station, as the recorder, permits others to disseminate the program video of "Tan Tan Traffic" through the information network, the licensee shall simultaneously obtain the permission and pay remuneration from Tan Qiao and other copyright owners.

In the current era of various short video blowout and brutal growth, this hot case is of considerable significance. Let's wait and see the final outcome of the case.