Summary of Key Points
The bamboo toy "Bamboo Cicada" became associated with the Huawei launch event due to its spinning sound, leading to humorous videos being created by netizens. Some of these videos were removed after complaints from Huawei's representatives, sparking a debate about the limits of corporate rights protection. The article argues that when large companies exercise their rights, they need to distinguish between different types of infringement (parody does not equal insult). Internal mechanisms often result in a "everyone does their own thing, with the brand bearing the brunt" situation, and there is a need for a system to "brake" such actions. Additionally, the article highlights the unequal relationship between platforms and creators in the social media era. Ultimately, this incident reflects a core principle of corporate governance: the greater the power, the more restraint is required.
Detailed Analysis
1. Rights Protection Is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Approach: What Constitutes Infringement?
Many people believe that something is not infringement if it does not directly name a person, but the law sees it differently. The "methods" mentioned in the Civil Code's provisions on reputation rights include implied references (for example, using the sound of the Bamboo Cicada toy with images from the Huawei launch event is clear enough to identify the target). However, the key lies in the nature of the content:
- If a video fabricates facts (such as claiming there are issues with Huawei products) or insults a company executive's character (such as making malicious portrayals), it constitutes infringement;
- If it is just ordinary parody (such as using the toy's sound to make a joke about the launch event), it does not;
- If even videos of children playing with the Bamboo Cicada toy are removed, the standards are too strict.
It's important to note that the sound of the toy itself is part of its design; it cannot be banned just because the public associates it with a certain executive. Otherwise, every casual comment could lead to a complaint, which would be excessive.
2. The "Organizational Problems" of Large Companies: Everyone Seems Right, but the Brand Suffers
In this case, the internal process might have looked like this:
- Public Relations Department: Recognizes the negative impact of the videos and decides to address them;
- Brand Department: Wants to reduce negative news and supports the complaint;
- Legal Department: Thinks there is a risk of infringement and agrees to file the complaint;
- Third-Party Agency: Fills out multiple complaints to meet its targets.
Each step seems reasonable on its own, but together they result in excessive complaints, giving the public the impression that large companies target even small toys. This contrasts with situations like DingTalk receiving a one-star rating and Tencent joking about being "cheated by ducks," showing that lawful rights protection and tolerance for jokes are not mutually exclusive—a firm stance against genuine infringement while being lenient with minor teasing can make a brand more likable.
3. Power Needs to Be "Braked": Rights Protection Should Not Get Out of Control
Large companies have the resources to file complaints quickly, but they need mechanisms to prevent this from happening:
- What if there are legal issues that could lead to public backlash?
- Who can stop excessive complaints when they turn into accusations of large companies bullying others?
- Will third-party agencies expand the scope of complaints for the sake of performance?
Without such a system, the Legal Department may complete its task, but the brand will suffer the consequences—losing more than it gains.
4. The Unequal Relationship Between Platforms and Creators: It's Easy for Large Companies to Complain, Difficult for Small Creators to Appeal
The costs of making mistakes vary greatly among the three parties:
- If a company files a false complaint, it can simply withdraw it;
- If a platform removes content incorrectly, it can restore it;
- If a creator makes a mistake, they risk losing traffic, orders, and decreasing their account’s visibility, which are hard to recover from.
Moreover, companies can file multiple complaints at once, while creators have to appeal one by one—putting them at a disadvantage. Over time, creators may avoid criticizing large companies, preventing the company from hearing genuine feedback.
5. ESG in the New Era: How Companies Manage Their Rights Protection Is Also a Measure of Good Governance
In the past, ESG evaluations focused on board structures and anti-corruption efforts. Now, it includes how companies use legal and public relations resources. The ability to quickly protect their rights is one aspect, but knowing when to stop is even more important. Responsible rights protection should:
- Clearly state what is being claimed (whether it's about business reputation or personal dignity);
- Only address genuinely problematic content;
- Provide creators with a fair appeal process;
- Correct mistakes promptly.
After all, the most valuable asset for a brand is not being invulnerable to criticism but earning public trust in its ability to use power responsibly.
Final Conclusion
The Bamboo Cicada incident is not just about a toy; it reflects the issue of the boundaries of corporate power. The greater the power, the more careful companies need to be to prevent rights protection from turning into tyranny.