July 2025
Exploring Copyright Law Issues in Film Clip Commentaries
During the 2025 Chinese New Year film season, Nezha: The Demon Child Wreaks Havoc in the Sea soared to the top of China's all-time box office rankings, grossing over 7 billion yuan. However, the film’s unprecedented popularity sparked a nationwide debate over the boundaries of copyright law. On social media, countless viewers shared photos and clips taken directly from cinema screens. Meanwhile, short video platforms were flooded with film commentary and edits, ranging from "Watch the Whole Movie in 3 Minutes" to in-depth analyses. Are these secondary creations acts of infringement — unauthorized filming and re-editing — or are they examples of lawful "transformative use"? In the digital economy era, content involving film edits and commentary has grown into a massive industry chain, yet its legal status remains in a gray area. With a series of landmark decisions, such as those involving The Princess Weiyoung and Life Matters, the need to clarify how copyright law applies to audiovisual secondary creations has become urgent. It is essential to build a governance framework that balances the protection of original works with the freedom of creative expression.
I. The Scope of Protection for Audiovisual Works under the Copyright Law
Under the current framework of China’s Copyright Law, audiovisual works such as films are recognized as complex forms of visual and auditory art. Generally, unless otherwise specified by contract, the copyright in a film is held by the producer, who possesses a full bundle of statutory exclusive rights. These include, among others, the rights of reproduction, adaptation, and communication to the public via information networks—totaling sixteen exclusive rights provided by law. Among these, the right of communication through information networks is particularly relevant in the context of short video editing. This right governs situations in which the public is enabled, without authorization, to access a copyrighted work at a time and place of their choosing—such actions may constitute infringement. In a 2024 court decision by the Tongzhou Bay Court in Jiangsu Province, the case involving The Princess Weiyoung set a notable precedent. The defendant, Dai, was found liable for uploading and distributing 246 unauthorized edited clips of the series and was ordered to pay RMB 50,000 in damages. The legal basis for the judgment was the infringement of the right of communication through information networks.
According to the statutory boundaries of the fair use doctrine, copyright law does not entirely prohibit the use of audiovisual works. Article 24 of China’s Copyright Law explicitly outlines twelve categories of fair use. Among them, the provisions most relevant to film and television editing include: Personal use exemption: the use of published works solely for personal study, research, or appreciation; Quotation exemption: the appropriate citation of published works for purposes such as introducing, commenting on, or illustrating a point. However, in light of these provisions and the particular nature of audiovisual works, it can be inferred that “appropriate quotation” in this context must generally satisfy the following criteria: 1. Purpose of quotation: The quotation must be transformative, such as for commentary, criticism, or explanation; 2. Amount of quotation: The quoted content must be limited to the minimum necessary; 3. Market impact: The quotation must not substitute for or undermine the market value of the original work.
II. Determining the Infringement Risks of Film Clip Commentary
Substitutive Effect as a Core Criterion for Infringement
In judicial practice, the principle of “substantial substitution” serves as a key standard for determining copyright infringement of audiovisual works. In the 2025 infringement case involving the documentary Life Matters adjudicated by the Jingjiang City Court, the defendant Liu produced and uploaded a 21-episode compilation of documentary clips, with individual videos receiving up to 300,000 views. After comparison, the court found that Liu’s videos, by selecting and editing original footage to condense the core events, enabled the public to gain a comprehensive understanding of the original work through continuous viewing. This constituted a high degree of substitution for the original work. Consequently, the defendant’s fair use defense was rejected, and Liu was ordered to pay RMB 55,000 in damages.
Impact of Creative Intent and Commercial Nature
It is important to note that a non-commercial purpose alone does not constitute an absolute exemption from infringement. Even if the editor does not directly profit, attracting followers and enhancing account influence through film editing can amount to indirect commercial benefits. Scholars and legal practitioners have proposed a “three-step test” to evaluate such cases: First, assess whether the use falls under special circumstances; Second, determine whether the use conflicts with the normal exploitation of the original work; Third, analyze whether the use damages the legitimate interests of the rights holder. Based on this framework, a content creator with 2 million followers on a platform who used footage from Life Matters for commentary was found liable for infringement despite the “explanatory” nature of the creation, as the use failed to meet the above criteria and was consequently ordered to pay RMB 55,000 in damages.
Technical Measures Do Not Change the Infringing Nature
In practice, common technical modifications such as removing watermarks, overlaying background music, or cropping clips cannot completely avoid infringement liability. Since all edited content is derived from original film segments, the resulting compilation cannot be considered an original work. Therefore, it remains highly likely to be deemed an infringement of the right of communication through information networks.
