Short videos published on the Internet are generally considered infringing because the overall story content is similar to the videos published by others. Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, made a second instance judgment on this short video copyright ownership and infringement dispute case, upholding the first instance judgment of the Jinjiang District People's Court: the Chengdu Universiade promotional video shot and produced by the defendant is different from the plaintiff's works in terms of character settings, character relationships, specific circumstances, and logical order, and does not constitute substantive similarity or infringement. The judgment rejects all the plaintiff's litigation claims. In 2021, Company A filmed a short video featuring pandas, and its contribution to the public was publicized. After that, it was found that Company B and Company C published a promotional video of the Chengdu Universiade on their jointly operated WeChat video account and Tiktok, and there was a problem that the content of the whole story was similar to the short video submitted, so they filed a lawsuit on the grounds of copyright infringement. After the trial by the first instance court, it was found that the narrative structure of the short video in question, the elements of pandas and black clothed people, and the expression techniques of news reporting style opening are common elements and techniques in audiovisual works, which can be used by the public. If there are only inherent elements in the public domain that are similar between two works, it does not necessarily constitute copyright infringement. Comparing the accused infringing short video with the involved works in this case, it was found that there were significant differences in the style and emotional expression reflected in the creative background and dialogue between the accused infringing short video and the involved works, with inconsistencies in the characters, plot, and logical design. From the perspective of character settings and relationships, the main characters in the involved works are pandas and the black clothed man searching for pandas. The main characters in the accused infringing short video are extraterrestrial children and the black clothed man searching for extraterrestrial children. There is a significant difference in that all characters in the accused infringing short video are children, and the involved works are both adults and children; Although there are both pandas and people in black, the relationship between the two is set differently. The panda in the work in question is the protagonist, and the entire story revolves around the behavior of the panda. The panda in the accused infringement short video is a prop, and the entire story revolves around the behavior of an alien child. From the perspective of specific plot and logical sequence, the work in question is about a panda escaping into a cinema to watch a movie on its own. The actions of the black clothed person, who is being stopped and tracked by the public, imitate the plot and actions of the movie being played on the screen. The accused infringing short video is about a panda being stolen by an alien child and passing by a Sichuan opera performance stage with local characteristics during the escape process. The black clothed person is stopped by the actions of Sichuan opera performers on stage; The work in question was ultimately presented to a little girl by a panda who was about to be taken away, which was in line with the plot of the movie "Kung Fu" that was played in the cinema at the time. The accused infringing short video depicts an extraterrestrial child recalling his arrival on Earth and receiving a gift of candy from a child on Earth to show his kindness. Overall, the accused infringing short video did not utilize the original expression of the work in question, and the accused infringing short video does not constitute substantial similarity to the work in question, nor does it constitute infringement. The first instance court subsequently ruled to dismiss all the litigation claims of plaintiff Company A. The plaintiff appealed against the first instance judgment. The Chengdu Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict. The judgment has now come into effect. (Lai Xin She)