1. Is it infringement to quote Internet images as courseware?

Using other people’s works for teaching purposes falls within the scope of fair use and does not constitute infringement.

2. Related knowledge: Characteristics of online infringement

1. The implementation of online infringement is simple and easy. Since the Internet is an open and huge virtual space, in most cases engaging in any activities in cyberspace does not need to be associated with the real identity in reality, and the perpetrator does not need to have advanced computer theoretical knowledge and operational skills. Infringement and fraud can often be carried out at any time and anywhere.

2. The consequences of online infringement are immediate. This is obviously different from infringement in the traditional sense. For example, traditional optical disc piracy must first be printed, then distributed through multiple channels, and finally reaches the hands of consumers before the results appear. Although this kind of piracy constitutes infringement from the beginning, there is a relatively long delay in the occurrence of the results. Internet infringement does not require such a traditional carrier. It only needs to be uploaded with the help of invisible high-speed networks. Netizens all over the world can access websites containing infringing content. Other networks can also easily set up web pages with infringing content. Link. Moreover, the interactivity of the Internet allows others to not only passively read or use the infringing subject matter, but also to delete, add, and modify it at will, and spread it widely through various link methods, resulting in the rapid expansion of infringing content. We have witnessed the widespread consequences of online infringement, while rights holders are helpless.

3. There are many parties responsible for online infringements, and it is difficult to determine the plaintiff and defendant in each case. The parties responsible for online infringement mainly include the initiators, disseminators, network service providers and search engines. The first two categories are network users, and the last two categories belong to network service providers. As the saying goes, "To catch the thief first, catch the king." However, it is often difficult to determine the initiator of online infringement liability in time. Although there are many communicators, as the saying goes, "the law does not blame everyone", or the lack of compensation ability and other problems make a large number of communicators be exempted from corresponding legal liability. In the online world, it is often difficult for rights holders to prove their identity as qualified plaintiffs, and it is also difficult for people to effectively identify online infringers. If a plaintiff alone sues a certain infringer, it often happens that the perpetrators pass the blame to each other and the facts are difficult to ascertain. Therefore, plaintiffs often list possible infringers as defendants in order to reduce the risk of litigation, without considering whether all defendants should bear liability. This undoubtedly increases the difficulty of the trial and will inevitably lead to complaints from innocent defendants.

4. It is difficult to obtain evidence in online infringement cases. Traditional infringement methods are easy to detect and therefore easy to identify. The mobility and interactivity of the Internet determine that compared with traditional infringements, online infringements have a wider scope and are difficult to obtain evidence. There is no continuity in the digital information existing on the network. Modifications and deletions made to it are difficult to discover and identify. It is unstable and volatile, making the evidence on the network lose its originality. Therefore, the evidentiary ability of the information on the network is doubtful. . In addition, Article 63 of my country's current "Civil Procedure Law" clearly stipulates seven types of evidence: documentary evidence, physical evidence, audio-visual materials, witness testimony, statements of the parties, appraisal conclusions and investigation records. According to the principle of evidence legalism, if the evidence submitted by the party If it is not within the scope of the legal type, it will be difficult to produce evidentiary effect. Therefore, evidence resources in the computer field, which play an important supporting role in the identification of Internet infringements, may not be able to release their due effectiveness because they cannot be classified as legal evidence forms and their legal status is unclear.

5. It is difficult to determine the jurisdiction of online infringement cases. The jurisdiction over general torts mainly applies to the law of the location of the defendant or the law of the place where the tort was committed. However, the Internet connects computers and their networks around the world to form a unique cyberspace. The same infringement is often associated with several locations, and physical location has little significance in cyberspace. This makes the basis of traditional jurisdiction There is a shakeup in cyberspace. Therefore, in the face of complicated network cases, people have to find new jurisdictional basis.