III. Challenges in Legal Practice and Industry Impact
Judicial Challenges in Determining Infringement
Current judicial practice faces two major difficulties:
A. Ambiguity in the Scope of Appropriate Quotation: The law does not specify exact limits on the duration or proportion of quoted material. However, based on case analyses, the Jiangsu High People’s Court, in the The Princess Weiyoung case applied the standard of “restoration of core plot elements,” ruling that when the edited content sufficiently reveals character relationships and main conflicts, it constitutes infringement.
B. Complexity of Mixed Rights Infringement: Besides copyright, film editing often simultaneously infringes on other rights such as trademark rights (e.g., use of film title logos), portrait rights (actors’ images), and the right to protect the integrity of works (distortion or alteration of the original work’s intent).
Systemic Losses in the Film and Television Industry
Copyright infringement through short videos has caused negative effects across the entire industry chain:
A. Erosion of Direct Revenue: The widespread dissemination of clipped popular dramas leads to a decline in platform pay-per-view and subscription income.
B. Disruption of the Creative Ecosystem: Low-cost re-uploads squeeze out the space for original content, creating a “bad money drives out good money” effect.
C. Increased Investment Risk: The rampant infringement raises the risk factors associated with film and television investments, potentially discouraging the production of high-quality content.
IV. Establishing Compliance Pathways and Collaborative Governance Mechanisms
To prevent creators from inadvertently infringing on original rights holders, a three-tier risk prevention mechanism can be established for short video creators:
A. Authorization First Principle: Obtain authorization for audiovisual materials through copyright trading platforms or other legitimate channels, clearly defining the scope and duration of use.
B. Strict Adherence to Fair Use: In commentary and explanatory creations, ensure that quoted clips meet the standards of being “necessary and appropriate,” keeping the duration and proportion of quoted material minimal and avoiding the disclosure of core plot elements.
C. Enhancement of Transformative Creation: Ensure that the amount of original commentary exceeds the proportion of the referenced original footage, providing new value through in-depth analysis and interpretation.
The copyright disputes surrounding film clip commentary fundamentally reflect the institutional adjustment between creative freedom and property rights protection in the digital era. Current judicial practice has clarified that “substantial substitution” and “commercial purpose” serve as core criteria for infringement determination. However, a long-term solution requires moving beyond case-by-case adjudication to establish a multi-stakeholder collaborative governance ecosystem. At the legislative level, refining fair use standards is essential; judicial practice should incorporate the doctrine of “transformative use” as a guiding principle; collective management systems can reduce authorization costs; and technological measures can enhance monitoring efficiency. Only by safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of film investors while preserving space for secondary creation can the cultural industry achieve dynamic balance and sustainable prosperity. Seeking the greatest common denominator between protection and innovation within the rule of law will allow the audiovisual ecosystem to maintain both the richness of its original creative sources and the grandeur of its diverse creative streams.
I. The Scope of Protection for Audiovisual Works under the Copyright Law
Under the current framework of China’s Copyright Law, audiovisual works such as films are recognized as complex forms of visual and auditory art. Generally, unless otherwise specified by contract, the copyright in a film is held by the producer, who possesses a full bundle of statutory exclusive rights. These include, among others, the rights of reproduction, adaptation, and communication to the public via information networks—totaling sixteen exclusive rights provided by law. Among these, the right of communication through information networks is particularly relevant in the context of short video editing. This right governs situations in which the public is enabled, without authorization, to access a copyrighted work at a time and place of their choosing—such actions may constitute infringement. In a 2024 court decision by the Tongzhou Bay Court in Jiangsu Province, the case involving The Princess Weiyoung set a notable precedent. The defendant, Dai, was found liable for uploading and distributing 246 unauthorized edited clips of the series and was ordered to pay RMB 50,000 in damages. The legal basis for the judgment was the infringement of the right of communication through information networks.
According to the statutory boundaries of the fair use doctrine, copyright law does not entirely prohibit the use of audiovisual works. Article 24 of China’s Copyright Law explicitly outlines twelve categories of fair use. Among them, the provisions most relevant to film and television editing include: Personal use exemption: the use of published works solely for personal study, research, or appreciation; Quotation exemption: the appropriate citation of published works for purposes such as introducing, commenting on, or illustrating a point. However, in light of these provisions and the particular nature of audiovisual works, it can be inferred that “appropriate quotation” in this context must generally satisfy the following criteria: 1. Purpose of quotation: The quotation must be transformative, such as for commentary, criticism, or explanation; 2. Amount of quotation: The quoted content must be limited to the minimum necessary; 3. Market impact: The quotation must not substitute for or undermine the market value of the original work.
