Public Opinion and Business Reputation Risks in Film Promotion and Distribution

Abstract

In the promotion and distribution phase of the film and television industry, the public statements of key creative personnel, the choice of promotional strategies, and the direction in which public opinion evolves may all exert a profound impact on the business reputation of film producers, affiliated enterprises, and even the creative individuals themselves. In June 2026, when the well-known artist X was promoting the film “Y,” a rallying cry of “showing up in person” (zou ge mianr) triggered a large-scale public backlash, severely damaging his public-interest image and dragging the affiliated foundation into a crisis of trust. This incident has laid bare, in concentrated form, the multiple dimensions of public-opinion and business reputation risk in film and television promotion and the complexity of the corresponding legal responses. From the perspective of legal practice, this article systematically reviews the typical forms and legal framework of business reputation infringement in the promotion and distribution phase, with a focus on the professional role and intervention strategies of lawyers in crisis public relations and business reputation restoration. Drawing on an analysis of typical cases and judicial adjudication rules, it puts forward a full-cycle practical guide for lawyers covering pre-event prevention, in-event handling, and post-event restoration, with a view to providing workable solutions for business reputation protection in the promotion and distribution activities of film and entertainment enterprises.

Keywords: film and television promotion and distribution; business reputation protection; public-opinion risk; crisis public relations; business reputation restoration; legal practice

I. Introduction: Examining the Business Reputation Risk in Film and Television Promotion Through the X “Showing Up in Person” Incident

In June 2026, at the premiere of the film “Y” directed by the renowned director Z, the artist X appeared in support of the film in his capacity as music producer and called out to the audience: “More than twenty million people—brothers and sisters—can you show up in person? Show up in person and get the first wave of box office rolling.” In the context of the entertainment industry, this may have been nothing more than a polite remark with a regional flavour. However, once the clip circulated on short-video platforms stripped of its context, this warm, personal remark was quickly reinterpreted as something else entirely: was a person who had long enjoyed public trust through his public-interest image now diverting that trust to the box office of a commercial film?

Public opinion swiftly shifted from discussion of the quality of the work and the creative team to questioning X’s public-interest identity, his personal appeal, and the boundaries of commercial promotion. A large number of netizens posted screenshots of cancelled donations and terminated their monthly donations to his affiliated foundation. The controversy spread from film promotion all the way to the foundation’s financial records, and a host of management problems at the foundation erupted at once. Subsequently, X issued an apology statement, candidly acknowledging that his “showing up in person” remark “was indeed too hasty and casual, insufficiently considered and poorly worded.” The foundation thereafter issued an explanatory statement, responding in a concentrated manner to a number of public-opinion concerns.

The X incident is by no means an isolated case. In recent years, business reputation crises triggered by inappropriate remarks from creative personnel, misguided promotional strategies, and malicious stoking of public opinion have been all too common in the promotion and distribution phase of the film and television industry. This incident profoundly reveals a legal proposition that has long been overlooked in film and television promotion: promotion and distribution is not merely a question of marketing—it is, even more so, a legal question of business reputation protection. When the public statements of creative personnel trigger a public-opinion backlash, what is damaged is not only personal reputation but also the commercial interests of the film producer, the brand value of affiliated enterprises, and the prospects of related commercial cooperation. How lawyers can build a firewall of business reputation protection for enterprises in the promotion and distribution phase, how they can provide timely and effective legal intervention once a public-opinion crisis occurs, and how they can assist enterprises in restoring damaged business reputation after the crisis—these are the core questions this article seeks to answer.

II. The Legal Framework for Business Reputation Infringement in Film and Television Promotion

(I) The Legal Characterization of Business Reputation and Its Special Manifestations in the Film and Television Industry

Business reputation is both a measurable intangible asset on an enterprise’s balance sheet and a comprehensive embodiment of the reputation, public esteem, and public trust that an enterprise accumulates in market competition. For film and entertainment enterprises, the brand value of a work and the industry reputation of a company often carry more decisive commercial significance than tangible assets.

