Beiying Audio and Video Recording Company v. Beijing Film Academy
(Dispute over Infringement upon the Right to Exclusive Use of Works)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Beiying Audio and Video Recording Company.@#
Legal Representative: Li Baoping, general manager of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Ma Xiaogang, lawyer of Jun He Law Offices.@#
Authorized Agent: Wang Ying, cadre of Beiying Audio and Video Recording Company.@#
Defendant: Beijing Film Academy.@#
Legal Representative: Liu Guodian, president of the Academy.@#
Authorized Agent: Han Bing, lawyer of Beijing Economy Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Hou Keming, cadre of Beijing Film Academy.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Beiying Audio and Video Recording Company (plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as Beiying Company) brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Haidian District Court) due to a dispute with Beijing Film Academy over the infringement upon the right to exclusive use of works.@#
Beiying Company alleged: In March 1992, Wang Zengqi (an author, Wang hereafter) transferred his right of adaptation and right of production of his novel Being Initiated into Monkhood into film or teleplay to Beiying Company. Both parties renewed the transfer contract in December 1994, and the valid term would expire in March 1998. According to the contract, Beiying Company was the only lawful enjoyer of the right of adaptation and the right of production of the novel Being Initiated into Monkhood. In order to shoot the work, Beiying Company had finished the early preparation work, and invested considerable manpower and properties. On January 14, 1995, Beiying Company noticed the report that “Being Initiated into Monkhood attended French short film festival” on the 729th issue of Drama and Film News. Therefore, Beiying Company knew that Beijing Film Academy unlawfully adapted and shot the novel Being Initiated into Monkhood into a film without the right holder's permission, organized a group to attend Langlois International Students Film Festival in France by bringing the film, and enabled the film to have entered Clermont Film Festival in France. Beijing Film Academy openly infringed upon Beiying Company's lawful right to exclusive adaptation of the work, and spread its infringement both inside and outside the Academy, as well as at home and abroad. It caused unredeemable mental and property losses to Beiying Company. Therefore, Beiying Company pleaded the court to order Beijing Film Academy to stop the infringement, and to destroy the infringing film copies; to make an apology to Beiying Company in public; to compensate 200,000 yuan of economic losses to Beiying Company on the basis of Beijing Film Academy's economic conditions, to compensate for all expenses paid by Beiying Company for the present case; and to bear the litigation costs for the present case.@#
