[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, it is considered infringement, and the case law has already drawn clear boundaries: unauthorized "clip uploading" - simply cutting and uploading clips (each clip lasting a few minutes to compile the entire drama) is a typical infringement; whether "commentary-style editing" constitutes infringement depends on "usage volume and transformative nature": if the plot scenes are the main body and the commentary is just a transition, it is essentially plagiarism and constitutes infringement; if the commentary is the main body and the plot scenes are only briefly quoted to support the comments, there is room for fair use, but it is still subject to the constraints of "not affecting normal use and not infringing the legitimate rights and interests of the right holders". Two case laws set the tone: Dai * * * was ordered to stop the infringement and pay 50,000 yuan in compensation for uploading 246 clips of "Jinxiu Weyang" (each clip lasting from tens of seconds to three minutes); Xiao Li was ordered to pay 20,000 yuan in compensation for compiling a collection of 150 clips of "Qingping Le" - the "exemption from liability for a few-minute commentary" is the most persistent misconception in the self-media circle.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

Video and film interpretation is both a traffic-generating strategy and a hotbed of copyright infringement. Creators generally believe that "if I add commentary and express my own opinions, it counts as derivative content rather than plagiarism". However, platforms often have inconsistent review standards, and only after receiving legal letters or lawsuits do they realize that the "derivative content" label cannot conceal the underlying infringement.

II. Key points of dispute

First, the constitutive elements of fair use and the judgment of "transformative use". Second, the judicial distinction criteria between clips and commentary. Third, the influencing factors of the compensation amount. Fourth, the compliance path of derivative works.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer: The narrow gate of fair use. The Copyright Law stipulates three thresholds for fair use (appropriate citation for introduction and commentary): the purpose of citation (introduction and commentary rather than substituting for the original work), the proportion of citation (appropriate citation, with the images serving the viewpoint), and market impact (not substituting for the original work, and not harming the rights holder's interests). The core of judicial review is "transformative use": the density of the commentator's viewpoint and the service relationship with the images - review-type commentaries (brief images and continuous output of viewpoints) have room for defense; plot summary-type commentaries (titles like "Watch XX in Three Minutes", and images filled with the plot line) essentially substitute for the original work and condense it. The Nantong Tongzhou Bay Court's "Jinxiu Weyang" case (246 clips, with a plot summary title, and a judgment of 50,000 yuan in compensation) and the Shanghai Yangpu Court's "Qingping Yue" case (150 clips, with a compilation set, and a judgment of 20,000 yuan in compensation) both fall into this category. CCTV reports explicitly state that such compensation ranges from tens of thousands to millions of yuan - the larger the account and the higher the playback volume, the higher the compensation. The second layer: Practical standards for judicial differentiation: - Image proportion: the total duration of the original images and their continuity (continuous plot segments exceeding a certain duration tend to be substitution). - Commentary function: output of viewpoints or repetition of the plot (subtitle-style "commentary" is not recognized as transformative). - Compilation structure: cutting together all episodes of a series to form a complete drama, which constitutes a systematic substitution for the original work. - Commercial monetization: hanging shopping links or sharing advertising revenue undermines the claim of fair use. - Self-assessment for creators: turning off the commentary track and checking whether the remaining images can independently form a "condensed version of the drama" - if they can, it's substitution. The third layer: Variables of compensation and liability: - Factors affecting the judgment range: the number of infringing videos, playback volume and fan base, duration, whether removed and rectified, and commercial benefits. - 50,000 and 20,000 yuan judgments correspond to small accounts with hundreds of clips, while top-tier accounts face compensation of hundreds of thousands to millions of yuan (including the scope of punitive damages). - Liability subject: the editor himself is the primary responsible party, and the platform bears joint liability if it fails to handle notifications. - "Review accounts accepting commercial orders and ads" are priority targets for rights holders' protection. The fourth layer: Compliant pathways for derivative works: - First, authorization route: apply for derivative authorization from the copyright holder (some studios and platforms offer derivative authorization cooperation, and official clips are safe for editing within the official list). - Second, material substitution: using plot posters with commentary (the boundary of promotional use of plot posters is debatable) or self-made images to replace long-term quotations from the original work. - Third, format adjustment: pure viewpoint reviews (brief image quotations and restrained duration), viewing reaction-type commentaries (focusing on viewers' real-time reactions with brief image quotations). - Fourth, existing content cleanup: strategies for removing and replacing published content, and compensation amounts and removal speed are highly correlated with the receipt of lawyer's letters. - Platform-side note: Even if the content is not found infringing, internal platform review and removal are a common risk, and content assets of commercial cooperation accounts must be based on compliant materials.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to self-assess the proportion of screen content and the conversion rate of commentary, and adjust or remove plot summary-type content in a timely manner. The second step is to strive for official authorization for derivative works and create content within the list of copyright cooperation projects. The third step is to remove the content immediately upon receiving a notice to mitigate losses and evaluate the possibility of settlement or defense. The fourth step is that the more monetized the account is, the more compliant it must be, and commercial content must be based on authorized materials. Main legal basis: Articles 24, 52, 53, and 54 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, the Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Network Dissemination, and relevant guidance opinions of the Supreme People's Court; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Three rules of video and film re-creation: Turning off the commentary or condensing the TV series is plagiarism; if the clip has hundreds of views, the compensation starts from 50,000 yuan, and the amount will be higher for bigger accounts; re-creation needs authorization to ensure safety, and leaving room for opinions and reviews is essential. For disputes involving video and film editing, you can seek help through legal channels.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawWe provide a comprehensive solution for services, which includes compliance with platform regulations.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor plates, you can refer to the commercialization of accounts for more information.Special servicesFor any questions regarding difficult situations, you can consult the column for assistanceSpecial services and other casesColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Doesn't it constitute infringement if I indicate the source and the original author?