From the perspective of legal protection pathways, China’s current laws protect business reputation principally through two pathways. The first is the system of the right of reputation of legal persons, which regulates acts that infringe upon an enterprise’s reputation through insult, defamation, and the like. Article 1024 of the Civil Code expressly provides that “no organisation or individual may infringe upon the right of reputation of others by means of insult, defamation, or otherwise.” The second is the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits acts that free-ride on or disparage business reputation, such as commercial defamation and passing off. The two pathways each have their own emphasis: the object of protection under the right-of-reputation system is the personality interest of the legal person, with a relatively low threshold of proof but potentially limited compensation; the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, by contrast, focuses on maintaining the order of market competition, allowing claims for higher damages and demands for the elimination of adverse effects.

(II) The Particularities of Business Reputation Infringement in the Film and Television Promotion Phase

Business reputation infringement in the film and television promotion phase has particularities that distinguish it from ordinary commercial activities. First, the viral nature of dissemination. Promotional activities are themselves a process of highly concentrated information dissemination; any statement by creative personnel—whether or not carefully prepared—may be clipped, edited, and re-circulated on online platforms, acquiring an entirely different meaning once detached from its original context. Second, the cascading nature of the harm. Public-opinion risk in the promotion phase often has a “domino effect”: one person’s remarks may trigger questioning of an entire film, and a controversy over one film may spill over to the reputation of related producers, investors, and even affiliated organisations. In the X incident, a single phrase “showing up in person” ultimately evolved into a comprehensive questioning of the efficiency with which the foundation used its charitable funds—a clear illustration. Third, the multiplicity of parties. Film and television promotion involves multiple parties, including producers, production companies, distributors, creative personnel, and promotion companies; inappropriate words or deeds by any one of them may cause collateral damage to the business reputation of the others.

III. Typical Forms of Business Reputation Infringement in Film and Television Promotion and Case Analysis

(I) The Inappropriate-Remarks Type: Cascading Business Reputation Damage Triggered by Personal Conduct

The X “showing up in person” incident is a typical example of this type of risk. As the film’s music producer, X’s original intent in his promotional remarks was to support the film’s box office. But because his wording tied the autonomous consumer act of watching a film to the logic of personal favour (“giving face”), the public interpreted it as “moral coercion.” The focus of the controversy quickly expanded from his personal remarks to his affiliated foundation, with the public beginning to ask: when a person leverages the public credibility accumulated through charity to drive box office for a commercial film, how should the account be reckoned?

From a legal perspective, this type of incident involves multiple layers of legal issues. First, the contractual relationship between the creative personnel and the producer. The participation of creative personnel in promotional activities is usually based on the terms of a performance contract or a production contract, but whether the contract contains a “duty of prudence in speech” clause, and whether it stipulates liability for breach where the film’s business reputation is damaged by inappropriate personal remarks, is often overlooked in practice. Second, the determination of infringement of the right of reputation. Whether the public’s critical remarks constitute an infringement of the right of reputation of X personally or of the film producer must be assessed under Article 1024 of the Civil Code—that is, whether there are acts of insult or defamation, and whether they have led to a lowering of social evaluation. Most public criticism falls within the scope of expression of opinion, but where there is fabrication of facts or malicious defamation, it may constitute infringement of the right of reputation. Third, business reputation protection for affiliated entities. The crisis of trust suffered by X’s affiliated foundation in the incident is, in essence, a “reverse spillover” of the founder’s personal remarks onto the institution’s business reputation. This kind of damage does not arise from infringement by a third party but from the inappropriate words and deeds of the institution’s central figure; the traditional tort regime for the right of reputation can hardly offer direct relief, and one must rely more on the institution’s own reputation management and crisis public relations.

(II) The Commercial-Defamation Type: Competitors Disparaging Business Reputation During the Promotional Window

During the important promotional window for a film or television work, competitors may disparage the reputation of the work by publishing false information or posting malicious reviews, thereby constituting commercial defamation.

