## Facts

- Beijing Microlive Vision Technology Company, Ltd. (Beijing Microlive Vision) held rights to a short video titled “I Want to Tell You,” created by the artist Xie for first release on the Douyin (Tik Tok) platform.
- The video later appeared on Huopai, a mobile short-video platform operated by Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Company, Ltd. and Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Company, Ltd. (collectively, Baidu).
- The Huopai version appeared with Douyin watermarks removed.
- The dispute focused on Huopai’s availability of the video through its platform functionality (viewing and related platform access), rather than on proof that Baidu itself created the video.
- Beijing Microlive Vision notified Baidu of the allegedly infringing posting and requested removal.
- Baidu removed the challenged video in a timely manner after receiving the notice.
- Despite the takedown, Beijing Microlive Vision filed a civil action alleging unauthorized online dissemination and sought monetary relief (reported publicly as 1,000,000 yuan in damages plus 50,000 yuan in costs).
- Baidu argued, among other defenses, that the short video was too brief to qualify for copyright protection and that Huopai functioned as a service platform where users upload content.

## Issues

1. Whether a short online video can qualify as a copyright-protected audiovisual work under Chinese copyright law even if it is only about a dozen seconds long.
2. Whether a video-platform operator incurs copyright infringement liability when infringing content is uploaded by users but the operator removes the content promptly after receiving a rightsholder notice.
3. Whether the removal of Douyin watermarks from the reposted video, without proof that the platform operator removed them or knew of the removal, supports imposing liability on the platform operator.

## Decision

- The court recognized that short videos can be protected works if they reflect original creative choices; protectability does not turn on video length alone.
- The court rejected Baidu’s argument that short videos are categorically too brief to receive copyright protection.
- On infringement liability, the court treated Huopai/Baidu primarily as an online service provider hosting or providing access to user-uploaded content rather than as the direct uploader.
- Because Baidu removed the identified video promptly after receiving notice, the court declined to impose damages liability for the brief period the video was available on the platform.
- The court did not treat the absence of Douyin watermarks, standing alone, as sufficient to show Baidu’s fault without evidence tying watermark removal to Baidu’s conduct or knowledge.
- The court therefore denied the plaintiff’s requested monetary relief (including the reported claim for 1,000,000 yuan in damages and related costs) based on the platform’s timely takedown and lack of proven platform fault.

## Legal Principles

- Short online videos may qualify as copyright-protected audiovisual works when they contain original expression; duration alone is not a bar to protection.
- In disputes involving user-posted content, platform liability generally depends on fault-based factors such as knowledge and the reasonableness and speed of the platform’s response after receiving a specific notice.
- A platform that acts as a network service provider and removes identified infringing content within a reasonable time after notice may avoid damages liability for user-uploaded infringement.
- Allegations of watermark removal may support liability against the party responsible for the removal, but do not automatically establish platform liability without proof that the platform performed, directed, or knowingly tolerated the alteration.
- Courts may reject duties equivalent to universal pre-publication review for high-volume user video services, instead focusing on notice-triggered removal and other reasonable post-notice measures.

## Conclusion

In *Douyin Tik Tok v. Baidu* (2018), the court confirmed that short videos can receive copyright protection even when very brief, but it refused to hold Huopai’s operators liable for damages where the video was uploaded through the platform by users and the platform removed the content promptly after receiving notice, with no sufficient proof that the platform itself caused or knowingly accepted the watermark removal.


Douyin Tik Tok v. Baidu, Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2018)