Signing a name is just an obligation, not an authorization; using it without permission still constitutes infringement, and indicating the source does not change the nature of the infringement.

Q2: Is it considered reasonable use if it's within a few minutes?

There is no such thing as a "safe line of a few minutes". To determine whether it's infringement, you need to consider the screen ratio, continuity, and the market substitution effect. Even if the clips are extremely short, piecing them together to form a complete episode still constitutes infringement.

Q3: Will the account be suspended after being sued?

The platform will deal with the content and account permissions once it receives an effective judgment or a valid notice; proactively removing and rectifying the content is the first step to protecting the account.

Q4: How can I find the official authorization for derivative works?

Some film companies and platforms release lists of collaborative works involving fan-made content, or open authorizations on event pages. Before editing, check the official channels and keep the authorization certificates.

Q5: Is it infringement to use original images in a commentary script and repost them elsewhere?

The originality of the script cannot absolve the infringement of the images; the commentary audio is just a part of the work, and the use of the images is still subject to copyright control.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglu Law Firm about specific situations.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media outlets, and are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case Number]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]People's Court of the Jiangsu Province Nantong Tongzhou Bay River-Sea Interactive Development Demonstration Zone
[Judicial Summary]Dai * * * posted 246 clips from the TV series "Jinxiu Weyang" on his account, each clip lasting from tens of seconds to three minutes and accompanied by a title summarizing the plot. The court ruled that unauthorized clipping and dissemination constituted an infringement of the right to disseminate information online, and ordered him to cease the infringement and compensate for all losses totaling 50,000 yuan.
[Source]The official website of the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, 2024 (2024)

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai City
[Judicial Summary]Xiao Li uploaded 150 clips of "Qing Ping Le" and created a collection to disseminate them. The court ruled that the unauthorized clipping and dissemination infringed the right of information network dissemination, and determined the compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses to be 20,000 yuan. CCTV reported that such judgments and awards range from tens of thousands to millions of yuan.
[Source]CCTV News, June 2025 (2025-06)

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.