Case 1: Company A v. Company B commercial defamation case [Beijing Haidian District People’s Court, (2020) Jing 0108 Min Chu No. 86XX]. The plaintiff, Company A, sued the defendants, Company B and Company C. Company B used its official Weibo account to publish false statements, insinuating that the work “M” produced by the plaintiff had plagiarised the work “N” produced by the defendant, seriously damaging the plaintiff’s business reputation. The court held that the defendant’s conduct constituted commercial defamation. The key point of the adjudication was that false information includes not only untrue facts but also misleading ones; so long as the consequence of damaging a competitor’s commercial reputation or product reputation is caused, commercial defamation is constituted. The court further pointed out that, compared with false advertising, commercial defamation focuses on making false statements about a competitor’s business activities, goods, or services, thereby damaging its commercial reputation. The implication of this case for film and television promotion is that, during the promotion of a work, a competitor who uses public opinion to spread false information and to create negative labels such as “plagiarism” may constitute commercial defamation, and the rights holder should promptly preserve evidence and file suit.

(III) The Free-Riding Type: Capitalising on the Buzz of Film and Television Promotion to Exploit Business Reputation

During the promotion of a film or television work, there is often a high degree of public attention. Some businesses or individuals take the opportunity to use the title of the work, the names of characters, and the like for commercial marketing, free-riding on the business reputation of the work.

Case 2: The “P” beer unfair competition case [second instance, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court]. In early 2023, after the television drama “P” became a runaway hit, the defendants successively registered and established related companies during the period in which “P” was airing, and launched “P” beer. Not only did the packaging use stylised lettering highly similar to the drama’s title, but they also engaged actors from the drama to endorse the beer and heavily borrowed its core characters and classic lines in their marketing. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, on second instance, held that the defendants’ prominent use of elements of the drama in their products and promotion showed a subjective intent to deliberately imitate and mislead the public, constituting unfair competition. The three defendants were ordered to cease the infringement, eliminate the adverse effects, and jointly compensate the rights holder for economic losses and reasonable expenses totalling RMB 5 million. The court pointed out that their core purpose was to free-ride on the competitive interests accumulated by the rights holder through the drama, improperly seizing the commercial value brought by the drama’s reputation and attention, while at the same time undermining the rights holder’s opportunities for derivative commercial cooperation and licensing based on elements of the drama—exceeding the reasonable boundaries of free competition in a market economy.

Case 3: The “Q” themed photography package unfair competition case [Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court]. During the period in which the television drama “Q” was a hit, the defendants, without authorization, used stills, promotional posters, classic lines, and the like for social-media promotion and launched themed photography service packages. The court held that the title of the television drama, “Q,” constituted “the name of a product with a certain degree of influence,” that a stable correspondence existed between the names of the core characters and the television drama, and that these could serve to identify the source of the goods or services. The defendants’ conduct was likely to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that their photography services were officially licensed by the plaintiff, constituting unfair competition. Taking into account factors such as the degree of renown and commercial value of the television drama in question, the court ordered the defendants to compensate for economic losses and reasonable enforcement expenses totalling RMB 300,000.

Case 4: The “R” unfair competition case [Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, (2020) Yue 73 Min Zhong No. 22XX]. The plaintiff, Company S, was the producer of the film “R,” which was released in Hong Kong in 1999 and topped the list of that year’s highest-grossing Hong Kong films. In 2018, the defendants published multiple Weibo posts promoting the allegedly infringing television drama “R 2018.” The court held that the film “R” and its title enjoyed a relatively high degree of renown in mainland China, constituting the name of a product with a certain degree of influence. The defendants’ use of “R” without permission constituted the unfair-competition acts of unauthorised use of the name of a product with a certain degree of influence and of false advertising. This case was selected as a typical case of judicial protection of film intellectual property rights by the Supreme People’s Court. Its exemplary significance lies in applying the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect, in accordance with law, the title of a film released in Hong Kong, and, in light of the characteristics of the dissemination of film works, clarifying the requirements and considerations for determining the title of an audiovisual work “with a certain degree of influence.”

The common pattern running through the above cases is that, during the promotion or popular run of a film or television work, others’ use of the renown of the work for commercial marketing is, in essence, free-riding on and improper exploitation of the work’s business reputation. When handling such cases, lawyers should promptly conduct trademark monitoring and online evidence preservation, and use trademark infringement and unfair competition claims in combination to enforce their clients’ rights.

