Disputes over Publication Contract and Infringement on the Right to Revise the Works and Protect the Integrity of the Works- Shen Jiahe v.Beijing Publishing House@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Shen Jiahe, male, 58 years of age, reporter of the Workers' Dailiy, Address: Ande Road, Dongcheng District, Beijing@#
Agent p.p.: Su Wenwei, Lawyer of Beijing Yicheng Law Firm@#
Defendant: Beijing Publishing House. Address: Bei Sanhuanzhong Road, Xicheng District, Beijing.@#
Legal Representative: Zhu Shuxin, president.@#
Agent p.p.: Ren Liying, lawyer of Beijing Jiahe Law Firm@#
Agent p.p.: Liu Zijun, editor of Beijing Publishing House@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The plaintiff, Shen Jiahe brought a lawsuit at Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court against Beijing Publishing House concerning their disputes over publication contract and infringement on right to revise and protect the integrity of works.@#
The plaintiff claims: “Outside the Zhengyangmen” is the serial novel with Beijing local feature created by the plaintiff, the first 6 volumes of which are all published and issued by the defendant, including the “Ghost Relatives” and the “Sacrifice” etc.. In November, 1999, the plaintiff signed a book publication contract with the defendant stipulating that the plaintiff has granted the exclusive use right of the last three volumes of the novel “Outside the Zhengyangmen”, including the “Actress”, the “Drama God” and the “A Girl's Dream”, which were published and issued in Chinese version in the form of books both domestically and overseas, to the defendant, who shall then publish the above mentioned works before the June of 2000, and pay the remunerations of 8% of the tax on books. After the contract was signed, the plaintiff handed the works over to the defendant as stipulated, but the defendant failed to publish the above-mentioned works on schedule. Later, the plaintiff agreed that the defendant may continue to perform the publication contract after their negotiation. On July 24, 2000, the defendant gave the sample books to be published to the plaintiff. To the plaintiff's surprise, in these three books to be published, the defendant had, without the consent of the plaintiff, made a lot of revisions and cutout and deletion, which caused inconsistency of the former style of the serial novel of the plaintiff with the later, losing the characteristics that a novel about Beijing should have. Besides, there are also large numbers of misprints and words omitted in the three books, and the publication quality of these books is of low-grade. Thus, the plaintiff contacted the defendant, requiring it to make explanations and disposal. On August 15 of the same year, the defendant promised not to sell the books in storage, and promised to destroy them all together, and ensure the quality upon edition and correction, and it also made an apology to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff found out that the above-mentioned three books were still being sold in the market till August 31, the defendant had not fulfilled its commitment. The act of the defendant not only breached the stipulations of the contract, but also seriously infringed upon the right of the plaintiff to protect the integrity of works and to revise, and that caused bad influence on the readers, and discredited the reputation of the plaintiff as a writer of a novel about Beijing. The plaintiff petitioned the court to order: (1) that the book publication contract signed between the two parties be