[Commentary] Zhang Muye, under the pseudonym world sings, he used the theme of tomb robbing to write series of novels such as "Jiju Ancient City", "Longling Grottoes" and other "Ghost Blowing Lamp", which triggered the "tomb robbing literature" fever. In 2015, Zhang Muye discovered that Qingdao Publishing House had modified the content of the novel "Ghost Blowing Lamp" without authorization, and after he himself published the information about the novel to be revised, the publishing house took the opportunity to advertise that the company issued the "latest revision" . So Zhang Muye sued the publishing house and other cooperators to the court, and claimed 10 million yuan. On April 22, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court pronounced final judgment on the case.
[Same period] Feng Gang, Judge of Beijing Intellectual Property Court
The court of first instance ruled that Qingdao Publishing House publicly issued a statement on the Internet, apologizing for infringement of the right to modify, and eliminating the adverse effects of the behavior of false propaganda. The second is that Qingdao Publishing House compensates Zhang Muye for 50,000 yuan in spiritual comfort money. The third is that Qingdao Publishing House compensated Zhang Muye for the reasonable expenditure of more than 3,800 yuan. All other lawsuit requests were rejected, and the second instance upheld this.
[Commentary] The referee in this case revolved around whether the "Ghost Blowing Lamp" published by Qingdao Publishing House infringed on the original author's right to modify, the protection of the right to complete the work and whether the propaganda language constituted false propaganda. In the second trial, the judge further clarified whether the publishing house has the right to modify the novel.
[Spotlight] Judge Feng Gang, Beijing Intellectual Property Court
If the editor of the publishing house believes that a textual modification should be made somewhere, for example, it is clearly a typo or the use of punctuation marks, he should also seek the author's opinion. In this case, as many as 394 revisions were identified, and most of them belonged to major revisions to the original content. In the case where the author is not authorized and does not approve, Qingdao Publishing House also failed to provide a reasonable basis for the change. This court does not support the reason for appeal of Qingdao Press about not infringing the right to modify.
[Same period] Feng Gang, Judge of Beijing Intellectual Property Court
Newspapers and periodicals stipulate that we call it the right of editing and modification in the industry. What does it mean that if the editor of the newspaper finds that there are some obvious errors in this work, you can directly modify it without asking the author's opinion, but the book does not have this requirement, and does not have this right. to modify. So this question is made clear in the second trial.
[Explanation] The 10 million yuan economic compensation claimed by the plaintiff, including 5 million yuan in copyright losses and 5 million yuan in losses related to unfair competition, the court held that it did not provide relevant evidence and did not support it.
[Spotlight] Judge Feng Gang, Beijing Intellectual Property Court
Because Zhang Muye did not provide any evidence for the economic loss caused by the false propaganda, and the damage to his reputation right was sufficient to cover the moral damage compensation for the personal rights of the author. Therefore, Zhang Muye ’s appeal request for compensation from Qingdao Publishing House and Xuan Ting Company (the party that purchased the copyright) for the loss of 5 million yuan due to unfair competition is unfounded, and this court does not support it.
Reporter Shan Lu from Beijing
Editor in charge: [Wang Kai]