(IV) The False-Reporting Type: Media Misreporting During the Promotional Period Damaging Business Reputation

During the promotion of a film or television work, media reports have an important influence on public perception. False reporting may seriously damage the business reputation of the film and its producer.

Case 5: The film “T” right-of-reputation case [first instance, Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, (2006) Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 148XX; second instance, Beijing High People’s Court, (2007) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 3XX]. A certain Hong Kong magazine published a false report concerning the film “T,” damaging the reputation of the film’s producer. The court held that the reputation and social evaluation of the soon-to-be-released film “T” directly affected the plaintiff’s reputation and economic interests; the defendants had published a seriously inaccurate news report, which objectively caused a lowering of the reputation of the film “T,” thereby damaging the plaintiff’s reputation. The defendants were ordered to make a public apology to the plaintiff in the Beijing Youth Daily. This case established an important adjudication rule that film and television works enjoy protection of the right of reputation during their promotional period—false reporting not only infringes upon the right of reputation of the producer as a legal person but may also directly affect the commercial returns of the film.

Case 6: The malicious-editing case concerning infringement of an enterprise’s right of reputation [Beijing Internet Court]. A certain media company, through malicious editing of an interview program, distorted the interview content of the legal representative of a certain food enterprise, causing the enterprise to suffer online violence. The Beijing Internet Court held that the two defendants constituted infringement of the right of reputation, ordered a public apology, and awarded compensation for the enterprise’s property losses of RMB 2 million and RMB 300,000 respectively. The court expressly pointed out that where a perpetrator fabricates or distorts interview content by means of malicious editing, adding misleading titles or labels, and the like, thereby infringing upon an enterprise’s right of reputation, it should bear liability for compensation for the infringement. The implication of this case for film and television promotion is that, in the course of promotion, if media interviews with creative personnel are maliciously edited and their original meaning distorted, the producer and the creative personnel may seek relief under the system of infringement of the right of reputation.

IV. Legal Practice: A Full-Chain Strategy for Business Reputation Protection and Crisis Restoration in the Promotion Phase

(I) Pre-Event Prevention: A System for Legal Risk Prevention and Control in the Promotion Phase

The best time to protect business reputation is before the risk materialises. Lawyers should assist film and television enterprises in establishing a systematic mechanism for business reputation protection in the promotion phase.

First, a legal review mechanism for promotional statements. Before important promotional activities (such as premieres, press conferences, and media interviews), lawyers should conduct a legal risk assessment of the key talking points of creative personnel, identifying content that may trigger disputes over the right of reputation, commercial-defamation disputes, or public backlash. The X incident shows that a seemingly harmless “personal-favour remark” may, in the context of public communication, be interpreted as “moral coercion.” Lawyers should remind creative personnel to be mindful of the boundary between public expression and private communication, and to avoid projecting the internal logic of personal favour within a circle onto ordinary consumers.

Second, embedding reputation-protection clauses in contracts. In investment contracts, production contracts, and cast-and-crew contracts for film and television projects, the standards of conduct and business reputation-protection obligations of each party in the promotion phase should be clearly stipulated. Specifically: (1) stipulating the duty of prudence in speech when creative personnel participate in promotional activities; (2) stipulating liability for breach where the business reputation of the film or the producer is damaged by inappropriate personal remarks; and (3) stipulating that promotional partners (such as promotion companies and public-relations companies) shall not engage in conduct that damages the producer’s business reputation.

Third, a public-opinion monitoring and crisis early-warning mechanism. Lawyers should assist enterprises in establishing a public-opinion monitoring system covering the entire promotional cycle, tracking in real time and conducting legal assessment of public-opinion developments concerning the film, the creative personnel, and the producer, so as to identify potential business reputation risks in a timely manner. In particular, during the critical window around the release of the film, a 24-hour public-opinion duty roster should be put in place.

