On May 21, the video advertisement of “Xiaoman in life” cooperated by Audi A8 and Andy Lau was released on wechat video number. Within 10 hours, the number of forwarding and likes exceeded 100000.
However, this video was accused of copywriting by the Tiktok blogger “brother man of Peking University” that night.
On the morning of May 22, Audi’s official microblog issued a statement apologizing to Mr. Andy Lau, brother man of Peking University and relevant parties for the infringement of the short video released on Xiaoman day. ( previously reported )
For this matter, Andy Lau responded on the afternoon of May 22.
Andy Lau responded: deeply regretted
On the afternoon of May 22, Andy Lau issued a document at the official support association app Huazai Tiandi, saying: I have 100% respect for the original. In this event, I personally deeply regret the problems of the advertising team in the creation process and the trouble caused to man Ge. Audi and advertising companies are now seriously dealing with it
So, is Andy Lau responsible for this incident?
According to the Beijing Daily, Chang Sha, a professional intellectual property lawyer and partner of Beijing Kyoto law firm, said that although Mr. Liu Dehua starred in the Audi advertisement and stated all the advertising copy, according to industry practice, the advertising copy itself should not be created by Mr. Liu Dehua himself. If Mr. Andy Lau can prove his ignorance of the advertising copy, he will not constitute joint infringement with Audi and will not be liable for infringement.
In addition, according to Zhongxin finance and economics, a number of legal professionals said that Andy Lau was not responsible for advertising infringement in this incident.
Yan Bing, director of Beijing Yuntong law firm, believes that this incident is neither a direct violation of the advertising law nor a case of quality problems in the endorsement products, so Andy Lau will not bear legal responsibility because of the identity of the advertising spokesperson.
Zhao Zhanzhan, a special researcher at the intellectual property center of China University of political science and law and a well-known IT and intellectual property lawyer, said that in this case, first of all, it is difficult to have evidence that Andy Lau has not used an Audi; Secondly, Andy Lau himself is also difficult and unable to judge whether the advertisement is a false advertisement; More importantly, Andy Lau himself can not judge whether the relevant copy is plagiarized. Therefore, he also believes that this case is not in line with the situation that the Advertising Spokesperson needs to be responsible.
Yan Bing also said that although Audi’s advertising infringement will not involve Andy Lau’s legal liability for the time being, it may have an impact on Andy Lau’s reputation, so he suggested that Audi properly deal with the aftermath to avoid losses to Andy Laup align=”center”>
advertising agency apologizes
According to Audi, the creative agency M & C Saatchi (Shangsi advertising) is responsible for the video.
In the afternoon of the 22nd, Shangsi advertising released a statement that the company’s Audi service team was the Audi xiaomanpian brand video development team. In the process of video content development, due to the weak copyright awareness of the team, without communicating with the copyright owner, the company directly used the content of the Chinese video case about “Xiaoman” by the Tiktok blogger Beida mange, which brought great inconvenience and trouble to liudehua, Beida mange and FAW Audi brands, I apologize and sincerely apologize to the original author, and promise to do my best to make up for the loss to the original author.
Shangsi advertising also promises to respect and protect the rights and interests of original authors in advertising creation and strictly prevent this from happeningP align = “center” Image Source: statement issued by the official wechat of Shangsi advertising.
According to the weekly times, M & C Saatchi is an independent advertising agency in the UK. Advertising has always been known for its high style. According to M & C Saatchi’s official website, the group was founded in 1995 by the two brothers of advertising legends Maurice and Charles Saatchi and Jeremy Sinclair. Starting from a humble office in London, the company gradually developed into a global marketing service enterprise and was listed on the London Stock Exchange.
M & C Saatchi needs to bear heavy consequences for the plagiarism incident, the author of “swiping the screen” and the “omnipotent uncle” of brand public relations media told the reporter of times weekly.
Economic compensation is the most direct cost. “Because it provides advertising services, advertising companies must ensure that the content is original in the terms of the contract they give customers. Therefore, after the occurrence of plagiarism, advertising companies must pay compensation. However, the amount of compensation depends on the terms of the contract.”
what is Audi’s responsibility
In the statement, Audi mentioned that the video was submitted and implemented by the creative agency.
Yan Bing said that according to experience, Audi, a large manufacturer, will formulate very strict intellectual property compliance terms and tort liability transfer mechanism when signing contracts with advertising business service subjects. However, this does not directly exempt Audi from its own responsibilities. As a result, only Audi can recover the losses suffered from infringing advertising from the creative agent according to relevant terms.
Therefore, Yan Bing believes that Audi is the direct subject of responsibility, not just its so-called “weak supervision and lax audit”. Audi should raise awareness in order to avoid future problems.
Huang Chunhai, a lawyer of Taihe Thai law firm, said that if the plagiarism of life Xiaoman is established and constitutes an infringement of copyright, the main infringer should be Audi, because the original video was produced and released by Audi. Because Audi has entrusted a third-party creative company to produce the video, the creative company should bear the liability for infringement and breach of the advertising contract, which infringes on a variety of rights and interests, including the rights and interests of the adaptation of the original work and the right of information network communication. Later, it may need to make an apology and economic compensation.
Chang Sha believes that the agency is the creator of advertising. Whether it bears tort liability for “Beida man Ge” depends on the contract between it and Audi.
“If the agency company is only the creator and ultimately does not enjoy the copyright, it does not need to bear the tort liability, but it does not rule out the possibility that the company will bear the liability for breach of contract to Audi in accordance with the contract. If the company still retains the copyright of the advertising copy, it needs to bear the copyright infringement liability for ‘Beida Manche’ together with Audi.”
people’s daily
In response to Audi’s “rollover”, the people’s daily commented at noon on the 22nd that the advertising copy was ridiculed as copy and paste plagiarism. Audi publicly apologized and admitted that “weak supervision and lax audit”. In a “car accident”, people turn upside down, and someone should bear the responsibility. To protect originality is to protect innovation. Plagiarism is an industry scandal. It is more suspected of breaking the law and must be zero tolerated. This incident should not end with an apology, but should become an opportunity for Industry reflection. How to build an effective prevention mechanism?
