This case is a real judgment heard by a Chinese internet‑specialized court, focusing on the long‑disputed boundary between short‑video secondary creation and copyright infringement. The real names of companies and individuals are replaced with aliases to protect private information. The plaintiff, Alpha Media Limited, obtained the exclusive right of information‑network communication for a well‑known medical documentary series. This documentary collected real medical stories, contained original shooting footage, voice‑over scripts and post‑production editing, and was legally recognized as an audiovisual work under the Chinese Copyright Law. Alpha Media had signed exclusive online broadcasting contracts with mainstream video platforms and obtained substantial commercial returns from authorized streaming, advertising and derivative licensing businesses.
The defendant, Beta Culture Studio, operated a popular social‑media account with hundreds of thousands of followers. The studio’s core business model was producing short‑video commentaries on existing documentary and film resources. Without obtaining written authorization from the copyright holder, Beta Culture Studio intercepted a large number of original clips from the documentary and edited them into more than forty short‑video episodes ranging from three to eight minutes, then published these clips on multiple domestic short‑video platforms. Each edited video retained core plot segments, original scene pictures and partial original soundtrack of the documentary. The defendant added self‑written commentary subtitles and brief personal evaluation content, and gained platform traffic bonuses, advertising cooperation opportunities and fan‑reward income from these published videos.
After finding the infringing content online, Alpha Media completed electronic notarization of webpage evidence, recorded the quantity, playing volume and profit‑generating mode of infringing videos, and sent a formal cease‑and‑desist notice to Beta Culture Studio. The defendant partially deleted several videos but kept most of the edited works online. Subsequently, Alpha Media filed a civil lawsuit, requesting the court to order Beta Culture Studio to stop all infringement, remove all involved short videos, publish an apology notice, and compensate economic losses plus reasonable litigation expenses totaling RMB 380,000.
During the court hearing, Beta Culture Studio raised the core defense of fair use stipulated in Article 24 of the Chinese Copyright Law. The defendant argued that its short‑video works belonged to commentary‑oriented secondary creation; it only quoted fragments for introducing and reviewing the documentary, and should be exempted from copyright liability under fair‑use rules. The defendant also submitted platform public rules about “secondary‑creation incentive programs”, claiming that the social‑media platform encouraged users to make comment videos based on existing content, so the operator had reasonable grounds to believe such re‑editing behavior was permitted.
The court conducted comprehensive evidence review and applied the three‑step test principle for judging fair‑use situations in Chinese judicial practice. Courts will comprehensively examine four key factors: the purpose and nature of usage, the nature of the original copyrighted work, the quantity and quality of quoted content, and market impact upon the original work. The judgment pointed out that although the defendant added new commentary texts, the short‑video clips adopted substantial original core footage of the documentary. A large proportion of the original work’s narrative content was directly presented to the public. Internet users could watch major storylines of the documentary by browsing these short episodes, which formed a direct market substitution effect.
Even if partial new commentary content is added, when the re‑edited short video replaces the normal market exploitation of the original documentary, it cannot be identified as legal fair use The secondary‑creation encouragement rules released by internet platforms cannot override statutory copyright authorization requirements. Platform internal policies do not constitute legal permission for third‑party commercial re‑editing of complete audiovisual works. The court confirmed that Beta Culture Studio infringed the plaintiff’s exclusive right of information‑network communication.
Considering the high market value of the documentary work, the considerable playing volume of infringing short videos, the obvious commercial profit purpose of the defendant’s account, and the fact that the defendant only partially deleted content after receiving the warning letter, the court rendered the final judgment. The defendant must immediately stop the copyright‑infringing acts, delete all involved short‑video resources, and pay total compensation of RMB 210,000, including economic losses and reasonable rights‑protection costs. The apology claim was rejected because this case involved property‑oriented copyright rights without serious personal‑right damage.
This case delivers important practical enlightenment for content creators, MCN institutions and internet platforms in China. Secondary creation based on existing audiovisual works does not automatically fall within fair‑use scope. Commercial re‑editing and reposting must obtain explicit authorization from copyright owners in advance. Mere addition of commentary, subtitles or simple re‑sequencing cannot eliminate infringement risks. Enterprises should establish standardized copyright‑review procedures for short‑video production projects, and preserve authorization documents. Platform operators shall strengthen content review and take timely measures for obviously infringing clip‑type works.
1.https://www.ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/flfg/flfg_532/202103/t20210309_50530.html (Official Chinese Copyright Law, National Copyright Administration of China)
2. https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2025/05/id/8824826.shtml (China Court Network typical case commentary on documentary clip copyright dispute)
3. https://news.cctv.cn/2021/12/17/ARTIMTgPiG9QkRzJuTE57oAS211217.shtml (CCTV report on short‑video clip copyright risk)
4. https://www.ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/ztzl/2021zgwlbqbhdh/pthd/dspbqbhdtzyxtzl/jbgd_961/202106/t20210610_53612.html (National Copyright Administration: theoretical analysis on short‑video fair‑use boundary)
