The Investigation of Copyright Contractual Interest in Long Video Industry in the Integrated Publishing Era

Abstract： In the context of the integrated publishing era， emerging technologies for publication and communication， such as the Internet and streaming media， have separated the creation and dissemination of cinematographic works from TV play works. The copyright ownership rules of audiovisual works in the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China transplant the work made-for-hire doctrine in solving the challenges that the long video industry has posed for efficiency. Such rules of copyright ownership place the profits of the creators in the construction of the contract law， as well as embed the purpose of promoting private autonomy of the Intellectual Property Law in the contracts. However， it does not mean that the solution， in conformity with the long video industry， to grant the copyright of the works to the producers to promote the development of emerging publications and communication has failed. In the absence of the support of detailed rules for copyright contracts， it is necessary to improve the internal and external regulations on copyright contracts， such as the fair remuneration mechanism of the first payment， in order to alleviate the illegitimate loss of interests of the creators caused by the concentration of copyrights in the long video industry and realize the goal of balancing the interests of Intellectual Property Law in copyright contracts.

Keywords： integrated publishing; long video industry; copyright ownership; copyright contract

CLC： D 923 " " " " " " " " " DC： A " " " " Article： 2096?9783（2024）02?0139?10

1 Raising Questions

The World Intellectual Property Organization （WIPO） defines the copyright industry as a collection of industrial activities that function under the protection of copyright and related rights in its Guide on Surveying the Economic Contribution of the Copyright Industries （2015 revised edition）. The long video industry takes video copyright resources， as core assets， of films， TV series， variety shows， documentaries， and other network videos shot and edited by professional institutions with special equipment in professional places， which is part of the core copyright industry that is wholly engaged in the creation， production and manufacture， performance， broadcasting， communication， distribution， and sale of works and other protected subject matter[1]. In April 2022， the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party issued the Guiding Opinions on Promoting the In-Depth Integrated Development of Publishing， which proposed to build a new publication system in the digital era and strengthen the development of content for in-depth integrated publishing. Integrated publishing refers to a new form of publishing that integrates the publishing business with emerging technology and management innovation. As one of the major economic contributions of the copyright industry， long videos have generally achieved digitalization; for example， the film industry's online release is seamlessly connected with pulling from theaters， which has considerable derivative value for film and television resources. In addition to the conventional cinematographic works requiring licenses for producing movies and licenses for public projection of films， there are also online films requiring licenses for the distribution of network dramas. The integration of business models and digital publishing has further amplified the value of copyright and has also aggravated the separation of the creation process and dissemination. As a result， although the creators are in the primary order of film production， from script to screen， their status in the industry chain is declining. The long video industry is a capital-intensive industry， and the completion of work is usually accompanied by a large amount of investment. The interaction between business rules and creation rules generates a unique type of copyright owner in the long video industry. Whether the understanding of producers and creators is consistent affects the expression of creators. It is of great significance to coordinate the conflict of interest demands among industrial subjects and realize the special effect of copyright rules to provide economic incentives and institutional guarantees， which will promote the integration of publishing industry practice and encourage the sound development of the long video industry.

Resources controlled in many cases by individuals thwart the promise of a new technological paradigm， and the development of emerging publications has also led creators to waive property rights. Article 17， Section 1 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China （hereinafter referred to as Art. 17.1） stipulates the copyright ownership of cinematographic works and TV play works in audiovisual works， which shall be enjoyed by producers. Through the legal formulation of copyright rules， investors who produce the non-creative labor in the process of dissemination of works own the overall copyright of the works. The creators transfer their creative labor to the producers and enjoy limited moral rights and property benefits from the works. The remaining rights are distributed to all participants in screenwriting， shooting， distribution， projection， and other activities upstream and downstream of the industry chain. In the course of many amendments to the Copyright Law， there has always been a dispute between the concept of copyright and the author's rights in the understanding and application of this clause. This paper intends to further study and clarify the theoretical basis and legal logic of this clause and put forward suggestions for law enforcement and legal adjustment to meet the needs of copyright development and dissemination operations in the long video industry.