cancelled; (2) that the defendant stop infringement acts, and destroy the books of “A Girl's Dream” in storage; (3) print and issue the corrigenda for the two books of “Actress” and the “Drama God”; (4) apologize publicly to the plaintiff so as to eliminate influences and rehabilitate the reputation of the plaintiff; (5) reprint 8,000 volumes of the “A Girl's Dream” and 2,000 volumes of the “Actress” and the “Drama God” each, and pay the remuneration of 7,360 Yuan and the fees for evidence obtaining of 1,000 Yuan to the plaintiff; (6) compensate the plaintiff for its spiritual loss of 60,000 Yuan; and (7) bear the action cost and attorney fees for the case.@#
．．．．．．

沈家和诉北京出版社出版合同纠纷及侵犯修改权、保护作品完整权纠纷案@#
@#
原告：沈家和，男，58岁，工人日报社记者，住北京市东城区安德路。@#
委托代理人：苏文蔚，北京市益成律师事务所律师。@#
被告：北京出版社，住所地：北京市西城区北三环中路。@#
法定代表人：朱述新，该社社长。@#
委托代理人：任丽颖，北京市嘉和律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：刘子军，北京出版社编辑。@#
@#
原告沈家和因与被告北京出版社发生出版合同纠纷及侵犯修改权、保护作品完整权纠纷，向北京市第一中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称：《正阳门外》是原告创作的京味系列长篇小说，前6卷《鬼亲》、《活祭》等均由被告出版发行。1999年11月，原告、被告双方通过订立图书出版合同，约定原告将小说《正阳门外》后3卷《坤伶》、《戏神》、《闺梦》在国内外以图书形式出版发行的中文本专有使用权授予被告，被告应于2000年6月前出版上述作品，并按8％的版税支付稿酬。合同订立后，原告依约向被告交稿，而被告却未按期出版上述作品。后经协商，原告同意由被告继续履行出版合同。2000年7月24日，被告将出版样书交予原告。原告发现被告出版的这3本书中，被告未经原告同意，对原告的作品进行了大量修改和删减，使原告的系列小说前后风格不一致，丧失了作为长篇京味小说应有的特色。这3本书还存在大量的错字、漏字，出版质量低劣。原告就此与被告联系，要求被告作出解释和处理。同年8月15日被告承诺，对库存书不再销售、集中销毁，校改后保证质量，并向原告致歉。但直至8月31日，原告发现上述3本书仍在市场销售，被告并未履行自己的承诺。被告的行为不仅违反了合同的约定，还严重侵犯了原告享有的保护作品完整权和修改权，在读者中造成了不良影响，毁坏了原告作为京味小说作家的声誉。请求判令：1、解除双方订立的图书出版合同；2、被告停止侵权行为，销毁库存的《闺梦》一书；3、被告为《坤伶》、《戏神》两本书印发勘误表；4、被告向原告公开赔礼道歉，为原告消除影响，恢复名誉；5、被告重印《闺梦》8000册和《坤伶》、《戏神》各2000册，并向原告支付稿酬7360元及取证费1000元；6、被告赔偿原告的精神损失6万元；7、本案诉讼费、律师费由被告负担。@#
被告辩称：《正阳门外》是由被告策划并由原告创作的系列长篇小说丛书。为丛书出版，被告投入了大量人力、物力。该书编辑在对《坤伶》、《戏神》两本书依照责任编辑的职责进行编辑、润色时，严格遵守了以下几条原则：1、以新修订版《现代汉语词典》为准；2、参考《北京土语辞典》，如果《北京土语辞典》与《现代汉语词典》表达方式不同，则以《现代汉语词典》为依据；3、同一词汇几种表达方式共存的条件下，选取《现代汉语词典》的首选条目；如《现代汉语词典》没有的，则以《北京土语辞典》为准；4、为防止作者语言呆板单调，编辑时进行润色；5、过度暴露的性描写，予以删节。这些都是图书编辑职责范围内的工作。原告据此指控被告未经许可，对《坤伶》、《戏神》两本书的京味特色语言进行修改，侵犯了其对作品的修改权和保护作品完整权，不能成立。原告于2000年8月向被告反映这3本书有大量的错字、漏字等质量问题后，被告非常重视。经查，《坤伶》、《戏神》两本书的差错率均未超过万分之一，符合出版规定，不存在质量问题，属合格品，不需重印。对《闺梦》一书存在的质量问题，总编辑批示了4点改正意见：1、总结教训；2、库存书不能再销售，应集中销毁；3、向作者道歉；4、校改后再版，确保质量。根据《图书质量管理规定》，对质量不合格的图书，纠正期限是3个月。原告仅凭提出意见半个月后在书店里还能买到此书，就起诉被告不予纠正图书差错，在事实上和法律上均站不住脚。综上，在这3本书出版过程中，被告没有侵犯原告的著作权。《闺梦》一书虽然存在着按规定应改正重印的质量问题，但质量问题与侵权问题性质不同，不应混为一谈，不能就此要求被告承担侵权责任。法院应当驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
北京市第一中级人民法院经审理查明：@#
1999年11月25日，原告沈家和与被告北京出版社签订图书出版合同，约定：1、沈家和将《正阳门外》中《坤伶》、《戏神》、《闺梦》3卷的中文本专有使用权授予北京出版社；2、在合同有效期内，未经双方同意，任何一方不得将第一条约定的权利许可第三方使用。如有违反，另一方有权要求经济赔偿并终止合同；3、北京出版社应在2000年6月底前出版上述作品。北京出版社如因故不能按时出版，应在出版期限届满前通知沈家和，双方另行约定出版日期。北京出版社到期仍不能出版，除非因不可抗力所致，沈家和有权终止合同，北京出版社按报酬标准的40％向沈家和支付赔偿金；4、北京出版社尊重沈家和确定的署名方式。为达到出版要求，经沈家和同意并授权北京出版社对上述作品进行必要的修改、删节，最后定稿由沈家和签字认可。北京出版社如需更动上述作品的名称、标题，增加、删节图表、前言、后记、序言，应征得沈家和书面同意；5、北京出版社第一版第一次印刷的最低保底印数为8000册，并按8％版税给沈家和支付稿酬；6、在合同有效期内，如图书脱销，沈家和有权要求北京出版社重印、再版。如沈家和收到北京出版社拒绝重印、再版的书面答复，或北京出版社收到沈家和重印、再版的书面要求后6个月内未重印、再版，沈家和可以终止合同；7、本合同的有效期为5年。@#
合同签订后，原告沈家和如期向被告北京出版社交稿，并依合同审校了一次书稿校样。北京出版社未将出版前的最后定稿交付沈家和进行书面确认，且没有在合同约定的时间内出版。后经双方口头协商，沈家和同意北京出版社继续履行该出版合同。@#
2000年6月30日，被告北京出版社出版发行了《坤伶》、《戏神》、《闺梦》3本书各8000册。其中，《坤伶》一书35.3万字，定价22元／册；《戏神》一书37.8万字，定价24元／册；《闺梦》一书37.8万字，定价24元／册。7月3日，北京出版社向沈家和支付了《坤伶》一书的稿酬12503.04元，《戏神》一书的稿酬13639.68元，《闺梦》一书的稿酬13639.68元。@#
2000年7月，原告沈家和看到出版样书后发现，被告北京出版社未经其同意，对《闺梦》、《坤伶》、《戏神》进行了修改和删减，而且出现许多文字、语言、标点符号等方面的差错，遂向北京出版社反映。同年8月，北京出版社向沈家和道歉，并承诺对库存的《闺梦》不再销售，集中销毁，校改再版时保证质量。嗣后，沈家和于2000年8月至2001年4月，分别在北京市花市新华书店、南京市新华书店、北京春季书市上购得未加修正的《闺梦》。截止到2000年10月18日，被告北京出版社库存《坤伶》一书5263册、《戏神》一书5345册、《闺梦》一书7620册。@#
．．．．．．