Chinanews client, Beijing, January 8th (Yuan Xiuyue) After many years, director Chen Kaige once again entered the center of public opinion for his "rights defense".
Starting from January 5th, several B-site up hosts have posted messages stating that their previously produced Tucao videos have received complaints from Chen Kaige.
Screenshot of station B
According to a complaint page posted by an up host, the reason for the infringement was "the video title and content were intended to maliciously insult and slander Mr. Chen Kaige, causing Mr. Chen Kaige to be criticized by the public and suspected of serious infringement of Mr. Chen Kaige's right of reputation."
Screenshot of station B
The reasons for infringement reported by other up hosts are similar, most of which are suspected infringement of reputation rights in video titles.
At the same time, some up owners pointed out that Chen Kaige’s complaint was copied and pasted, and the title of the complaint was not the title of his video.
Screenshot of station B
As soon as the incident came out, it immediately triggered heated discussions in the community.
On January 6, Beijing Xingquan Law Firm issued a statement on the matter, stating that the law firm took the initiative to carry out the complaint on behalf of Chen Kaige, and it was not aimed at the content of the relevant Internet users’ evaluation of Chen Kaige’s works, but the allegedly published complaints by the relevant Internet users. Chen Kaige's personal attacks.
Weibo screenshot
The statement also stated that Chen Kaige, as a professional director, accepts all comments from the audience on his works, especially critical comments on his works, regardless of whether the expression is euphemistic or sharp, Chen Kaige is tolerant, but he is tolerant of exceeding public figures. Chen Kaige always adheres to the attitude of "zero tolerance" for personal offensive remarks in the category of obligations.
In addition, the statement indicated that Chen Kaige did not further entrust the law firm to initiate litigation procedures.
However, the law firm will reserve the right to pursue legal liability for relevant entities who continue to publish content suspected of infringing on Chen Kaige's legal rights and interests in this incident.
Screenshot of station B
What did the up master complain about?
So, what did the up owners of station B complain about?
A reporter from Chinanews.com looked through a number of Tucao videos, most of which were centered on the variety show "The Actor, Please Be Here", which involved the dispute between Chen Kaige and Li Chengru, the clip of "Zhen Huan" directed by Chen Kaige, the clip of "Baby Er" and the promotion of actors. Disputes etc.
Screenshot of station B
Among these videos, "The Revealed Chen Kaige, An Ultimate Guo Jingming" has the highest number of views, currently 1.526 million times.
In the video, the host up commented on the performance of the actors in the "Zhen Huan Biography" segment. He believed that the failure of the segment was due to Chen Kaige's "magic changes" to the script, and criticized Chen Kaige's creation of "sounding and incompetent."
However, there are also words in the video such as "a raccoon, arrogant, arrogant, arrogant, and arrogant".
Currently, the video title has been modified.
Screenshot of station B
In the 770,000 broadcasts of "Li Chengru's inside story!
In Chen Kaige's double-labeled "Actors Please Take In Place", the host of Up talked about the dispute between Li Chengru and Chen Kaige about "Promise" in the show, thinking that Chen Kaige could not stand criticism and was "careful".
There are also words such as "different words and deeds, intrigue, splattering, double standard before and after".
In addition, some video titles have sharper words, such as "I'd rather be a real villain than Chen Kaige", "Chen Kaige makes a big death, instead of pregnant and white, let's go" and so on.
A reporter from Chinanews.com noticed that some of the complained videos have been deleted.
Screenshot of station B
Lawyer interpretation:
——Using insulting language or fabricating facts is suspected of infringing on reputation
The main complaint of up is a work interpretation or a personal attack, a normal evaluation or a malicious insult?
What is the difference between these, what kind of evaluation is an infringement of reputation, and where are the boundaries of literary criticism?
In this regard, a reporter from Chinanews.com interviewed many third-party lawyers.
Attorney Huang Ping from Beijing Gangping Law Firm said that the legal evaluation of whether the right of reputation is infringed depends on whether the review uses insults or defamation (fictional facts), which results in a lower social evaluation of the reviews.
In other words, if insulting language is used or the facts are fabricated in the remarks, it is suspected of infringing on the right of reputation.