2 An Analysis of the Pattern of Benefit Distribution in the Long Video Industry

2.1 The Efficiency Realization of the Copyright Ownership Rules in the Long Video Industry

The essence of intellectual property is the exclusive rights that people enjoy by law over intellectual products. Its philosophical theoretical basis is mainly based on utilitarianism and/or pluralistic grounds， including the labor theory of property， etc. Locke's theory of property appropriation puts forward the concept of original common ownership. Every person has an inalienable part of the overall resources in their natural state. Through labor， something is separated from the state of common ownership of mankind. The resources in the state of common labor are appropriated， and the goods become their private property[2]. Therefore， when the creators' labor is mixed into the public domain of intellectual property and the starting materials are transformed into literary and artistic works with a personal imprint， the creators naturally enjoy property ownership. Long video is one of the most complex production systems in the field of creative industries that has evolved since the industrial era. The original expression of each author， such as screenwriter， director， photographer， lyricist， and composer， on the presentation effect of long video works is clearly visible， rather than being integrated into an indistinguishable whole under collaborative work. Therefore， long video works meet the definition of \"cooperative works\". However， it cannot be considered that the creators of the above enjoy independent authorship with respect to long video works. In other words， the production of long video works comes from the creative behavior of the creators. Its original creative motivation included meeting the needs of the creators to express themselves. The professional activities of the creators also give birth to the artistic value of long video works， while the industrial or commercial value comes from the producer's industrial ties， distribution， and business operations. The producer drives the above labor， including editing， special effects， and other post-production， through investment， brings in production channels， and attaches this labor to the creative labor of original creators， such as scriptwriters and directors. The copyright rule does not grant independent property rights to dependent labor. Instead， it retains the monetary compensation after concealing the labor. It can also be explained by the classic theory of Locke， that is， recognizing that labor and a property right claim based on labor can be transferred through contract， which is expressed in Art. 17.1， which stipulates that the original creators of the cinematographic works and TV play works do not enjoy the copyright property rights. Their remuneration basis only comes from the constraints of the copyright contract. The Copyright Law and Film Industry Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China both stipulate that the copyright owner and the public should be the dual stakeholders， which is intended to unify the dual value goals of protecting private rights and promoting public interests in the efficiency of knowledge production[3]. However， reviewing the various performances of the domestic long video market， one cannot help but wonder whether the principle of interest balance and efficiency behind intellectual property protection is always persuasive when producers directly obtain copyright to long video works through the rules. When copyright ownership of long video works flows to producers， can intellectual property rules based on encouraging individual autonomy continue to be legitimate in the view of utilitarian theory？

Reviewing the development of the modern copyright system， most scholars believe that the author's property rights in a work originated with the Statute of Anne in Britain. In the common law system， copyright law is mainly based on the concept of property， which stems from the recognition of the exclusive right to copy works for commercial purposes. Therefore， the right is called copyright， but rather the protection of the author's personality[4]. While civil law countries are guided by the moral right， the concept of the moral rights of copyright originated in France. The values of personality provide the philosophical basis for copyright law. It introduced the idea of natural rights into copyright theory and enriched modern copyright. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen （1789） stated that the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen has the right to speak， write， and print freely. Established copyright as a constitutional and fundamental right， works were viewed as the externalization and extension of the author's personality. Authors enjoy the natural rights of their works and have the right to control the inseparable connection between their personalities and their works. Historically， in the development of long video works， the common law system of the United States and the civil law system of France experienced a period of rights allocation with similar purposes but different approaches. The cinematographic works and TV play works are the original and central long video works. In 1908， the Berlin Conference adopted a proposal to regulate the adaptation of films from existing works. Article 14 of the Revised Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works （Berlin Act） stated that cinematographic works were protected as literary or artistic works. Later， the rights of authors of cinematographic works and TV play works were discussed at several conferences to revise the text of the Berne Convention. These discussions led to the gradual transformation of the standards into legislation or bilateral agreements between contracting states[5]. In the 1930s， the United States reached a deadlock in its attempt to join the Berne Convention. The reason for this was that， as the biggest beneficiaries of the American film industry， producers were always trying to maintain control over copyright and exclude the moral rights of creators from cinematographic works and TV play works copyright. Special interest groups in the United States turned to adopting a new convention more compatible with the domestic copyright system， i.e.， the Universal Copyright Convention developed by UNESCO in 1952. Neither the Berne Convention nor the Universal Copyright Convention considered specifying the identity of the film's author until France's Law of March 11， 1957， on Literary and Artistic Property， clearly proposed that cinematographic works and TV play works should be included in the list of protected works. The law also specified the identity of the author of the cinematographic works and TV play works， adopting the principle that the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. However， the United States did not specify the identity of the author of cinematographic works and TV play works in its copyright law until 1976. Under the work-made-for-hire doctrine， the employer of the creator of a motion picture or other audiovisual work is considered the author of the work[6]. For decades， two communication revolutions and the global cultural market influence pattern of the audio-visual industry have constantly highlighted the difference between the author's right and copyright， and the international competition for cultural influence has also led to domestic legal reforms in major film and TV series exporting countries.