．．．．．．

北影录音录像公司诉北京电影学院侵犯作品专有使用权纠纷案@#
@#
原告：北影录音录像公司。@#
法定代表人：李保平，该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人：马晓刚，君合律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：王颖，北影录音录像公司干部。@#
被告：北京电影学院。@#
法定代表人：刘国典，该院院长。@#
委托代理人：韩冰，北京市经济律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：侯克明，北京电影学院干部。@#
@#
原告北影录音录像公司因与被告北京电影学院发生侵犯作品专有使用权纠纷，向北京市海淀区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告北影录音录像公司诉称：１９９２年３月，作家汪曾祺将其小说《受戒》的电影、电视剧改编权、拍摄权转让给原告。双方又于１９９４年１２月续签了有效期至１９９８年３月的转让合同。根据合同，原告是小说《受戒》改编权及拍摄权的唯一合法享有者。为拍摄该作品，原告已完成了前期的准备工作，投入了相当的人力、物力。１９９５年１月１４日，原告在总第７２９期《戏剧电影报》上读到了“《受戒》入围法国短片电影节”的报道。据此，原告得知北京电影学院未经权利人许可，擅自将小学《受戒》改编、摄制成电影，并组团携该影片参加法国朗格鲁瓦国际学生电影节，使该片入围法国克雷芒电影节。北京电影学院公然侵犯原告依法享有的作品改编专用使用权，并将其侵权行为由校内扩展到校外，由国内扩展到国外，给原告带来无法弥补的精神及财产损失，故要求法院判令北京电影学院停止侵权，销毁侵权影片拷贝；公开向原告赔礼道歉；考虑到北京电影学院的经济现状，要求其赔偿原告经济损失２０万元，并赔偿原告为本案支付的一切费用；承担本案诉讼费。@#
被告北京电影学院辩称：被告八九级学生改编拍摄的《受戒》一片是学生毕业作业。拍摄该片之前，被告曾向原告征求意见，原告未明确表示反对。被告拍摄该片的行为，属于汪曾祺先生已发表作品《受戒》的合理使用，直接目的是制作学生毕业作业，没有侵犯原告的作品专有使用权。被告携带《受戒》等学生电影作品参加法国朗格鲁瓦学生电影节，该电影节的主题是“向北京电影学院致敬”。《受戒》是全长仅为三十分钟的短片，除被告在小剧场放映一次用作观摩教学外，在朗格鲁瓦学生电影节也只放映了一次。朗格鲁瓦电影节并非法国克雷芒电影节的预选电影节。总之，被告拍摄《受戒》一片主观上无恶意，事实上更未参加克雷芒电影节。原告称被告“将其侵权结果由校内扩展到校外，由国内扩展到国外”是毫无根据的夸大其辞，并称“带来无法弥补的精神及财产损失”更是危言耸听。原告在既缺乏事实基础又未正确理解法律的前提下，对被告提起诉讼，严重损害了被告的声誉，已在社会上造成难以挽回的损害。请求法院驳回原告的诉讼。@#
海淀区人民法院经审理查明，原告北影录音录像公司（乙方）于１９９２年５月５日与汪曾祺（甲方）签订合同，合同规定：“一、甲方允许乙方对其拥有版权的作品《受戒》、《大淖纪事》、《徒》进行影视改编及拍摄。二、甲方保证三年内不将以上三篇作品的改编权及拍摄权转让他人。期限为１９９２年３月１５日至１９９５年３月１５日”。合同还规定：“由乙方向甲方一次性支付改编转让费人民币５０００元。乙方在合同期满后，如未对以上三篇作品进行改编拍摄，即丧失其改编权与拍摄权。如欲重新拥有以上权利，则需与甲方重新商定。”１９９４年１２月３０日，北影录音录像公司与汪曾祺就作品《受戒》、《大淖纪事》、《徒》的影视改编拍摄问题续订合同。在原合同中增加了下列条款：“甲方保证三年内不将以上三篇作品的改编权及拍摄权转让他人。期限为１９９５年３月１５日至１９９８年３月１５日，由乙方向甲方支付改编权转让费人民币５０００元，该影片摄制完成后，乙方再向甲方支付转让费５０００元，共计１万元”。１９９２年１０月，北京电影学院文学系学生吴琼为完成改编课程作业，将汪曾祺的小说《受戒》改编成电影剧本。北京电影学院对在校学生上交的改编作业进行审核后，选定将吴琼改编的剧本《受戒》用于学生毕业作品的拍摄。吴琼与北京电影学院教师赵风玺通过电话与汪曾祺取得联系。汪曾祺表示小说《受戒》的改编、拍摄权已转让给北影录音录像公司。赵风玺与北影录音录像公司协商，该公司未明确表示同意北京电影学院拍摄《受戒》一片。１９９３年４月，北京电影学院投资人民币５万元，并组织该院八九级学生联合摄制电影《受戒》。１９９３年５月拍摄完成。影片全长为３０分钟，用１６毫米胶片拍摄，片头字目为：“根据汪曾祺同名小说改编”，片尾字目为“北京电影学院出品”。影片摄制完成后，曾在北京电影学院小剧场内放映一次，用于教学观摩，观看者系该院教师和学生。１９９４年１１月，北京电影学院经广播电影电视部批准，组团携《受戒》等片参加法国朗格鲁瓦国际学生电影节。在该电影节上放映过《受戒》影片，观众系参加电影节的各国学生及教师，也有当地公民。放映该片时，电影节组委会对外公开出售少量门票。北京电影学院未参加法国克雷芒电影节。北京电影学院共制作《受戒》电影拷贝两个，其中一个拷贝封存于本院，另一个拷贝尚在由朗格鲁瓦电影节组委会寄往北京电影学院途中。北京电影学院有制作的《受戒》一片录像带一盒，也已封存本院。@#
．．．．．．