Revealed in court that "Hua Qian Gu" turned into "Tai Chi Panda": Online game "changing skin" was sentenced to infringement and compensated 10 million

　　China News Service, Nanjing, April 25 (Reporter Shen Ran) 29 UI games are basically the same, 24 attribute values ​​of 27 pieces of equipment are basically the same, 26 UI interface maps such as function modules and system entrances are very similar ... The "painted skin" of Flower Thousand Bone was actually Tai Chi Panda. On the occasion of the 20th World Intellectual Property Day, Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court issued the "Top Ten Intellectual Property Judicial Protection Cases in 2019". There are significantly more Internet-related cases, and various new types of Internet infringement cases are emerging, such as online games Judicial decisions are subject to controversy and attention in the judicial community. The innovative trial concept of such cases shows that judicial protection is advancing with the times under the continuous development of the Internet economic model.

Comparison of common skills (common fairy technique) interface (left is a screenshot of "Tai Chi Panda", right is a screenshot of "Hua Qian Gu"). Court courtesy

　　On August 5, 2015, Suzhou Snail Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Snail Company) sued Chengdu Tianxiang Interactive Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Tianxiang Company) and Beijing Aiqiyi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Aiqiyi Company). Court. Snail Company believes that the mobile game of "Hua Qian Gu" developed by Tianxiang Company and iQiyi Company on June 19, 2015 "skin" copied the "Tai Chi Panda" developed by Snail Company on October 31, 2014 game.

　　The so-called "changing skin" of online games refers to the "Flower Thousand Bone" game that only replaces the character image, voiceover and soundtrack, etc., and the gameplay rules, numerical planning, skill system, operation interface and other aspects of the "Tai Chi Panda" The games are identical or substantially similar.

Comparison of the main interface (left is a screenshot of "Tai Chi Panda", right is a screenshot of "Hua Qian Gu"). Court courtesy

　　To this end, Snail Company requested Tianxiang Company and iQiyi Company to immediately stop the infringement, pay apologies in public media, eliminate the impact, and compensate 30 million yuan in economic losses.

　　The two defendants argued that: first, the rules of the game's gameplay are ideas and cannot be protected by copyright laws; second, the snail company's rights base is flawed, and the version of the game it showed to the court is a server built by itself, which has been modified Possibility; again, the "Hua Qian Bone" game is quite different from the "Tai Chi Panda" game in terms of character image, storyline, music dubbing, etc. Even if some gameplay rules are the same, it is a reasonable reference and not a tort; in addition, Snail ’s claim for compensation is too high.

　　During the court trial, the snail company confirmed that after the previous iteration of the "Hua Qian Gu" game, the 1.8.0 version released on January 19, 2016 no longer contains the alleged infringing content.

　　In this case, the court found out that compared with the game "Tai Chi Panda", there are 29 gameplays that are basically the same in interface layout and gameplay rules or constitute substantially similar; in addition, "Hua Qiangu" The 24 attribute values ​​of the 47 pieces of equipment in the game correspond to the same or the same proportion of fine-tuning in the "Tai Chi Panda" game; the function module structure diagram in the computer software copyright registration archives of the "Flower Thousand Bone" V1.0 game software , The functional flow chart and the seal stone system entrance and all 26 UI interface maps use the elements and interfaces of the "Tai Chi Panda" game. At the same time, in Sina Weibo and IOS system "Flower Thousand Bone" game user reviews, a large number of game players commented that the two games are very similar.

Comparison of screenshots of some game interfaces (left is a screenshot of "Tai Chi Panda", right is a screenshot of "Hua Qian Gu"). Court courtesy

　　The first trial of the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court finally determined that the game "Flower Thousand Bone" violated the right of adaptation enjoyed by the copyright owner. At the same time, the profits obtained by the two defendants in the development and operation of the game "Flower Thousand Bone" have clearly exceeded the amount of compensation claimed by the snail company. Support the litigation claim with compensation of 30 million yuan.

　　After the judgment of the first instance, Tianxiang and Iqiyi filed an appeal to the Jiangsu High Court. The second instance of the Jiangsu High Court upheld the first instance decision.

　　This case is the first case in China where a specific way of presenting the rules of gameplay in online games is determined by judgment, which can be protected by copyright law, and “plastering” plagiarism is a way of copyright infringement.

　　The presiding judge of the case introduced that the traditional method of judging the protection of the rights of online game works is generally based on the difference of their elements from the perspective of text works, art works, musical works or computer software works, but such subdivision rights The protection of the item only protects a certain category of elements in online games, and is not enough to achieve full protection and substantial protection of online games with integrity characteristics, resulting in more cases of "skin" plagiarism to evade legal regulations.

　　The presiding judge said that "plastering" plagiarism can greatly reduce the cost of developing games and shorten the development cycle. The use of "plastering" plagiarism should be considered a copyright infringement.

　　In recent years, the online game industry has developed rapidly, the intellectual property value of online game works is getting higher and higher, and the means of infringement are becoming more and more hidden. The judgment in this case has made beneficial research and exploration on the protection of intellectual property rights in online games, is a positive response to the current development of online game technology, and has important significance for promoting the healthy development of the online game industry. (Finish)