China's Copyright Law adopts the provisions of the two legal systems on the identity of the author. While recognizing that the copyright owner is in most cases the creator of the original expression， there is a special provision that investors can be regarded as authors （works of a legal entity）. The provisions on the category of authors in the current law reflect that China's intellectual property system was shaped by the local social development background， such as the socialist market economy and public awareness， in the process of legal transplantation[7]. Among them， the labor theory of property represented by Locke has not been completely internalized as a guide in China's intellectual property field[8]. This is especially true in industries where capital and labor are separated and the fruits of labor do not belong to laborers. In addition， as the basis of ownership， labor cannot demonstrate how property relations are constructed[9]. It is impossible to demonstrate the relationship between people and others based on intellectual labor achievements that are essential to intellectual property rights as legal rights. Instead， under the guidance of the justice of efficiency， laborers' control over labor achievements is strictly restricted in highly industrialized work types. As the Chicago school of legal economics generally believed， we shall be examining cases， doctrines， and principles from the standpoint of whether they are efficient in an economic sense and， if not， how they might be changed to make them efficient[10]. It can be predicted that the scale of input and output will further expand with the deepening of the refinement of the social division of labor， and the investors' interests， under economies of scale， will be further highlighted in the intellectual property rights system. One of the remarkable characteristics of the industry in the integrated publishing era is that the authorization chain is extraordinarily long and the authorization content is complex. There are complicated investment and financing relationships in the production process， and the realization of the benefits of the original right holder has also changed accordingly， mainly relying on the first use. In most cases， the producer's filming organization and profit risk are terminated after the first use， and the subsequent use and benefit realization are actually beyond the control of the producers. Secondly， the property right of work is absolute original ownership， so there are requirements for the clarity of the rights and the security of changes in rights. The successors in the authorization chain， such as the owners of the right to network dissemination of information， strongly advocate that all the copyrights of the works belong to the producers， so as to ensure the perfection of the rights at the beginning of the authorization chain and so that there is no risk of authorization defects when the rights are inherited by the owners of the right to network dissemination of information. Therefore， in the authorization chain of industrial practice， the legal rights of such works are usually extensively interpreted， and there is a wide range of situations in which contractual rights are higher than legal rights， such as \"the right of corresponding value-added services\" and \"exclusive use rights\" and other imprecise concepts. Undoubtedly， Internet enterprises will further dominate the communication link， and the status of creators will continue to decline with the extension of the authorization chain. The possibility of realizing their interests will also continue to decline.