Fourth, intellectual-property and business reputation compliance review of promotional materials. Materials used in the course of promotion—such as posters, trailers, and promotional copy—should undergo compliance review for rights such as copyright, trademark rights, and portrait rights, so as to avoid right-of-reputation or business reputation disputes arising from infringement through the materials. At the same time, the promotional copy should be reviewed for false or exaggerated advertising, so as to avoid legal liability arising from violations of the Advertising Law or the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

(II) In-Event Handling: The Professional Intervention of Lawyers in Crisis Public Relations

When a public-opinion crisis arises in the promotion phase, the timely intervention of lawyers plays an irreplaceable role in containing the damage and protecting business reputation. In crisis public relations, the lawyer’s role is not merely that of a legal adviser but, even more so, a core participant in the enterprise’s crisis-response decision-making.

First, legal characterization at the outset of the crisis. Lawyers should, at the first moment after the crisis arises (usually within the first four hours), conduct a legal characterization of the public-opinion event: is it normal expression of opinion by the public, or does it constitute infringement of the right of reputation, commercial defamation, or unfair competition? This determination directly affects the formulation of all subsequent response strategies. The specific criteria include: (1) whether the remarks in question contain unlawful content such as insult or defamation; (2) whether they involve fabrication or distortion of facts; and (3) whether they have led to an actual lowering of the enterprise’s social evaluation. For remarks that constitute infringement, legal proceedings should be initiated immediately; for public criticism that does not constitute infringement, the client should be advised to respond humbly and candidly.

Second, legal gatekeeping of crisis-response texts. Lawyers should be deeply involved in the drafting of the enterprise’s crisis statements. In the X incident, although the apology statement was sincere, from a legal perspective certain wording may have further intensified public concern about the stability of the affiliated organisation. When assisting clients in drafting crisis-response texts, lawyers should attend to the following points: (1) the accuracy of factual statements—avoiding introducing new points of controversy in the statement; (2) the clear delineation of legal liability—distinguishing clearly between personal responsibility and organisational responsibility; (3) assessment of the legal consequences of wording—avoiding improper expressions that constitute admissions or give rise to new legal risks; and (4) coordination of litigation strategy—ensuring that the content of public statements remains consistent with possible subsequent legal action and does not put the client at a disadvantage in litigation.

Third, immediate preservation and securing of evidence. Online evidence relating to public opinion is highly ephemeral; infringing content may be swiftly deleted after a complaint, and live streams or short videos may be taken down by the publisher at any time. Lawyers should guide enterprises to initiate evidence-preservation procedures at the first moment of the crisis, including: (1) notarised evidence collection of key infringing pages; (2) blockchain preservation through electronic-data preservation platforms; (3) screenshots, screen recordings, and downloads of online dissemination data; and (4) recovery and collection of deleted content through web-page snapshots, caches, and the like. Article 11 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts has expressly recognised the probative effect of electronic-data preservation technologies such as blockchain.

Fourth, cease-and-desist letters and platform complaints. For ongoing infringing conduct, lawyers should immediately take the following measures: (1) send a lawyer’s letter to the infringing party, demanding immediate cessation of the infringement, deletion of the relevant content, and public clarification; and (2) submit infringement-complaint notices to the online platforms, requiring the platforms to promptly take measures such as deletion, blocking, and disconnection of links in accordance with the “notice-and-takedown” rule. Under Article 1195 of the Civil Code, where a network service provider, after receiving a notice, fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner, it shall bear joint and several liability with the network user for the expanded portion of the damage. Lawyers should make full use of this system to cut off the expansion of damage as swiftly as possible.

Fifth, the use of behavioural preservation (provisional injunctions). In urgent circumstances, with respect to infringing remarks that are spreading on a large scale and may cause irreparable harm, lawyers may, on behalf of their clients, apply to the people’s court for behavioural preservation, requiring the infringing party to immediately cease publishing the relevant content and the online platforms to immediately delete the content already published. Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law and the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Review of Behavioral Preservation Cases in Intellectual Property Disputes provide the institutional basis for behavioural preservation. In the film and television industry, business reputation damage during a film’s release period is often irreversible—once the release window has passed, even a favourable judgment can hardly recover the box-office losses. Behavioural preservation therefore has special institutional value in the protection of business reputation in film and television promotion.

