On the last day of 2020, Guo Jingming and Yu Zheng successively released Weibo to admit plagiarism, and publicly apologized for plagiarism that had existed. The fuse of this wave of apology originated from ten days ago. In a joint letter issued by more than one hundred screenwriters, directors, producers, and writers, Guo Jingming and Yu Zheng, who had plagiarism, were named as mentors and guests in variety shows. Make topic hype in it to chase click-through rate and ratings. In the letter, they appealed to the public not to provide a stage for plagiarism and plagiarism, to respect the originality, to stop the propaganda and hype of these "criminal practitioners", "plagiarism and plagiarism should not be a role model."

In the film and television industry, plagiarism has always been a taboo related to famous festivals. Once it is designated as plagiarism, the work and character of its creator will be greatly questioned. Therefore, film and television practitioners are angry that Guo Jingming and Yu Zheng are still walking freely in the entertainment circle despite their "plagiarism". They even appear as mentors and sell success studies, which has a negative impact on young audiences and all sectors of society.

Yu Zheng and Guo Jingming have been topical figures all these years. Their works have traffic, box office, ratings, and fans. However, the accompanying criticism is endless, especially the plagiarism incident by the two people is in the newspapers. Guo Jingming's "Knowing How Many Flowers Fall in Dreams" copied author Zhuang Yu's "Circle Inside and Outside", and Yu Zheng's "Gong Suo Liancheng" copied Qiong Yao's work "Plum Blossom Root". Two copyright infringement cases have long been judged. In 2006, the court ruled that Guo Jingming's "Knowing How Many Flowers Fall in Dreams" copied Zhuang Yu's "Circle Inside and Outside". Guo Jingming compensated but refused to apologize. In 2014, Qiong Yao sued Yu Zheng for copying "Gong Suo Liancheng" "Plum Blossom", in this rights defense lawsuit, 139 screenwriters and producers in the industry have also jointly condemned Yu Zheng. In both cases, the court required Yu Zheng and Guo Jingming to compensate the original authors for economic losses and a public apology. However, both Guo and Yu only made financial compensation and did not publicly apologize to the plaintiff in time according to the verdict.

However, Yu Zheng and Guo Jingming, who have been cast aside by their peers, have been mixed up. The reason is that some online platforms and TV stations use them to chase click-through rates, viewership rates, and blogs based on the standards of "everything is only a viewership theory and a traffic theory." Human eyeballs. The joint letter stated: "This approach has aroused great disgust from relevant practitioners and all sectors of society, and everyone feels very regretful and extremely indignant about this."

Excellent original scripts are undoubtedly the core of film and television works. If plagiarism and plagiarism are allowed to become guests of entertainment programs and capital, and they become "traffic celebrities", it will undoubtedly harm the healthy development of the industry ecology, and it will be for the work of creating with great concentration. It is extremely unfair to the people, and it also misleads the public.

There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of traffic in the film and television industry, but it cannot be "only traffic theory." If the taint of plagiarism not only does not block the development of the industry, but becomes the capital of "the more speculation, the more popular", and everything depends on traffic. Whoever has huge fans surrounded by them has the right to speak, then it will inevitably lead to the film and television industry. Bad money drives out good money in the industry degradation. When society turns a blind eye to and indifferent to plagiarism, and the cost of plagiarism is extremely low and the profits are extremely high, more people will choose to take "shortcuts," and authors who are committed to original work will continue to be attacked and excluded. This will not only affect the output of excellent original works, but also hinder the public's awareness of copyright protection.

The author suggests that the sound and rapid development of the film and television industry should delineate a professional bottom line, establish a disciplinary mechanism, and accurately supplement judicial punishment, so that plagiarism can pay a price far exceeding the costs and benefits of plagiarism, so as to curb the spread of plagiarism. At the same time, in addition to relying on industry autonomy to create a healthy industry ecology that respects originality and opposes plagiarism with a professional attitude, it also needs to refine relevant legal requirements and strengthen technical screening and enforcement of relevant judgments. For practitioners and platforms who repeatedly ignore the bottom line, they should use industry self-purification and legal regulations to cut off their idea of ​​plagiarism and "the more they become popular". What's more important is that through this industry's spontaneous self-purification action, the current situation in the film and television industry where only traffic is the highest is gradually promoted, so as to truly abandon plagiarism and respect originality.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Source:http://www.iprchn.com/