To be specific to the long video， and more extensive in the Internet age， the long video industry， first of all， on the one hand， the transaction costs and information costs of screenwriting， shooting， distribution， and projection under the integrated development model of the long video industry are ubiquitous and have exceeded the scope of the creators' ability to bear. Creators can only obtain value by completing their labor achievements in the form of screen films with visual elements by paying huge production and dissemination costs if they are attached to producers. On the other hand， the amount of information in Web 3.0 is hundreds of millions， which makes producers the main body that can give full play to the maximum value of long video works. Only producers can link the creation and dissemination of long video works. For one thing， they can convey market supply and demand information to creators， and for another， they can meet public demand by publishing works[11]. Secondly， there are inherent risks in the innovation process. The property rights of intellectual achievements can guide and encourage market entities to invest in productive factors， resources， and costs for innovation[12]. Even if the utilization efficiency of market supply and demand information resources reaches its maximum， it is impossible to fully predict the works' appreciation in value. It is the additional income that attracts producers to invest more capital in the production and distribution of long video works. However， the income may not be able to meet the dissemination costs of popular marketing methods such as short videos， which individual creators cannot bear. Clarifying copyright ownership is a way of granting privileges to encourage producers to edit and perfect a work carefully with additional benefits and then present it to the audience so as to give full play to the potential of the work. It can be said that the utilitarian and economic nature of modern copyright provides a legitimate explanation for the ownership of long video copyrights by producers. As a set of private law rules in the property rights system， copyright itself contains the value orientation of the efficiency goal， which is reflected in the ownership of copyrighted works. Therefore， the legislator decided to grant the copyright of the long video works to the producers， believing that only the producers could have the endogenous power to use the long video works efficiently. This has set an unbreakable \"ceiling\" for the copyright that can be allocated to the creators， and the earnings of the creators are placed in the private autonomy constructed by the Contract Law. The legislator firmly believes that even if creators are not profit-motivated， the reduction of transaction costs and the increase of opportunities for effective use of limited resources will inevitably generate an appreciation of creators' income.

2.2 The Economic Compensation of Creators after the Realization of Efficiency

Screenwriting and shooting are undoubtedly irreplaceable parts of intellectual labor in the division of labor in the long video industry， while non-creative labor is the behavior of producers， who invest capital and bear risks. What is worth thinking about is how to measure the significance of creative labor in the distribution of benefits so as to consider equity and justice， in the pursuit of efficiency， in the balancing of interest， which constitutes the core of the construction of the value of intellectual property， and promote the balance of multiple value objectives[13]. The existence of producers in the form of companies， rather than the ideal collective creators， is a prominent feature of the economic form of industry. Professional creators， such as screenwriters and directors， can work together in a team-oriented way， depending on the support conditions provided by the producers. During the creation， dissemination， and operation of long video works， the adoption of individual copyright authorship brings huge licensing transaction costs to the upstream and downstream connections of the industrial chain[14]. For organizational and industrial audiovisual works， the institutional incentive under the efficiency goal is in the distribution of intellectual property interests， which is to reduce transaction costs through interest distribution and adapt to new forms of dissemination. The private autonomy granted to the creator by copyright includes the freedom to give up the copyright of works. The contract between creators and producers about works is often conditional on the agreement of contract terms. In effect， contracts can be used to create a kind of private intellectual property regime that goes beyond the presets of copyright.

If the commodity is regarded as being the basic attribute of legal works， copyright law focuses on the entire supply， exchange， and consumption process of the long video industry chain. The creation of the works becomes part of the supply. The construction and restriction of the rights system consider more efficiency factors， relatively speaking. At the same time， it also puts forward higher requirements for the balance between encouraging the creation and dissemination of works as well as the incentive between supply and exchange of works. When constructing the intellectual property rights system for audiovisual works， the Copyright Law in China promotes innovation efficiency as its basic value orientation， which is more inclined to the practice of the common law system. Therefore， according to the normative order， the scope of the validity of private autonomy is expanded. The original creators' right to be remunerated is fully attributed to the constraints of contract law. The right to be remunerated is not based on the restriction of the property rights of the work. Instead， it is pure economic compensation after stipulating that the creator cannot enjoy the copyright for the whole work. Its basis for rights relies on the binding of a bilateral contract. Considering the process of entering a contract in a long video industry chain， the rights and obligations in the relevant agreements of back-to-back parties rely on the perfect coherence of the copyright contract chain. With any break in the chain， the connection between the parties may be severed， and the expectation of contract rights may be frustrated， making the property rights more advantageous by metaprivity[15]. It is difficult to insist on the creators' author status in the long video industry. \"The work-for-hire doctrine\" is an attribution rule that is more in line with the expectations of industrial practice， adapts to the new communication form， and conforms to the basic theory of copyright. First， the reservation of the creator's personality rights in the works makes the property rights of the works complicated and trivial. \"Legal presumption\"， as an act of transfer， cannot explain why the producers enjoy the personal rights to the works. If the copyright is given to the creator first and then \"transferred\" to the producer， the derivative acquisition is bound to be limited to the scope of property rights. According to the theory of German copyright law， it is considered that the exercise of the personal rights of works is only restricted to a certain extent unless their rights are seriously violated. But it is not conducive to the clarity of rights and the security of rights changing. Moreover， the fact that creators can use scripts and music alone does not mean that they can claim the personal rights of works independently for whole \"audio-visual works\"， which splits the works and violates the original intention of legislators to protect audio-visual works as an organic component. In the process of amending the Copyright Law in 2020， the third draft and the third draft for review confirmed the author's identity and explained that the producer only enjoyed the property rights of the work; the other versions did not give the personal rights of the work to creators. The third draft and the third draft for review stipulated that the original creator had the right to share the proceeds and protected the economic rights of the creator in the subsequent use of the work， but they were not retained in the end. The right of the creator to get remuneration stipulated in the Copyright Law of 2020 is the same as the right to get remuneration according to the contract signed with the producer in other versions in legal effect.

