Judging from the fines issued by the regulatory authorities, the board is marked with sensitive and harmful information. The fine of 300,000 yuan is obviously insignificant for a listed company with an annual net profit of several hundred million yuan. Some public opinion believes that this is the same as the "600,000 yuan" top penalty in the securities market. I am afraid that it is not a valid disciplinary punishment in the true sense. But under the existing legal framework, we can only accept such results.
As for the specific meaning of sensitive and harmful information, the official notification language is unknown, and I want to come to the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League.WeiboThe content of the name is related. However, if we think that the copyright problems of the picture companies are only sensitive and harmful information, I am afraid that it is difficult for everyone to agree. A glimpse of the whole leopard, black hole, national flag, national emblem, etc., which are obviously not copyrighted by the picture company, are placed in their gallery and are declared as ownership. Users need to pay, and the offender will be held accountable. Then, how many pictures are there, they are "smiling" in a similar way, and it is estimated that only the picture company itself is clear.
Copyright protection is the consensus of modern civilized society, but how to protect it, the details need to be discussed. Seizing the opportunity of this hot event and clarifying the relevant technical details is particularly urgent. First of all, the difference between agency rights and ownership rights and income rights should be clarified. This is the key to ensuring the interests of all parties in the industry chain. Here, the rights, responsibilities, and interests of the picture company need to be redefined. It is not just to protect the interests of the picture company, but to lose the original intention of protecting copyright. The copyright of the photo agency should also be refined to determine which are relatively strict managed copyright (RM) and which are relatively more extensive tax-free licenses (RF). Otherwise, if the information is obviously asymmetrical, let the use It is against the principle of fairness to pay at a uniform price. Furthermore, what kind of pictures are suitable for news reports, but for commercial activities, further authorization is required. This problem is more common in portrait pictures. Or, how can a picture company sell its products in a reasonable way, instead of deliberately letting it decentralize its rights and protect its legitimate rights and interests, but it is plagued by phishing rights protection...
The legitimate rights and interests of commercial companies should be respected, but the public perception of society should also be considered. Whether it's video, songs, text or pictures, people are already willing to pay for premium content, and many companies are using it to land in the capital market. However, ignoring the “copyright protection” of upstream and plundering downstream, it may reverse the awareness of copyright protection developed by the public.