Do Douyin take responsibility for the platform infringement?Court: There are certain mistakes, but not applicable to punitive compensation

Recently, the plaintiff Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff Hangzhou Tencent Magic Software Co., Ltd. (collectively referred to as Tencent) v. Beijing Micro Broadcasting Vision Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Douyin) invading the TV series "Beihangguang still believes in love" network In the case of copyright, the Hangzhou Internet Court made a first trial. The verdict pointed out that for users uploading videos, Douyin lived up to the obligation of filtering beforehand. Under the premise of not being clearly required to delete, shield, and disconnect the link, the plaintiff asked Douyin to determine whether the platform's massive videos of the platform constituted infringement, and unreasonablely unreasonably Increasing the operating costs of network service providers is not conducive to the healthy development of the Internet industry. However, considering the obligation to pay attention, the decision to compensate Tencent's economic losses and reasonable costs of 100,000 yuan as appropriate.

It is reported that in 2016, the TV series "Beishangguang still believes in love" was launched on Tencent video. The ending of the film clearly indicates that the right to spread the information network of the work is owned by Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. exclusively. At the end of 2021, Tencent found that there were more than 200 users uploaded by users on the Douyin platform, and then sued the Hangzhou Internet Court. On December 3 of that year, the court officially filed a case.

In the request of the lawsuit, Tencent pointed out that Douyin knew that users had no copyright uploading film and television works, and still let go, guide and help infringement, and even actively promoted the infringement video. The infringement was serious. It also constitutes a common infringement with users, and punitive compensation should be applied to Douyin with a claim of 4.99 million yuan.

After hearing, the court held that the video involved in the case was uploaded by the platform users. Although the bid in some videos was the word "watermelon video × Douyin", it was not enough to determine the uploader of the videos involved in the case. The above behavior claims rights, but instead advocates that Douyin directly provides insufficient basis for providing the videos of the infringement. The verdict further pointed out that Lenovo's recommendation and search Lenovo belong to the industry's more routine product logic, not to provide promotion support for infringement. According to this, the court confirmed that Douyin did not have the meaning of infringement with platform users, and objectively did not implement infringement of division of work cooperation. It did not obtain direct economic benefits and shared income, and did not constitute common infringement.

It is worth noting that the judgment also explained the attention obligations of the platform. "Some user names include the word" film and television '' 'film and television editing' ''. , Industry specifications and platform agreements clearly prohibit the content of the information and use, and we cannot blame the network service provider to judge the acting of the account of the account subject only by the relevant name. There should be infringement. It should not only be based on this request to increase the attention obligations of the platform. "

However, at the same time, considering that when network service providers provide storage space services to network users, negative "attention obligations" to avoid network users from using their network services to implement civil infringement behaviors, combined with "Douyin search intelligent aggregation" video video " The automatic aggregation arrangement function, the court finally determined that Douyin classified, edited, and sorted out related videos. There was a certain fault to help infringement.

In the end, the Hangzhou Internet Court determined that there was no evidence that Douyin had the subjective intentional intention of infringement, and it was not a direct actor. 100,000 yuan.

- END -