As for the boundaries of literary criticism, Lawyer Huang believes that it is advisable to make relevant opinions in a realistic manner and not to rise to personal attacks.
——Literary and artistic criticism should be right and wrong
Xu Xiaodan, an entertainment law lawyer at Beijing Tianchi Juntai Law Firm, said that the law is not an infinitely high moral standard, it is a category of the lowest moral standard.
"When we evaluate others, we will have a balance and consideration in our hearts. Some of the videos on the Internet that spit on Chen Kaige involve improper remarks about Chen Kaige. A personal attack."
Attorney Xu said that according to the newly promulgated "Civil Code" definition of reputation, reputation is a social evaluation of the character, prestige, talent, and credit of civil subjects.
Article 1024 of the "Civil Code" stipulates that civil entities enjoy the right of reputation.
No organization or individual may infringe on the reputation rights of others by insulting, slandering, etc.
How to evaluate within the legal scope?
Attorney Xu believes that whether it is for film and television works, or for the evaluation of actors, screenwriters, and directors, the first thing to do is to do things and not people.
Attorney Xu suggested that we should maintain an objective, rational, neutral, and restrained attitude, instead of using impulsive remarks, or evaluating with the purpose of gaining attention and attention.
Screenshot of station B
-Should public figures be more tolerant of criticism?
So, compared to ordinary people, what are the different standards for public speech?
Lawyer Li Weihua of Shanghai Dacheng Law Firm said that public figures should have a high tolerance for public speech, especially critical speech. It can be said that this is common knowledge in relevant legal practices in various countries.
In our country’s judicial practice, there is also such a view, which believes that compared to ordinary people, public figures are concerned and understood by people on a relatively larger scale, and have public influence and social reputation that ordinary people do not possess. While enjoying these benefits, they should be subject to certain restriction mechanisms. Their rights, especially the right to reputation and privacy, should also be restricted to a certain extent.
So when judging the boundaries of public figures' tolerance, Lawyer Li believes that several principles can be considered:
One is the balance between the personal rights of public figures and the public interest.
The public interest that should be protected cannot be sacrificed because of the reputation rights of public figures, nor should public figures be unrestrictedly required to tolerate this just for the attention and curiosity of the majority of the public.
The second is the principle of non-profitability.
The act of using the privacy or private life of public figures as a selling point and means of profit is strictly intolerable by law.
The third is the principle of authenticity.
The rights of public figures should be restricted, but this does not mean that public figures have an obligation to tolerate false and erroneous information disclosure.
Regarding the boundary of the evaluation of literary works, Lawyer Li believes that the most important boundary is the judgment of the quality of the work itself, not to maliciously attack and slander the person of the director.
As for the video of the main up of station b, in the video, if it is to evaluate the content of the film of director Chen Kaige's adaptation of the director of the show "Actors Please Be in Place", for example, he thinks that the role modeling of the director's "Disciple" is not Good, the lines are illogical, these are the scope of reasonable works evaluation.
However, if it is not just evaluating the work, but instead attacking the director's own personality and character, using some words and expressions that are insulting to the personality, it is likely to cross the border and cause violation of his reputation.
This is the most important boundary.
Video screenshot
Viewpoint: Creators relax their minds, and up owners must know the law and abide by the law
"I accept all comments on my movie." Chen Kaige once said on the show.
After the incident, this sentence also caused controversy.
Some netizens believe that Chen Kaige's acceptance of all comments means to accept good reviews, not bad reviews.
However, some netizens believe that the objective evaluation of the work and the insult to the personality should be clearly distinguished.
In the Internet age, the main body of literary criticism has become popular, and everyone is a critic.
The comments are varied and not professional enough, but the advantages are real and vivid, and they also have insights.
In addition, in the Internet environment, dialogue and interaction have become core elements.
Creators may wish to relax their minds, communicate more and less baggage.
However, the current evaluation of film and television works is also generating greater and greater influence, and has even become a field of public opinion for various parties. There are also irrational, hype or hot behaviors.
For up owners, they should also be more cautious when expressing their opinions, keep them safe, know the law, and avoid infringement.
(Finish)