Sixth, consideration of the criminal-reporting pathway. For conduct infringing business reputation that is serious in nature and meets the threshold for criminal prosecution, lawyers should assess the possibility of filing a criminal report. Under Article 221 of the Criminal Law, whoever fabricates and spreads false facts, damaging the commercial reputation or product reputation of others, causing major losses to others or involving other serious circumstances, constitutes the crime of damaging commercial reputation and product reputation, and may be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention, and may also, or in the alternative, be fined. Lawyers should accurately assess whether a case meets the standards for criminal filing and, at an appropriate time, assist the client in reporting to the public security organs, using criminal means to swiftly curb the infringing conduct.

(III) Post-Event Restoration: The Recovery and Rebuilding of Business Reputation

After a public-opinion crisis has passed, the restoration of business reputation is a long-term and systematic undertaking. The role of lawyers at this stage is likewise not to be overlooked.

First, the reputation-restoring function of litigation. Obtaining a favourable judgment through litigation is itself a powerful means of business reputation restoration. In the “P” case, the court ordered the defendants to eliminate the adverse effects and to pay compensation of RMB 5 million; this outcome was itself a forceful vindication of the rights holder’s business reputation. In the “R” case, the court held that the defendants constituted unfair competition, thereby clearing the rights holder’s name. Lawyers should fully recognise that litigation is not only a means of obtaining economic compensation but, even more so, a tool for restoring business reputation that “sets the record straight.” In their claims, they should expressly seek non-monetary remedies such as the elimination of adverse effects and a public apology, restoring the enterprise’s reputation through the publicising effect of the judgment.

Second, quantified proof of damages for harm to business reputation. In litigation over infringement of business reputation, proof of the consequences of the damage is both the key to obtaining compensation and a way of demonstrating to the outside world the severity of the harm. Lawyers should combine multiple methods of proof: (1) commissioning a third-party professional institution to assess and survey the damage to business reputation and to issue a quantified report; (2) demonstrating economic losses through before-and-after comparisons of financial data such as box-office revenue, advertising revenue, and brand-cooperation revenue; (3) demonstrating the degree of lowering of social evaluation through public-opinion data analysis; and (4) demonstrating the reasonable market value of the business reputation by reference to licensing fees. In the “R” case, in assessing the renown of the work’s title, the court examined not only box-office revenue but also fully took into account factors such as online play counts, disc sales, and sustained reporting by relevant media.

Third, the design of a post-crisis reputation-restoration plan. Lawyers should assist enterprises in formulating a systematic plan for restoring business reputation, including but not limited to: (1) using legal channels to remove residual infringing information on the internet; (2) making supplementary registrations and confirmations of rights for carriers of business reputation such as trademarks and domain names, to prevent malicious squatting by others; (3) re-examining and improving the enterprise’s internal system for protecting business reputation; and (4) providing legal training on business reputation protection for creative personnel and core employees, to prevent similar incidents from recurring.

Fourth, the institutionalised protection of business reputation assets. The ultimate goal of business reputation restoration is to establish a long-term mechanism. Lawyers should assist enterprises in incorporating the following systems into routine management: (1) a regular business reputation-risk assessment system—conducting a comprehensive assessment of the enterprise’s business reputation status each quarter or half year; (2) an emergency response plan for business reputation crises—pre-formulating differentiated legal response plans for different types and levels of public-opinion crises; and (3) a business reputation insurance system—exploring the possibility of spreading business reputation risk through commercial insurance.

(IV) The Boundaries and Coordination of the Lawyer’s Role in Crisis Public Relations

It must be specially pointed out that, in crisis public relations, lawyers should clearly define the boundaries of their own role. The core value of lawyers lies in legal judgment and legal action, not in pure image management. Specifically:

First, the coordinated division of labour between lawyers and public-relations teams. Lawyers are responsible for the identification, assessment, and control of legal risk, while public-relations teams are responsible for information-dissemination strategy and public-opinion guidance. The two should cooperate closely while each attending to its own duties—lawyers should not overstep into public-relations functions, and public-relations teams should not issue statements that may give rise to legal risk without legal review.

