Urumqi Municipal Bureau of Culture, Radio, Television and Tourism:
I am commissioned by the administrative counterpart in this case, Guo Zhenming, and appointed by Beijing Caixing Law Firm to participate in the administrative penalty hearing of the case of citizen Guo Zhenming’s “unauthorized film production” held by your bureau as Guo Zhenming’s agent.
Based on the comprehensive hearing situation, the agent believes that: the facts of this case are wrongly identified, the law is improperly applied, and it exceeds the administrative authority, violating the principle of territorial jurisdiction of administrative law enforcement. The case should be revoked, Guo Zhenming should not be punished, and the seized property such as cameras, hard drives, lights, filters, and recorders should be returned to him in accordance with the law.
First, the facts are wrongly identified
The video materials involved in this case, Guo Zhenming, out of personal amateur interest, recorded the personal entertainment activities of the bar customer Cai Beiheng in the bar, and Guo Zhenming recorded the performance activities of Mei Li Kai·Yushan Musical Instruments. Neither of these activities falls under the category of “films” regulated and adjusted by the “Film Industry Promotion Law” (hereinafter referred to as the “Film Law”). Guo Zhenming’s behavior also does not fall under the film production and filming behavior regulated and adjusted by the Film Law and the “Film Administration Regulations”. This case is not applicable to the objects and scope of film administrative law enforcement.
The case involving Guo Zhenming’s work “Chaos and Drizzle” completed in the mainland privately participating in overseas film festivals, the facts are wrongly identified, the object of punishment is wrong, and the principle of territorial jurisdiction is violated.
According to Article 2 of the Film Law, the film referred to in this law refers to works that are filmed using audio-visual technology and artistic means, recorded with film or digital carriers, composed of continuous images with or without sound that express certain content, meet the national technical standards, and are used for public screening in fixed screening venues such as cinemas or mobile screening equipment. The electronic video materials filmed by Guo Zhenming in this case do not belong to the films stipulated in the Film Law:
First, Guo Zhenming’s filming materials have not reached the “national technical standards”. As of March 14, 2025, the National Film Standardization Technical Committee’s formulation of national technical standards for films is still in the proposal planning stage, and the film technical standards have not yet been formulated and issued (see Film Standard Committee [2025] No. 4 document).
Secondly, the filming equipment used by Guo Zhenming has not reached the technical standards for the performance and equipment of film production. The cameras, lenses, lights, and recorders involved in the case are all civilian, amateur-used non-professional film equipment. The lenses on the Blackmagicdesign camera used are all ordinary camera lenses from forty years ago, not film lenses. Film lenses and camera lenses have significant differences in mechanical structure, price, and the number of people operating them, and they are two completely different types of industry-specific lenses. Film lenses are the most basic equipment composition and technical specifications in film production.
Third, Guo Zhenming, as an ordinary citizen, does not have the organizational ability, technical ability, economic ability, and professional knowledge and other production conditions for film production. As an independent individual, he cannot simultaneously complete the film production work that requires the collaboration of multiple film technical professions, such as film photographers, film focus pullers, film lighting technicians, and film recording engineers.
Fourth, the video materials involved in the case are not the film works stipulated in the Film Law “for public screening in fixed screening venues such as cinemas or mobile screening equipment”. The screening of film festivals is divided into public screening and non-public screening from the perspective of publicness; from the perspective of screening venues, it is divided into cinema screening and non-cinema screening (including exhibition hall screening, academic screening, etc.). Among them, the market/industry screenings commonly used in film festivals at home and abroad are different from the public screening in cinemas. They are internal screenings and non-cinema screenings, which belong to non-public screenings. The video materials in this case are not used for public screening in cinemas.
Fifth, the materials filmed by Guo Zhenming in this case do not belong to film. Film is a finished product that has completed all post-production and meets the technical conditions for cinema screening. The video filmed by Guo Zhenming belongs to image materials and has not been post-edited, mixed, music, subtitles, etc., and has not been connected into a film, and has not been signed, and does not constitute a film.
Second, the law is improperly applied.
(1) Guo Zhenming has not violated the relevant administrative permit regulations set by the Administrative Licensing Law and the Film Law and Film Administration Regulations.
According to Article 13 of the Film Law, China implements a filming filing system for general film production activities and a filming review system for films on topics such as national security, diplomacy, military affairs, or ethnic and religious issues. In addition, the “Film Administration Regulations” implement administrative licensing systems such as “Film Production License” qualification management and “Film Public Screening License” screening management for production units and films respectively. The general subject matter content of the film production script (outline) involved in this case is implemented with a filing system, not an administrative licensing system.
