On The Proper Plaintiff Qualification Of The Licensee Of Audiovisual Works

At present,the era of popular innovation,with the steady development of cultural industries,audiovisual works copyright suffered a large number of cases of infringement.Such litigation cases involve the subject matter of the litigants of the copyright owner,the licensee and other interested parties,but the licensee is quite controversial as a duly authorized plaintiff: does it relate to whether the copyright owner has an substantive right?How to determine the proper plaintiff qualification? What are the rules? Therefore,this article has carried out a special study to it.Because the relevant legislation of our country has not made the explicit stipulation,the people's court has different methods for the copyright owner of the audiovisual works in the trial practice.According to the structure of case analysis,the existence of Network Technology and Wuxi Joe sound Entertainment Limited Copyright Dispute Case instance,analyzes the problems,put forward relevant suggestions on rules to determine the case for audiovisual works copyright Licensee as the plaintiff qualification,in order to judicial trial the practice of such cases have reference.The full text of more than 34,000 words,in addition to the introduction is divided into four parts:The first part is the case of the basic situation.That is to introduce the basic situation of Network Technology Co.,Ltd.v.Joe sound Entertainment Limited copyright dispute case,and summed up the case of "copyright if the licensee can become the focus of controversy of the case due to the plaintiff".The second part is the related issues of the legal analysis.This part analyzes the relevant theories of the nature of the right of the licensee of the copyright,and analyzes the legal basis of the right of the defendant in the litigation.The current situation of the study;the theoretical and practical circles on how such cases determine the legitimate views of the legitimate parties were compared and analyzed.The third part is analysis and conclusions of the case.Taking the relevant theory introduced in the second part as the starting point,combined with the precedent of the practical field and the trial logic of the court in the case of the upper and lower levels of the case,it is concluded that the licensee should not be a simple authorization and should fully demonstrate the licensee The nature,scope and qualifications of the litigant.The fourth part is the enlightenment from this case.No right without relief,should choose from the substantive law and procedural law to determine whether the copyright owner is a legitimate plaintiff,and the principle of balance of interests as a supplement.The right of the licensee to exercise the right of action is based on the granting of the substantive right of the copyright owner,and the right of the licensee to sue the licensee in his own name by means of the right of action is not the case of the defendant,but in order to protect the copyright owner and the licensor's legitimate rights and interests,effectively against infringement of copyright infringement,the existence of the interests of the licensee can be based on arbitrary litigation system to exercise an independent right to sue,become a legitimate party.