However， the ability to obtain economic compensation as per the contract， i.e.， the bargaining power， is the result of the comprehensive influence of various factors in practice， some of which are even industrial and systematic. As one of the important concepts of contract law internalized in the middle of the 20th century， the ability of the two parties to influence each other in the process of contract drafting and agreement is not always equal[16]. Uniform Commercial Code § 2-302 expressly authorizes courts to assess the parties' bargaining power under the rubric of unconscionability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit first defined unconscionability \"to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms that are unreasonably favorable to the other party\" in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. （350 F. 2d 445）. Similarly， in the game between creators and producers in the long video industry， producers have more alternative options， but creators cannot correctly assess output values， which can only continuously reduce the required compensatory consideration. For example， in order to facilitate publicity and marketing， producers internalize creators in a way similar to hiring employees and then use scripts without the creators' signatures， stealing the outline of innovation or the core plot[17]. It is more difficult to get a share of the benefits of delay， such as streaming media， for example. In this asymmetric game， one party is the investor who originally obtained the copyright at the initial phase of rights distribution， while the other party is the creator， who cannot independently complete the work. The distribution of copyright interests in the industry shows a typical case of grossly unequal bargaining power， and the unfairly negotiated transaction is unable to achieve the fairness and justice of the Copyright Law[18]. In the business model of copyright-based business， if the creators' interests in the copyright contracts cannot be guaranteed， even if the ownership of copyright property rights is adjusted by legislation， it is difficult to achieve the essential justice that creators pursue. However， this also shows that since intellectual property law originally maintained the ability to accomplish the above value objectives， it is not necessary to completely rely on the arrangement of copyright contracts to protect the basic fairness of the final distributive interests of creators， but instead increase the authors' capacity for autonomy[19]. Rectification equality of copyright contracts has already been applied in some Western countries through presetting the reservation of rights and contract modification. To some extent， overemphasizing the priority of economic value can disturb the creative expression of the author at the will of the producer. The compromise of free expression with economic capital will not only hurt the creative confidence of the creators but also disrupt the sustainable development of the long video industry[20].

3 Optimization of the Copyright Contractual Interest in Long Video Industry under the Background of Integrated Publishing

3.1 Normative Adjustment of the Copyright Contractual Interest in the Long Video Industry

Article 1 of the Copyright Law enacts the purpose of protecting the copyright of authors in their literary， artistic， and scientific works and related rights. This is an expression of the civil law system. China's copyright system also tends to encourage the creation and dissemination of works that would contribute to the construction of socialist spiritual and material civilization and promote the development and flourishing of socialist culture， science， and technology. In September 2021， the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council of the People's Republic of China issued the Outline for Building a Powerful Country with Intellectual Property Rights （2021-2035）. The fifth part， \"establishing a market-oriented operation mechanism for intellectual property that encourages innovative development\"， proposed improving the market-oriented， high-quality innovation mechanism with enterprises playing the leading role， ensuring a sound， efficient， and smooth utilization mechanism， fully realizing the value of intellectual property， and establishing a market-oriented， well-regulated， orderly， and dynamic operation mechanism. In view of this， promoting the aforementioned internal goal of Copyright Law to achieve the distributive justice of creators， the Copyright Law should make the following modifications in the standardized management of long video works：