It should be pointed out that the filing system administrative management is a kind of administrative registration, which presumes that the specific behavior of the actor is legal and does not require prior approval and permission. After the relevant behavior is filed and registered under the filing system management, if it is found that there is evidence to prove that the relevant behavior is illegal, the administrative functional department will take the management system of correcting it afterwards. This is also an important content and direction of our country’s long-term promotion of streamlining administration and delegating power, reducing administrative examination and approval and administrative licensing reform of social governance methods. Administrative licensing is a kind of administrative approval, which implements a prior legality administrative review for the specific behavior of the actor. After the review, the relevant administrative license is obtained, that is, the qualification or right to conduct specific behavior activities is obtained, thus also preliminarily proving the legality of the relevant behavior.
According to Article 13, paragraph 2 of the Film Law, the content of the review of the film script outline filing is the eight situations limited by Article 16 of the Film Law, that is, the film to be filmed shall not have content that endangers national security, territorial sovereignty, ethnic religion, public order and good customs, and the rights and interests of minors, which is the purpose of the Film Law’s implementation of the filing system. In this case, Guo Zhenming’s works, after law enforcement inspection by the Urumqi Radio and Television and Culture and Tourism Bureau, have no prohibited and illegal content related to Article 16 of the Film Law.
In other words, Guo Zhenming’s behavior does not substantially violate the script (outline) filing system stipulated in the Film Law. In this regard, the agent believes that if the Urumqi Radio and Television and Culture and Tourism Bureau still insists on identifying Guo Zhenming’s behavior as film production, then it can also take the form of ordering him to go through the filing procedures in accordance with the law for administrative management, instead of implementing administrative penalties on him because the substantive content of the video subject matter is legal but has not been filed with the film administrative department for procedures and formalities. Otherwise, the administrative penalty behavior will run counter to the legislative purpose of the Film Law and the general public’s expectations, and fundamentally lose the legal and social significance of administrative law enforcement.
Therefore, the administrative law enforcement in this case is improperly applied.
(2) The specific application of “violating the provisions of this law to engage in film production” mentioned in Article 47 of the Film Law is not clear.
The content and principles of the legislative clauses of the Film Law are very broad, and corresponding clauses have been made in terms of the purpose of film creation, creation guidance, intellectual property protection, Sino-foreign cooperation, and the protection of scenic spots and environment, national sovereignty, ethnic unity, religious policy, public order and good customs, and the rights and interests of minors. Whether the “engaging in film production in violation of the provisions of this law” mentioned in Article 47 refers to content violations, poor guidance, or specific illegal situations such as the lack of filing or review procedures is not clear, and the provision does not specifically refer to the so-called “violation of the provisions of this law” by engaging in film production without filing the script outline.
Therefore, the administrative penalty to be implemented by your bureau in this case lacks a clear basis.
(3) The object of the penalty is not qualified.
Guo Zhenming, as an ordinary citizen, does not belong to the administrative law subject regulated and adjusted by Article 13 of the Film Industry Promotion Law. The article stipulates that “legal persons” and “other organizations” that intend to produce films shall report the film script outline to the film authorities for filing or review. Guo Zhenming is not a “legal person” or “other organization” engaged in film production activities, so Guo Zhenming, as an ordinary citizen, his personal self-filming of social life, cultural tourism, and field investigation materials is not among the filing or review subjects required by Article 13 of the Film Law.
In addition, the video work “Chaos and Drizzle” involved in the case was not submitted by Guo Zhenming. Your bureau’s “Administrative Penalty Notice” believes that Guo Zhenming privately participated in the overseas film festival exhibition, which is a factual error. In fact, Guo Zhenming is only the creator of the work “Chaos and Drizzle”, not the person who submitted the film to the film festival, and is not the “exhibition legal person” regulated by Article 21 of the Film Law.
Therefore, your bureau’s punishment of the copyright holder of the work on the grounds of privately participating in overseas film exhibitions is a factual error and a wrong object of punishment.
(4) The basis for the penalty is inappropriate.
Article 57 of the Film Law stipulates that the film authorities shall strictly exercise administrative penalty power in accordance with the types and ranges of penalties stipulated in the Film Law, and combine the nature and circumstances of the specific illegal acts. At the same time, Article 57 also stipulates that the specific penalty measures shall be formulated by the film authorities of the State Council, that is, the State Administration of Radio and Television.
