Platforms always claim that infringing videos are uploaded by users and have nothing to do with them.
But a recent judgment from the Haidian Court shattered this claim:
Can a platform plead ignorance when infringing videos are placed on the homepage and hit the hot lists? The court did not buy it.
I. Platforms Promoted Infringing Content During Hit Drama Broadcast
Drama B was an exclusive hit drama with extremely high nationwide attention during its broadcast. At the same time, a voice dubbing platform was flooded with infringing videos related to Drama B, including direct original audio clips and secondary creations using the original audio for dubbing.
More crucially, instead of stopping the infringement, the platform actively promoted these infringing videos: labeling them "Hot", putting them on recommendation lists, and even featuring them in special topic pages. The infringing videos received heavy promotion, with soaring views and a staggering number of derivatives.
The copyright owner could not tolerate it and sued to the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, claiming 5 million yuan in compensation.
II. Four Facts Proving the Platform "Ought to Have Known"
Facing the defendant's argument—"All videos are uploaded by users, what does it have to do with me?"—the court responded with four key facts.
Fact 1: Hit Drama During Broadcast, Impossible for Platform to Ignore
Drama B gained widespread public attention and high popularity during its premiere. The infringing videos spread exactly during the hit period, so the platform could not be unaware of such a popular drama.
Fact 2: Infringing Videos Placed in Highly Visible Positions
The infringing videos were prominently displayed in multiple sections and lists of the platform, including the top of the "Film & TV Editing" column and the front of the recommendation list, with extremely high views. The court held that the platform had no possibility of "being difficult to know".
Fact 3: Tags Directly Included the Drama and Character Names
Hundreds of infringing videos were tagged with the name of Drama B or its main characters. The platform could quickly find and locate these infringing contents through simple technical means (such as keyword search) without complex manual review.
Fact 4: Platform Took Inadequate Measures
The platform did take some actions, such as deleting part of the videos. However, the court found that the derivative number of the infringing videos reached 49,934; the top and leading videos in the "Film & TV Editing" column had 603,000 and 303,000 views respectively; the infringing videos continued to spread through lists, tags, albums and other channels. More importantly, the platform never took effective measures such as account banning for users who repeatedly infringed.
Based on the above four facts, the court ruled that the platform ought to have known about the infringement on the dubbing platform but failed to fulfill the duty of care matching its technical capabilities, constituting contributory infringement and bearing joint liability with the infringing users. The platform was finally ordered to pay 2 million yuan in economic losses and 100,000 yuan in reasonable expenses, totaling 2.1 million yuan. The defendant appealed, and the second instance upheld the original judgment.
III. Where Is the Platform's Liability Boundary?
This case draws a clear red line for all content platforms.
The Haidian Court clearly stated in the "Judge's Commentary" that this case clarified the boundary of the platform's duty of care and the rules for identifying necessary measures, responding to the practical difficulty of determining platform liability.
In plain terms, platforms must abide by three bottom lines:
-
Do not "pretend to sleep" during hit drama broadcasts: You cannot stand by when you know or ought to know infringing content exists. The court will not believe you claim ignorance of videos on the homepage or hot lists.
-
Take "necessary" measures instead of perfunctory actions: Deleting a few videos is far from enough. You must fully implement all technically feasible measures, such as managing lists, clearing infringing content, and stopping repeated infringement.
-
Do not "drive traffic" for infringing content through recommendation: The most conclusive fact in this case is that the platform put infringing content on hot lists and special topics. Active traffic diversion has far more serious consequences than user uploads alone.
The spirit of this precedent is also reflected in similar cases. A user on a platform continuously uploaded infringing content of the same hit drama for 4 months, and the plaintiff sent more than 20 complaints within two months requesting the account to be banned. The platform only deleted videos repeatedly without banning the account. The court ruled that mere deletion without account banning was insufficient to stop repeated infringement, and the platform still bore contributory infringement liability.
IV. Warnings for Two Groups
For Content Platforms
This case does not deny the value of dubbing or secondary creation platforms. The court's attitude is to regulate the direction, not eliminate the industry. Platforms should improve copyright governance: establish active inspection systems, use technical monitoring; ban accounts for repeated infringement; set up "key protection lists" during hit drama broadcasts—do not wait for a lawyer's letter to take action.
For Dubbing & Secondary Creation Creators
Dubbing with original drama audio is not inherently infringing, but remember two rules: first, indicate the source and do not deliberately pretend to be the original creator; second, do not let infringing derivative videos overwhelm the normal viewing window of the genuine version. Following these rules can at least avoid joint liability for infringement due to gross negligence.
Conclusion
The core of this Haidian Court case is one sentence: Content platforms cannot shift all their liability to the four words "user upload".
When infringing videos are pushed to the homepage, hit the hot lists, and gain hundreds of thousands of views, the platform's claim of "I don't know" is not an objective statement, but a shirking of responsibility.
The 2 million yuan in economic compensation plus 100,000 yuan in reasonable expenses has taken effect in the second instance. This figure sends a clear signal: the era of conniving at infringement and profiting from "secondary creation traffic for bubble valuation" is over.
