1. What is the crime of fraud?
Fraud refers to the act of defrauding a large amount of public or private property by fabricating facts or concealing the truth for the purpose of illegal possession. Objectively, it is manifested in the use of fraud to defraud a large number of public and private property; Subjectively, it is direct and intentional, with the purpose of illegally occupying public and private property.
Legal basis: Article 266 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC).
If the crime of fraud defrauds public or private property, and the amount is relatively large, it shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and shall also or only be fined; If the amount is huge or there are other serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years and shall also be fined; If the amount is especially huge or there are other especially serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or life imprisonment, and shall also be fined or confiscated. Where there are other provisions in this Law, such provisions shall prevail.
What are the sentencing standards for fraud, as follows:
1. If the amount of personal fraud reaches 2,000 yuan, it constitutes a crime of fraud, and it shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and shall also be fined;
2. If the amount of fraud reaches more than 30,000 yuan, it is a huge amount and is sentenced to three to ten years in prison;
3. If the amount of fraud is more than 200,000 yuan, especially huge, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years to life imprisonment, with a fine or confiscation of property.
Second, does vision china defend the rights of the photo author, which constitutes a crime of fraud?
Let's start with the conclusion that vision china claimed 80,000 yuan from the photo author. At first glance, I think vision china said in his statement that he only has the right to sell pictures, but in practice, his behavior has turned into picture rights protection, and he may not get any rights at all, which is a bit out of thin air. If you fabricate basic rights and obtain a large amount of license fees, if the circumstances are serious, you will be suspected of fraud, but if you don't record the amount, you can only consider it as an attempted fraud. Details are as follows:
1. According to vision china, they only have the right to sell pictures, but they have no copyright authorization and corresponding rights to defend their rights. In this case, they exercised the right to defend their rights to the users of the pictures, and asked them to pay a few hundred yuan of authorization fee for each picture for their past use. The nature of this behavior is that it has no right to defend rights. If it is out of negligence, it is suspected of impersonating rights and infringing on the rights of the copyright owner of the picture.
2. If it is intentional, and it is a large-scale common behavior of the company, it may be subject to administrative punishment, except for civil tort, if it is suspected of fraud or illegal operation. If the circumstances are serious, such as concealing the facts of rights protection, not paying the share fee to the copyright owner, etc., it may even be suspected of fraud.
In fact, this is not the first time a similar incident has happened. In 20 19, vision china was "outraged" by adding photos of black holes and trademarks of major enterprises to the gallery, and was also punished and interviewed by the regulatory authorities that year. This kind of rights protection suspected of "touching porcelain" has also attracted many people's resentment.
Iii. Follow-up of the incident: vision china has removed the infringing works.
Vision china once wrote in Weibo that the photographer authorized the stock rek Images to sell, and the stock rek Images authorized the related photos to be sold to Getty Images. Vision china, as the exclusive partner of Getty Pictures in Chinese mainland, has the right to sell relevant photos. However, the author does not agree with this statement. In this regard, Dai Jianfeng once again sent a message to Weibo on 16, saying that Stocktrek clearly told vision china that he had no right to sell his works and did not own any copyright in his works.
It is also reported that on the afternoon of 16, some media learned from Stocktrek that Stocktrek had explicitly informed vision china to delete Dai Jianfeng's related works, and Getty platform would also contact vision china to delete Dai Jianfeng's works. At around 16 and 18, the related photography works involved in vision china website have been offline in stages.
At present, the core of the incident is still focused on the "sub-grant" of copyright. According to the lawyer's analysis, the key evidence of this incident is to confirm whether Stocktrek has sub-authorization and whether there are rights defects in all links in the authorized sales chain. In addition, at present, the complete chain of sales authorization claimed by vision china needs to be verified, and the authorization of each link still needs to be strictly examined. If the unauthorized situation is true, there is no legal basis for its rights protection.
Personal opinion: vision china's practice is too rogue. Whether vision china's rights protection of the photo author constitutes a crime of fraud depends on the specific circumstances. The main reason for this incident is that vision china's image copyright consciousness is unclear, and he feels that he has fallen into the eyes of money, which leads to bad reviews in the industry. If similar photographers encounter similar problems, they must actively safeguard their rights and interests.