[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, it is considered infringement, and the precedents have already clarified the boundaries: unauthorized "clip uploading" - simply cutting and uploading clips (several minutes per segment to piece together 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 content and the commentary is just a connecting device, it is essentially plagiarism and constitutes infringement; if the commentary is the main content and the images are only used in small amounts 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 precedents 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 several dozen seconds to three minutes); Xiao Li was ordered to pay 20,000 yuan in compensation for uploading 150 clips of "Qingping Yue" as a collection - the "exemption from liability for a few-minute commentary" is the most persistent misconception in the self-media circle.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

The film and television commentary is a traffic-generating content, but it is also a major area of copyright infringement. Creators generally believe that "if I add commentary and express my own opinions, it counts as secondary creation rather than plagiarism". However, platforms are inconsistent in their review process, often failing to detect the infringement behind the "secondary creation" until they receive a lawyer's letter or a lawsuit.

II. Key points of contention

First, the constitutive elements of fair use and the judgment of "transformative use". Second, the judicial distinction criteria between clippings 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 door of fair use. The Copyright Law stipulates that fair use (appropriate citation for introduction and commentary) has three thresholds—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 viewing 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 relationship with the images—commentary on film reviews (brief images as decoration, continuous output of viewpoints) has room for defense; plot summary (titles like "Watch XX in Three Minutes," images filled with plot lines) essentially substitutes for the original work in a condensed form. The Nantong Tongzhou Bay Court's case of "Jinxiu Weyang" (246 clips, captioned with plot summaries, and awarded 50,000 yuan in damages) and the Shanghai Yangpu Court's case of "Qingping Yue" (150 clips, labeled as collections, and awarded 20,000 yuan in damages) 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 higher the playback volume, the higher the compensation. The second layer: Practical standards for judicial distinction: 1. Image proportion: the total duration of the original images and their continuity (continuous plot segments exceeding a certain length indicate substitution). 2. Commentary function: viewpoint output versus plot repetition (subtitle-reading "commentary" is not recognized as transformative). 3. Collection structure: cutting clips in sequence to complete the entire drama, constituting a systematic substitution for the original work. 4. Commercial monetization: hanging shopping links and sharing advertising revenue undermine fair use claims. 5. Self-assessment for creators: turning off the commentary track and checking whether the remaining images can stand alone as a "condensed version of the drama." If so, it's substitution. The third layer: Variables in compensation and liability: - Factors affecting compensation ranges: number of infringing videos, playback volume and fan base, duration, removal and rectification, commercial profits. - 50,000 and 20,000 yuan judgments correspond to small accounts with hundreds of clips; top-tier accounts face hundreds of thousands to millions in compensation (including the possibility of punitive damages). - Liability subject: the editor himself is the primary responsible party, and platforms bear joint liability if they fail to handle notifications. - "Review accounts accepting commercial orders and ads" are priority targets for rights holders' litigation. The fourth layer: Compliant pathways for derivative works: 1. Authorization route: apply for derivative authorization from copyright holders (some studios and platforms offer authorization cooperation, and official clips are safe for editing). 2. Substitute materials: using stills and posters with commentary (discuss the boundaries of promotional use of stills separately) or self-made images to replace long-term citations of original footage. 3. Format adjustment: pure viewpoint reviews (brief image citations, controlled duration) and viewing reaction types (focusing on viewers' real-time reactions with brief original footage decoration). 4. Backlog cleanup: strategies for removing and replacing published content, prioritizing removal before discussing compensation, with settlement amounts highly correlated with removal speed. - Platform-side note: even if content isn't judged infringing, platform internal review-based removal is a common risk, and commercial accounts' content assets 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 promptly adjust or remove plots that summarize the storyline. The second step is to strive to obtain 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 minimize losses and evaluate the scope for settlement and defense. The fourth step is to ensure that account monetization complies with regulations as much as possible, and commercial content should 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; specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Three key points of video and film derivative works: Turning off the commentary or condensing the series into clips is considered plagiarism; if there are hundreds of clips, the compensation starts from 50,000 yuan, and the amount increases with the size of the account; derivative works can be safe if authorized, and leaving room for opinions and reviews is crucial. For disputes involving video and film editing, you can seek help through legal channels.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawWe can provide a comprehensive solution for your service, which includes assisting you in ensuring the platform's compliance with relevant regulations.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor more information on account commercialization, please refer to the relevant section.Special servicesFor any questions regarding difficult situations, you can consult the column for assistance.Special services and other casesColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

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

The signing is just an obligation, not an authorization. Using the content without permission still constitutes infringement, and the attribution of 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, we need to consider the screen ratio, continuity, and the market substitution effect. Even if the clips are very short and are used to complete the entire drama, they are still considered infringement.

Q3: Will my account be suspended after being sued?

When the platform receives an effective judgment or a valid notice, it will deal with the content and account permissions. Taking down the content and rectifying it proactively is the first step to protect the account.

Q4: How can I find the official authorization for fan-made content?

Some film companies and platforms release lists of collaborative works with secondary creation or open authorizations on event pages. Before editing, check the official channels and keep the authorization certificates.

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

The originality of the script cannot exonerate 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 for specific cases.

VII. Related public cases (for reference, 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 that have been publicly released. They are unrelated to the cases handled by our firm and are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules. They 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 of the TV series "Jinxiu Weyang" on his account, with each clip lasting from a few dozen seconds to three minutes and accompanied by a title summarizing the plot. The court ruled that unauthorized clipping and dissemination infringed the right of information network dissemination, and ordered him to stop 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 from "Qing Ping Le" and created a collection to disseminate them. The court ruled that the unauthorized clip dissemination infringed the right of information network dissemination, and determined the compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses to be a total of 20,000 yuan. CCTV reported that such judgments range from tens of thousands to millions of yuan.
[Source]CCTV News, 2025-06 (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 to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current effective laws and regulations and public 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.