II. Determining the Infringement Risks of Film Clip Commentary
Substitutive Effect as a Core Criterion for Infringement
In judicial practice, the principle of “substantial substitution” serves as a key standard for determining copyright infringement of audiovisual works. In the 2025 infringement case involving the documentary Life Matters adjudicated by the Jingjiang City Court, the defendant Liu produced and uploaded a 21-episode compilation of documentary clips, with individual videos receiving up to 300,000 views. After comparison, the court found that Liu’s videos, by selecting and editing original footage to condense the core events, enabled the public to gain a comprehensive understanding of the original work through continuous viewing. This constituted a high degree of substitution for the original work. Consequently, the defendant’s fair use defense was rejected, and Liu was ordered to pay RMB 55,000 in damages.
Impact of Creative Intent and Commercial Nature
It is important to note that a non-commercial purpose alone does not constitute an absolute exemption from infringement. Even if the editor does not directly profit, attracting followers and enhancing account influence through film editing can amount to indirect commercial benefits. Scholars and legal practitioners have proposed a “three-step test” to evaluate such cases: First, assess whether the use falls under special circumstances; Second, determine whether the use conflicts with the normal exploitation of the original work; Third, analyze whether the use damages the legitimate interests of the rights holder. Based on this framework, a content creator with 2 million followers on a platform who used footage from Life Matters for commentary was found liable for infringement despite the “explanatory” nature of the creation, as the use failed to meet the above criteria and was consequently ordered to pay RMB 55,000 in damages.
Technical Measures Do Not Change the Infringing Nature
In practice, common technical modifications such as removing watermarks, overlaying background music, or cropping clips cannot completely avoid infringement liability. Since all edited content is derived from original film segments, the resulting compilation cannot be considered an original work. Therefore, it remains highly likely to be deemed an infringement of the right of communication through information networks.
III. Challenges in Legal Practice and Industry Impact
Judicial Challenges in Determining Infringement
Current judicial practice faces two major difficulties:
A. Ambiguity in the Scope of Appropriate Quotation: The law does not specify exact limits on the duration or proportion of quoted material. However, based on case analyses, the Jiangsu High People’s Court, in the The Princess Weiyoung case applied the standard of “restoration of core plot elements,” ruling that when the edited content sufficiently reveals character relationships and main conflicts, it constitutes infringement.
B. Complexity of Mixed Rights Infringement: Besides copyright, film editing often simultaneously infringes on other rights such as trademark rights (e.g., use of film title logos), portrait rights (actors’ images), and the right to protect the integrity of works (distortion or alteration of the original work’s intent).
Systemic Losses in the Film and Television Industry
Copyright infringement through short videos has caused negative effects across the entire industry chain:
A. Erosion of Direct Revenue: The widespread dissemination of clipped popular dramas leads to a decline in platform pay-per-view and subscription income.
B. Disruption of the Creative Ecosystem: Low-cost re-uploads squeeze out the space for original content, creating a “bad money drives out good money” effect.
C. Increased Investment Risk: The rampant infringement raises the risk factors associated with film and television investments, potentially discouraging the production of high-quality content.
IV. Establishing Compliance Pathways and Collaborative Governance Mechanisms
To prevent creators from inadvertently infringing on original rights holders, a three-tier risk prevention mechanism can be established for short video creators:
A. Authorization First Principle: Obtain authorization for audiovisual materials through copyright trading platforms or other legitimate channels, clearly defining the scope and duration of use.
B. Strict Adherence to Fair Use: In commentary and explanatory creations, ensure that quoted clips meet the standards of being “necessary and appropriate,” keeping the duration and proportion of quoted material minimal and avoiding the disclosure of core plot elements.
C. Enhancement of Transformative Creation: Ensure that the amount of original commentary exceeds the proportion of the referenced original footage, providing new value through in-depth analysis and interpretation.
The copyright disputes surrounding film clip commentary fundamentally reflect the institutional adjustment between creative freedom and property rights protection in the digital era. Current judicial practice has clarified that “substantial substitution” and “commercial purpose” serve as core criteria for infringement determination. However, a long-term solution requires moving beyond case-by-case adjudication to establish a multi-stakeholder collaborative governance ecosystem. At the legislative level, refining fair use standards is essential; judicial practice should incorporate the doctrine of “transformative use” as a guiding principle; collective management systems can reduce authorization costs; and technological measures can enhance monitoring efficiency. Only by safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of film investors while preserving space for secondary creation can the cultural industry achieve dynamic balance and sustainable prosperity. Seeking the greatest common denominator between protection and innovation within the rule of law will allow the audiovisual ecosystem to maintain both the richness of its original creative sources and the grandeur of its diverse creative streams.
The contents of all newsletters of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners (Content) available on the webpage belong to and remain with Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. All rights are reserved by Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners, and the Content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior permission of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
The Content is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal or professional advice on any particular issue or case. The Content may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners and the editors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The contributing authors' opinions do not represent the position of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. If the reader has any suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