First， add the transitional sentence \"regarding the producers as the author\". The construction of Article 17 of the Copyright Law reflects the legislation's considerations of the utilitarian theory and the ideas of authorship. However， the legal principle that the author is the copyright owner is the principle of copyright ownership that two major legal systems follow. The original ownership of the cinematographic works and TV play works is not directly stated， but the right of authorship is separately stipulated， which makes the application of the rules confusing. It is unclear whether the author is implicitly recognized as the creator based on the general principle that the moral rights of the author belong exclusively to natural persons or whether the producer obtains other personal rights[21]. In the long video industry， the complete retention of the author's moral rights will make the producer bear the risk of interference with others' rights at all times and will not be able to freely realize the changes in rights among the creator， producer， and consumer. When the creator signs a contract with the producer， the author's rights are no longer an absolute right to be decided by the author. The contract terms include the author's partial waiver of his moral rights， such as alteration necessary for production and interpretation. Therefore， the transitional sentence \"regarding the producer as the author\" is added to Art. 17.1， and part of the moral rights and interests of the creators are retained， which is conducive to unifying the ownership rules and reducing the flow costs. It is worth mentioning that long and short videos are the classification of video types in the industry. Unlike long videos， short videos can be produced by professional organizations， ordinary users， or professional users using video editing tools and special effects software， and the duration is usually less than 15 minutes， minutes， or even seconds. Paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Copyright Law of 2020 stipulates that the producer enjoys the copyright and the author enjoys the right of authorship and remuneration without an agreement， which tacitly implies that the producer and the author are the subjects of separation of interests， which is not conducive to the distribution of interests in new audiovisual works. This paper discusses the long video in which the identity relationship between producer and creator is separated， so it won't go into detail. However， the rapid upgrading and innovation of Internet media technology has had a profound impact on the media form in cyberspace. The important consequence of technology empowerment is the gradual blurring of the boundary between the production and consumption of Internet content， and users have changed from passive audiences of audio-visual content dissemination to providers of content feedback to active creators of social production. The internet is \"decentralized\" and \"reorganized\"， and it is an important symbol that individuals rely on intellectual input to complete their creations. The copyright for these works should directly belong to the authors.

Second， strengthen the independent bargaining power of creators. Art. 17.1 stipulates that the author has the right to receive remuneration as agreed upon in the contracts signed with producers. This implies that obtaining remuneration is not the embodiment of the right to benefit from exclusive rights but rather benefit sharing based on the terms of the contract. Given the weak position of creators in the industrial chain， the foundation for claiming a share of the benefits comes from contracts. Therefore， the need to introduce more detailed guidelines on the fairness principle in China's copyright law system is more prominent. Compared to the traditional field of civil property， the contract freedom principle should be more severely restricted by the contract justice principle in the field of intellectual property[22]. This is first because of the broad public domain in intellectual property， and in order to prevent the expansion of exclusive rights from encroaching on the public domain， the contract justice principle is emphasized to ensure that the public can freely use the resources in the public domain to achieve personal development. In the practice of intellectual property rights in various countries， the spirit of the contract justice principle has also repeatedly appeared in the process of regulating the conflict of interests between creators and investors， such as the reservation of rights and the right to equitable remuneration. The reservation of rights gives the creators the capacity for autonomy through the distribution of copyright to resist the unnecessary compromise resulting from the concentration of rights. Although applied in the long video industry will reduce incentives for producers， it is conducive to creators to relieve the control of dissemination and economy by producers. On the basis of the experience of the right to terminate the book publication contract， the rules of continuation should be applied to ensure the private autonomy of scriptwriters and directors. The right to equitable remuneration also has the defect of insecurity increasing， and it is difficult to come to an agreement with the criterion of equity. However， the increase in the creator's bargaining power in contract negotiations is worth learning. To eliminate the differences that exist in the legal protection provided by the laws and practices of the member states for copyright works， barriers to trade， and distortions of competition， the EU has adopted the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market， which refines the nonwaivable right to equitable remuneration in Article 4 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on Rental Rights and Lending Rights and Certain Rights Related to Copyright in the Field of Intellectual Property into the fair remuneration mechanism for authors and performers in copyright development contracts[23]. The right of secondary remuneration is a kind of subsequent benefit-sharing right similar to the tax system. A certain proportion， rather than a fixed amount of remuneration， is a powerful guarantee to stimulate creation. As a universally applicable mechanism， its system value is considerable. However， the secondary remuneration mechanism needs an improved organization， including collective management organizations and relevant associations， supporting mechanisms such as implementation mode， supervision， and relief， and the calculation of the distribution ratio of different creators will inevitably produce huge institutional costs. The trigger of the fair remuneration mechanism is that the creator and producer are in a serious imbalance of interests in this case， which has little impact on the principle of freedom of contract. As a correction mechanism in a seriously unbalanced state， it can be ruled directly by the court and other dispute settlement institutions， and the operating costs of supporting systems such as transparency obligations and contract adjustment mechanisms in the fair remuneration mechanisms are also controllable. China's copyright system may refer to the fair remuneration in exploitation contracts of authors and performers， in conjunction with China's specific national conditions， make provisions on transparency obligations， contract adjustment mechanisms， and other provisions in the Regulation for the Implementation of the Copyright Law， so as to ensure that the producers have the obligation to disclose the utilization of the work to the creator in time so that the author can request payment according to the fair remuneration standard and obtain appropriate income as the basis for further creation， while the producers can still own the incentives of copyright. After the fair remuneration mechanism of the first payment is perfected， it is considered to confirm that the creator enjoys a certain share of income through the secondary remuneration system in the process of realizing the interests of the work for the first time.

