Image copy: Disney against China-made animation the Autobot tort-Disney Finding Nemo, the Autobots story-IT information
You will recall last July that Blockbuster made animated movie the Autobot story, right? This animation because of allegations of plagiarism accusations of the cars has been domestic users. Not long ago, even the outgoing message to the Autobots story will be a sequel, which Disney can sit.
Walt Disney Company and Pixar film and television animation, Ltd Xiamen blue flame accusers to court, sued their infringement. Shanghai Pudong new area people's Court on 21st public hearing Walt Disney Company and Pixar vs Xiamen blue flame film and television animation, Ltd, the Beijing point movie-media limited, Shanghai media tech limited copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute case.
Chinese animation the Autobot story released in July 2015, film and television animation, Ltd Xiamen blue flame is the producer, Beijing base film media limited is a distribution unit, Shanghai media tech company in PPTV website the film is available to the public.
Plaintiffs allege that movie animated character in the Autobot story K1 and K2, plagiarized the plaintiff animated character in the movie "Lightning McQueen" and "by Lance". Defendant also produced panels and posters, was a copy of plaintiff's animated image. PPLIVE website operating in the defendant, the dissemination of posters, trailers and movies. Name of the movie with the plaintiff the Autobots story names are very similar, cars and Finding Nemo was highlighted in the poster of the accused deliberately covered "person", not recognized by the general audience and the movie source confusion and misidentification. Posters also highlight the use and copying of plaintiff cartoon images of K1 and K2. Therefore, the defendants ' actions constitute copyright infringement and unfair competition.
The plaintiff requested the Court decree, blue flame, base company, force the company to cease the infringement; blue flame Corporation, the company jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's economic loss of 3 million Yuan at the base; blue flame Corporation, point the company jointly and severally compensate the plaintiff for stopping the infringement reasonable costs incurred 1 million Yuan.
Defendant's agent says the Autobot movie Finding Nemo K1 and K2 animation image is independently created, not plagiarized the plaintiff to the cars, cars 2 movie animated character. In the Autobots story K1, K2 design draws on existing models of independent creation, animated images and the plaintiff does not constitute a substantially similar. Plaintiff claims the defendant violated famous product-specific name can be established. Plaintiff's title belongs to the descriptive name of the theme class, was significant in itself is not strong, can not be identified as famous product-specific name. Defendant has been the dissemination of the Autobots is a homemade film Finding Nemo, consumers will not give rise to confusion. In addition, the work in connection with box office income subject to tax, movies, special funds, the hospital line into creation, other costs, loss, defendant, there is no profit. The Court will pass judgement on the case day.
形象完全照搬：迪士尼告中国国产动画《汽车人总动员》侵权 - 迪士尼,汽车人总动员 - IT资讯
各位还记得去年7月的那部引起巨大轰动的国产动画电影《汽车人总动员》吧？这部动画因涉嫌抄袭《赛车总动员》而备受国内网友的指责。前不久，甚至传出《汽车人总动员》将出续集的消息，这下迪士尼可坐不住了。
迪士尼企业公司和皮克斯将厦门蓝火焰影视动漫有限公司等告上了法庭，起诉他们侵权。上海市浦东新区人民法院于21日公开开庭审理了迪士尼企业公司、皮克斯诉厦门蓝火焰影视动漫有限公司、北京基点影视文化传媒有限公司、上海聚力传媒技术有限公司侵害著作权及不正当竞争纠纷一案。
中国动画电影《汽车人总动员》于2015年7月公映，厦门蓝火焰影视动漫有限公司是制片人，北京基点影视文化传媒有限公司是发行单位，上海聚力传媒技术有限公司在PPTV网站向社会公众提供了该电影。
原告代理人称，电影《汽车人总动员》中的动画形象K1和K2，抄袭了原告电影中的动画形象“闪电麦坤”和“法兰斯高”。被告还制作了展板和海报，抄袭了原告的动画形象。在被告运营的PPLIVE网站上，传播了海报、预告片和电影。《汽车人总动员》的名称与原告电影名称极其相似，在被告宣传海报中突出了汽车和总动员字样，故意遮盖“人”字，导致一般受众无法识别并对电影来源产生混淆和误认。海报中还突出使用并抄袭了原告动画形象的K1和K2。故被告的行为构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争。
原告请求法院判令，蓝火焰公司、基点公司、聚力公司停止侵权；蓝火焰公司、基点公司连带赔偿原告经济损失300万元；蓝火焰公司、基点公司连带赔偿原告因制止侵权行为而支出合理费用100万元。
被告代理人则表示，《汽车人总动员》电影的K1和K2动画形象是独立创作的，没有剽窃原告《赛车总动员》、《赛车总动员2》电影的动画形象。《汽车人总动员》中K1、K2车辆形象的设计借鉴了现有车型独立创作完成，与原告的动画形象不构成实质相似。原告主张被告侵犯知名商品特有名称也不成立。原告电影名称属于题材类的描述性的名称，本身显著性不强，不能认定为知名商品特有名称。被告一直宣传《汽车人总动员》是国产电影，相关消费者不会造成混淆。此外，涉案作品的票房收入扣除相关税金、电影专项基金、院线分成、其他创作成本后，是亏损的，被告不存在获利。法院将择日对该案作出宣判。