短视频的合理使用可能性与短视频平台注意义务边界的确定

The Fair Use Possibility of Short Video and the Determination of the Boundary of Short Video Platform’s Duty of Care

摘要: 短视频具有构成合理使用的可能性，并非所有短视频的创作均构成对长视频的侵权。对于短视频平台而言，短视频是否构成合理使用与短视频平台的间接侵权责任并没有直接关系。判断短视频平台是否构成侵权的关键是平台是否履行了其注意义务。根据既有规则，网络服务提供者的注意义务限于“能判断”和能以“合理成本”制止侵权行为。然而，短视频的合理使用可能性导致了“红旗标准”和“超越红旗标准”难以适用以及“通知–删除”规则的滥用。为解决“通知–删除”规则的滥用，明晰短视频平台的注意义务边界，可以根据短视频的合理使用可能性，将构成明显的非合理使用的短视频纳入短视频平台的注意义务范围。对于诸如切片类短视频这种明显的非合理使用的短视频，短视频平台收到权利人通知后应当删除。对于其他不容易判断的情形，短视频平台可以不删除相关短视频，但需履行“转通知”的法律义务。在这种情形下，即便相关短视频日后构成侵权，短视频平台也无需承担间接侵权责任。

Abstract: Short videos have the possibility of constituting fair use, and not all creation of short videos constitutes infringement of long videos. For short video platform, whether short video constitutes fair use is not directly related to the indirect infringement liability of short video platform. The key to judge whether the short video platform constitutes infringement is whether the platform has fulfilled its duty of care. Under the existing rules, the duty of care of Internet service providers is limited to “being able to judge” and being able to stop the infringement at a “reasonable cost”. However, the possibility of fair use of short videos has led to the difficult application of the “Red flag standard” and “beyond the Red Flag standard” and the abuse of the “notice and takedown” rule. In order to solve the abuse of the “notice and takedown” rule and clarify the boundaries of the duty of care of short video platforms, short videos that constitute obvious non-fair use can be included in the scope of the duty of care of short video platforms according to the possibility of fair use of short videos. For short videos such as sliced short videos that are obviously not fair use, the short video platform shall takedown them after receiving the notice from the right holder. For other situations that are not easy to judge, the short video platform can not takedown the relevant short video, but it needs to fulfill the legal obligation of “transfer notification”. In this case, even if the relevant short video constitutes infringement in the future, the short video platform does not need to bear indirect infringement liability.