Case 13
Infringement of Network Dissemination of Information Right for American Getty Images
Trial Docket: (2017) Jin0101MinChu No. 2043
[Headnotes] Currently with the development of technologies and popularization of Internet, digital evidence is more and more used in judicial practice. In this case, plaintiff introduces several pieces of digital evidence obtained from different sources including the evidence producing party itself, the national administrative authorities, and the opposing party (or unofficial third parties). The court makes various analyses and determinations as to authentication of genuineness of such evidence, especially the heatedly disputed evidence verifiable through credible time stamp. In this case the standard of verifying credible time stamps may be useful for other cases.
[Synopsis] Plaintiff: China Foto Press
Defendant: Agricultural Bank of China, Gansu Branch (ABC Gansu), Agricultural Bank of China (ABC)
Getty Images Corp. of the United States is copyright owner of four photographs at issue. Plaintiff, being the property owner of the related photographs in China, claims that ABC Gansu, without permission, uses the photos in its sina.com weblog, in violation of plaintiff’s network dissemination of information rights, asking for injunctive relief against ABC Gansu, and seeking joint liability against the two defendant, since ABC Gansu is only a branch, for damages and reasonable expenses of 131,000 Yuan.
The court holds that first of all under Regulations for Implementing International Copyright Treaties, and the Berne Convention for the Protection Literary and Artistic Works, both United States and China are Convention member states, and therefore the American company Getty Imagies’ work and copyrights are protected under China’s Copyright Law. Meanwhile, a Letter of Authorization, legalized in the Chinese Consulate to this country indicates that Getty Images is the owner of all the photographs displayed in its website www.gettyimages.ca, which is verified in court by logging onto the website showing all the photographs at issue bearing the watermark “getty images” which constitutes the signature on the photographs, and therefore the ownership of the copyright. Moreover, according to the contents of the Letter and the displayed photos from the website www.vcg.com operated by it, the authorization covers the photographs at issue, verifying the network dissemination of information right for these photos, as well as the right to assert against infringement in its own name. Besides, by the evidence adduced from ABC Gansu, the credible time stamp of the digital evidence is admitted in court by defendant ABC Gansu, the court fins infringement of network dissemination of information right against the defendant and orders for injunction and cost in the amount 16,000 yuan, but dismissed plaintiff’s claim against ABC Gansu because defendant’s activities are the responsibility of other civil entities ABC Gansu.
[Judge’s Comment] With the development of Internet technologies, digital evidence as a type of evidence is used more and more. In this case, plaintiff introduces several pieces of digital evidence variously from one party, state administrative authorities, the opposing party (or unofficial third parties), which the court makes different analyses and determinations as to authentication methods of the genuineness of the digital evidence.
First of all, for the digital evidence introduced by the party itself, the court requires the original to be: presented by the party itself in court for display through accessing live website, to be cross-examined by the other party.
Second, for the digital evidence obtained from state administrative authorities, since the governmental official websites are less likely to be tampered with, the court may conduct ex officio verification on such evidence.
Besides, for evidence obtained from the opposing parties (or unofficial third parties), the digital evidence is retained by electronic data notarization, and by time stamps. Of these, it is more controversial for the genuineness of the credible time stamp on the digital evidence. For this, the court confirms the verification standard of credible time stamp for digital evidence, providing helpful reference for future cases.
（Translated by Zheng Xiaojun, Yuan Renhui)
.jpg)