3.2 Policy-Perfecting of the Copyright Contractual Interest of Long Video Industry

First， take the opportunity of integrated publishing development to promote the optimization of the long video industry structure. The 14th Five-Year Plan （2021-2025） for the film industry proposes that China's film industry must be developed with high quality， with screenwriting as the focus and enriching the spiritual and cultural lives of the people as the ultimate goal. Enhance the quality of creation by supporting creators to experience the depths of life， collecting excellent film scripts， encouraging young playwrights， and participating in other film talent training projects. To build a good long video industry ecosystem， it is not only the interests of producers that should be focused on but also the interests of creators to carry out integration in the industry. The large amount of capital that producers invest and the advantages of disseminating works are attributed to the fortunes of producers. As a result， the income that the producers obtain from long video works is the appropriate object for redistribution， and it also provides a possibility for the realization of secondary remuneration. For example， the integration of long video works and various fields of streaming media has resulted in new royalty circulation and has expanded the application of the copyright collective management system. It is feasible to internalize the negative externality by setting up a collective management organization as a representative of the creator group and uniformly deducting a percentage from the digital film royalty circulation through a unified clearing house platform.

Second， strengthen the copyright compliance management of long video works. From films being forced to be screened on short video platforms due to the epidemic to miniseries actively selecting short video platforms for traffic， the new publishing format has been widely used in the dissemination of long video works. A wide variety of transmission pathways also pose challenges for publishers， who must avoid the risks of infringing on the rights involved in the ownership， copyright transfer， and registration of long videos. The regulatory departments should focus on copyright regulation and early warning of copyright protection for Internet service providers， with a particular focus on long video works. In addition， it gives full play to the role of industry associations in society-wide governance and reinforces the management of the right of signature in short video transmission during the secondary creation to provide reasonable expectations for the protection of the property interests of creators' personalities[24].

4 Conclusion

In the context of the integrated publishing era， Internet enterprises will further dominate the long video industry dissemination， and the future development of the creation in the industry chain will face many uncertainties. The general aim of China's audio-visual industry intellectual property policy should be to follow the distribution with differentiation， take efficiency as the fundamental value orientation of long video work rights allocation， combine the contract rules in the copyright law and the relevant provisions of the Civil Code， and relax the restrictions for private autonomy in the long video copyright field to restore the bargaining power of creators. At the same time， it is supposed to take the opportunity of integrated publishing development to promote the optimization of the dual structure of the long video industry， reinforce copyright compliance management， and optimize the distribution model among the mature industry.

References：

[1] YIN J G. The regulation of copyright abuse on long video platforms through anti-monopoly law[J]. Political Science and Law， 2023（2）： 160-175.

[2] JOHN L. Two treatises of government （book II）[M]. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1988： 286-288.

[3] LIU T G. The dual structure of the copyright ownership and its rights allocation-reviewing the revisions to copyright ownership rules under China's copyright law of 2020[J]. Intellectual Property， 2021（8）： 75-85.

