A Henglan lighting business to attend Guangzhou international exhibition, I found a lighting business also from Zhongshan, product brochures for the most highly similar pictures and captions. Subsequently, Henglan Town Star Company (a pseudonym) of the town when company (a pseudonym) and its operators Jiang to court, claims 188 thousand yuan. In April 18th second, the city court informed the intellectual property disputes verdict. When the company was sentenced to infringement immediately delete pictures and compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses 17 thousand yuan. Reason: International Exhibition "hit", during a claim 188 thousand Henglan enterprises from March 1, 2015 to 4, Henglan Town Star Lighting Company participated in the 2015 Guangzhou International Exhibition and intelligent advertising logo LED. During the period, company personnel found obviously in the town lighting company exhibition publicity and distribution of outdoor lighting product manual, product brochures and 36 pictures produced highly similar stars. "They atlas in the picture shooting angle, color, proportion and text and other companies and we are completely consistent. But these pictures are our own or entrust the third party independent completed filming and production. When the company is not only a violation of our work of photography copyright, but also seriously damaged our economic interests and dominant market position." The stars lighting company subsequently sued to the court, asked when the company and its manager Jiang to immediately stop the infringement and compensation of 188 thousand yuan. "Star company sued outdoor lighting products manual is not our all, cannot prove that our company also stars printed; there is no evidence that they enjoy the copyright of these photos, and the photo is an objective record, does not belong to the category of works." In court, when companies and operators of Jiang also provides other lighting factory album pictures as evidence. Survey: the court found more than 30 pictures are the same photography court, stars lighting company submitted to the court a lot of photos as evidence. The star company provided agreement and transfer records confirmed that the company was commissioned by Chen stars shooting product pictures for the company from August 2013 to January 31, 2014 production of brochures, to pay 7000 yuan service fee to chen. By the court on the judge that the allegedly infringing works and 36 stars rights of using works when company outdoor lighting product manual, uniform two product placement, shooting angle, lighting and other aspects, for the same photography. Then, photographic works are protected by copyright law? Court held that the 36 picture stars company commissioned by the company's products according to the characteristics of Chen deliberately shot, shooting on location, angle of product and shooting skills have individual choice in the focal length, aperture, shutter and set back, lighting, scale, originality, so these 36 pictures should belong to the copyright law on the meaning of the photographic works protected by the copyright law in our country should be. At the same time, these 36 pieces of pictures published brochures printed on the company to the stars, and the stars of the production process and the source made a reasonable statement, when companies and operators of Jiang did not provide evidence to the contrary against the facts, so the court finds that the stars of the company 36 photography copyright. Judgment: the facts of infringement, the defendant shall compensate 17 thousand although clearly the company does not recognize this fact, but all the information involved manual are pointing to it, it is the ultimate benefit company manual winner. So the court found involved in outdoor lighting products manual clearly all the company. Obviously, without permission, unauthorized use of the star company involved in photography, and for the promotion of enterprise, the violation of the photography copyright star company. Recently, the court considering the types, pictures of the plot, involving infringement of quantity, the consequences of such factors and the stars company to stop the infringement cost, judgment obviously company and Jiang immediately removed for use in outdoor lighting products manual infringement in the picture, and 12000 yuan compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred to stop infringement of 5000 yuan. Second court three people court judge Ruan Chunli pointed out that the photographic works reflect the author's thoughts and feelings and perception of the world is a kind of language and symbols to form reflects the creation of intellectual achievements, and with the help of some forms, which belongs to the text, the art and science of the same category, protection by China's copyright law. With the popularization of computer and Internet ", all kinds of image information, communication is convenient, involving infringement of intellectual property rights through the network communication etc. the case is also increasing year by year, this case is a typical case." Ruan judge suggested that enterprises should actively develop their own core technology and brand, to avoid plagiarizing and imitating others' intellectual property rights into the vicious circle.