Second, the independence and authority of the lawyer’s opinion. In crisis response, lawyers should maintain the independence of their legal judgment and should not compromise the legal bottom line on account of the client’s emotions or commercial pressures. Accurate legal assessment—pointing out which remarks may be suspected of infringement and which responses may constitute admissions—is the greatest protection a lawyer can offer the client.

Third, the balance between the duty of confidentiality and information disclosure. In crisis public relations, enterprises often face pressure to disclose more information to calm public sentiment. Lawyers should accurately grasp the legal boundaries of information disclosure—which information may be made public, which information involves trade secrets or personal privacy and may not be disclosed, and which information, if disclosed, may affect subsequent litigation—finding a balance between satisfying the public’s right to know and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the enterprise.

V. Conclusion

The X “showing up in person” incident is like a mirror, reflecting the many blind spots and institutional shortcomings in business reputation protection in the promotion phase of the film and television industry. A seemingly careless “personal-favour remark,” under the magnifying glass of the internet, evolved into a compound crisis affecting personal reputation, institutional trust, and film box office. This incident warns us that film and television promotion is not merely a question of marketing—it is, even more so, a legal question of business reputation bearing upon an enterprise’s core competitiveness.

From the perspective of legal practice at the Dacheng Center for Online Reputation Response and Governance, business reputation protection in the film and television promotion phase is a systematic undertaking that runs through the pre-event, in-event, and post-event stages. In the pre-event stage, lawyers are the “architects” of an enterprise’s business reputation, building a firewall of business reputation protection through the design of contract clauses, compliance review, and institutional development. In the in-event stage, lawyers are the “commanders” and “gatekeepers” of crisis public relations, containing the spread of damage through legal characterization, evidence preservation, cease-and-desist letters, and behavioural preservation, while at the same time holding the legal bottom line for crisis-response texts. In the post-event stage, lawyers are the “engineers” of business reputation restoration, helping enterprises recover their reputation and rebuild trust through litigation-based rights protection, claims for damage compensation, and institutional development.

Against the backdrop of an increasingly complex public-opinion ecosystem and a growing public awareness of rights, film and entertainment enterprises and their legal advisers must squarely confront the business reputation risk in the promotion phase and fully recognise the irreplaceable professional value of lawyers in crisis public relations and business reputation restoration. Only by embedding the professional intervention of lawyers into the entire promotional process, and by upgrading business reputation protection from passive “post-event firefighting” to proactive “full-cycle management,” can enterprises safeguard the lifeline of their reputation in fierce market competition and help the film and television industry advance steadily and far along the track of the rule of law.

● References:

[1] Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, Articles 1024 and 1195.

[2] Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, Articles 6 and 11.

[3] Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 221.

[4] Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 100.

[5] Supreme People’s Court, Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Review of Behavioral Preservation Cases in Intellectual Property Disputes (Fa Shi [2018] No. 21).

[6] Supreme People’s Court, Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts, Article 11 (Fa Shi [2018] No. 16).

[7] Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, Civil Judgment (2020) Yue 73 Min Zhong No. 2289.

[8] Beijing Haidian District People’s Court, Civil Judgment (2020) Jing 0108 Min Chu No. 8660.

[9] Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, Civil Judgment (2006) Yi Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 14855; Beijing High People’s Court, Civil Judgment (2007) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 309.

[10] Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, second-instance judgment (the “P” beer unfair competition case).

[11] Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court, first-instance judgment (the “Q” themed photography package unfair competition case).

[12] Beijing Internet Court judgment (the malicious-editing case concerning infringement of an enterprise’s right of reputation).

[13] Typical cases of judicial protection of film intellectual property rights published by the Supreme People’s Court (November 2023).

Special Disclaimer:

Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP (Shanghai) strictly observes its obligation to protect client information; the client-project content involved in this article is drawn entirely from publicly available information or has been obtained with the client’s consent. The content and views of the full text are for reference only, do not represent any position of Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP (Shanghai), and shall not be regarded as the issuance of any form of legal opinion or advice. If you wish to reprint or cite any content of this article, please communicate with us by private message regarding authorization, and indicate the source at the beginning of the article when reprinting. Without authorization, no content of such articles may be reprinted or used.