[4] SUN X Q. The collapse and reconstruction of the authors' rights system[J]. Tsinghua University Law Journal， 2014（2）： 132-142.

[5] PACOURET J. The construction of film author's rights： American and French copyright laws in comparative perspective[J]. Droit et Societe， 2021： 443-464.

[6] SCHWAB J L， Audiovisual works and the work for hire doctrine in the Internet age[J]. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts， 2011： 141-168.

[7] CUI G B. Copyright law： cases and materials[M]. Beijing： Peking University Press， 2019： 10.

[8] LI C. Criticism of the basic theory of copyright[M]. Beijing： Intellectual Property Publishing House， 2013： 7-8.

[9] ZHOU Z X. The theoretical basis of economic analysis of landes and posner in intellectual property law[J]. Tribune of Political Science and Law， 2018（4）： 169-172.

[10] LANDES W M， POSNER R A. The economic structure of intellectual property law[M]. Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 2003： 4.

[11] MURDOCK G. Critical political economy and communicative capitalism： legacies， challenges， and struggles[J]. Shanghai Journalism Review， 2019（6）： 4-15.

[12] FENG X Q. The efficiency dimension of the intellectual property system[J]. Modern Law Science， 2022（4）： 171-190.

[13] FENG X Q. Value composition of intellectual property[J]. China Legal Science， 2007（1）： 67-77.

[14] XIONG Q. Choice and construction of the rules on strengthening authors' position in copyright contracts[J]. Chinese Journal of Law， 2022（1）： 188-199.

[15] MERGES R P. Justifying intellectual property[M]. Cambridge： Harvard University Press， 2011： 262-263.

[16] BARNHIZER D D. Inequality of bargaining power[J]. University of Colorado Law Review， 2005（1）： 192-213.

[17] XIONG Q. The institutional arrangement for investor as author in the copyright law[J]. Law Science， 2010（9）： 79-89.

[18] WU H D. Overview of the intellectual property law[M]. Beijing： China Renmin University Press， 2020： 197-204.

[19] YI J. Contextual relationships of basic principles of civil law[J]. Chinese Journal of Law， 2018（6）： 61-65.

[20] ZHOU H W. The \"out of control\" copyright： weakening author in copyright autonomy[J]. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology （Social Science Edition）， 2022（6）： 57-67.

[21] CHEN H. On the copyright ownership of audiovisual works： centered on article 17 of the revised copyright law[J]. Journal of Soochow University （Philosophy amp; Social Science Edition）， 2020（2）： 56-63.

[22] CUI L H， LIANG W Y. A study on the problem of unknown usage modes in copyright contracts in the digital age： from the perspective of incomplete contracts theory[J]. Journal of Shandong University （Philosophy and Social Sciences）， 2021（1）： 98-109.

[23] ZHOU H. On the governance of the imbalanced interests in copyright license contracts[J]. Intellectual Property， 2021（5）： 41-55.

[24] HAO M Y. The definition and ownership of audiovisual works in integrated publishing era[J]. Science-Technology and Publication， 2022（11）： 126-133.

融合出版時代長視頻產業版權合同利益考察

談幼敏1a，1b，張瀚洋2

（1.中國科學技術大學 a.公共事務學院；b.知識產權研究院，合肥 230026；

2. 安徽醫科大學 知識產權系，合肥 230601）

摘 " "要：融合出版時代背景下，互聯網、流媒體等新型出版、傳播方式進一步割裂了長視頻產業的創作環節與傳播環節。視聽作品權屬規范中有關電影、電視劇作品的規定移植了“視為作者”這一實用主義原則，在回應長視頻產業對作品的版權權利歸屬規則效率挑戰的同時，既將創作者權益保護完全托付于著作權合同的安排，也將知識產權法促進創作者自治的目的內嵌于合同目的之中。然而在缺失具體著作權合同規則的情況下，雖不能否認作品資源歸于制作者控制符合新型出版、傳播方式的實踐需求，也應及時完善對著作權合同的內部與外部多重規制措施，以緩和由于長視頻產業著作權利集中導致的創作者一方的非正當利益減損，在著作權合同中體現知識產權法的利益平衡的目標。

關鍵詞：融合出版；長視頻；著作權歸屬；著作權合同