The law enforcement of your bureau in this case refers to the “Administrative Penalty Discretion Application Measures” and “Urumqi Municipal Culture Market Comprehensive Law Enforcement Administrative Penalty Discretionary Standards” of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, not the penalty measures formulated by the film authorities of the State Council. Moreover, the “Urumqi Municipal Culture Market Comprehensive Law Enforcement Administrative Penalty Discretionary Standards” has not been published to the public through government websites, government affairs new media and other channels in accordance with the requirements of the General Office of the State Council’s “Opinions on Further Standardizing the Formulation and Management of Administrative Discretionary Standards” and the “Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Strengthening the Formulation and Supervision and Management of Administrative Normative Documents”.
Therefore, your bureau’s penalty discretionary standards and law enforcement basis violate the provisions of Article 57 of the Film Law and Article 34 of the Administrative Penalty Law, which is obviously inappropriate.
Third, violation of jurisdiction regulations
According to the provisions of Article 22 of the Administrative Penalty Law, administrative penalties shall be under the jurisdiction of the administrative organ of the place where the illegal act occurred. The filming and editing of the work “Chaos and Drizzle” involved in this case were completed in May 2023. The work participated in film festivals in December 2023 (singapore international film festival) and February 2024 (berlin critics’week2024). The filming location was Hunan, and the editing location was Yunnan. As for Guo Zhenming’s filming of Cai Beiheng’s activities in the bar and the filming of Mei Li Kai. Yushan Musical Instruments’ performance activities, they do not belong to the objects regulated and adjusted by the Film Law.
Therefore, the Urumqi Radio and Television and Culture and Tourism Bureau violated the principle of territorial jurisdiction and does not have the jurisdiction to impose administrative penalties in this case.
Fourth, exceeding statutory authority
According to Article 55 of the “Film Administration Regulations”: those who engage in film production or screening activities without authorization shall be taken over by the administrative department for industry and commerce; the illegal operating films and illegal income and the special tools and equipment for illegal operating activities shall be confiscated, and a fine shall be imposed. Therefore, Guo Zhenming, as an independent citizen, is not a professional film production institution that has obtained the qualification to produce films. Even if his behavior violates the regulations and constitutes unauthorized film production activities, it should be taken over and handled by the administrative department for industry and commerce.
That is to say, for the law enforcement subject of a citizen who does not have a “Film Production License” to produce films without authorization is the administrative department for industry and commerce, not the radio and television administrative department. The law enforcement object of the radio and television administrative department is the film activity behavior of units and organizations that have obtained the qualification of “Film Production License”.
Therefore, the administrative law enforcement of your bureau against Guo Zhenming in this case exceeds its statutory authority.
Fifth, the administrative law enforcement of this case against Guo Zhenming violates the people-centered cultural orientation clearly stipulated in the Film Law, and will have a negative impact on enriching citizens’ cultural life and promoting the scenery of the border areas and tourism.
Article 4 of the Film Industry Promotion Law stipulates that the state adheres to the creation orientation centered on the people and respects and guarantees the freedom of creation. The promulgation and implementation of the Film Law, with the aim of enriching people’s spiritual culture, adhering to the double-hundred policy, and encouraging creation, is the legislative purpose. Xinjiang, with its unique natural ecology and beautiful scenery, has long been a destination for tourists at home and abroad. This case is also a typical example and case under the cultural background and electronic information technology conditions of the new era. As an administrative law enforcement agency, it should respond to the new momentum of social development and citizens’ cultural life, encourage the filming and creation of free, open, flexible, and diverse cultural tourism and field investigation works in the border areas, and should not extend and over-expand the administrative management of film activities of film production units and other organizations to the private travel record activities of ordinary citizens. This “one-size-fits-all” law enforcement behavior is not only detrimental to the construction of our country’s film rule of law, but also unfavorable to the creation of the tourism environment in the border areas.
In summary, the facts of this case are wrongly identified, the law is improperly applied, and it violates the jurisdiction regulations and exceeds the authority of punishment. The case should be revoked, no punishment should be imposed, and the seized property should be returned to Guo Zhenming in accordance with the law.
Agent: Li Xiongbing
April 11, 2025
Editor’s Note: This case is the first case of a citizen’s personal filming and creative activities suspected of “unauthorized film production”, and it is a far-reaching public case that will have a profound impact on the legal community, the art community, and the cultural tourism filming activities of citizens. Everyone is welcome to pay attention to the case’s party Guo Zhenming’s WeChat: gzm15973173957, for communication and discussion, and to provide assistance.
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.