Does Similarity Between Short-Form Video Scripts and Social Media Copy Constitute Plagiarism? Assessing Copyright Infringement Through "Access" and "Substantial Similarity"

In an era in which content circulates rapidly across social media platforms, short-form videos, podcasts, course presentations, and brand marketing materials, creators and businesses increasingly encounter questions such as, "Was this copy taken from mine?", "Was this video script adapted from mine?", and "If the other party merely changed a few words, does that constitute infringement?"

For example, Company A produces a short-form video entitled "How to Determine in Three Minutes Whether a Product Is Infringing." The content includes an opening line, a three-part explanation, case arrangements, and a closing reminder. Several weeks later, Company B also publishes a short-form video on the same topic, with a title, paragraph sequence, certain lines, and visual pacing similar to the work of Company A. Whether this constitutes copyright infringement cannot be concluded merely because the works "look similar"; the assessment must instead follow the standards established under copyright law and judicial practice.

Core Issue: The Copyright Act Does Not Directly Use the Term "Plagiarism"

People commonly use "plagiarism" to describe another person imitating their work, but under copyright law, it is generally necessary to determine further whether the conduct infringes the right of reproduction or the right of adaptation.

If the later work uses the text, images, script, or presentation content of the earlier work almost unchanged, it may involve reproduction. If the later work is rewritten, reorganized, adapted, or converted into another format based on the original work, with new expression added, it may involve adaptation. Although both may be called "plagiarism" in everyday language, their legal effects and methods of assessment are not entirely the same.

Assessment One: Whether There Was "Access" to the Original Work

When alleging that another person has plagiarized a work, the first important question is whether that person had access to the original work.

Access does not necessarily require proof that the other party personally admitted having seen the original work. The possibility of access may also be inferred from objective circumstances such as the time when the work was made public, view counts, distribution channels, collaboration relationships, social media interactions, prior receipt of a proposal presentation, participation in the same project, or prior downloading of files.

For example, if the short-form video of Company A was publicly posted on a social media platform and received a large number of views, shares, and comments, and personnel at Company B had followed the account of Company A and published their video clearly after the video of Company A, these circumstances may all serve as reference factors in assessing the "possibility of access."

Assessment Two: Whether the Works Are "Substantially Similar"

Even if it can be proved that the other party had access to the original work, this does not necessarily mean that copyright infringement occurred. The second key issue is whether the two works are substantially similar in their specific expression protected by copyright.

For example, both short-form videos may discuss "conducting a search before filing a trademark application." This is merely the same subject or concept and, in principle, is not at the core of copyright protection. However, if the later work closely follows the opening sentence, paragraph arrangement, three examples, key transitions, closing reminder, and even the method of displaying subtitles, the similarity may extend beyond the concept to the specific expression.

The assessment of substantial similarity cannot be limited to comparing isolated words or phrases. It should also consider whether the overall structure, mode of expression, selection and arrangement of materials, editorial choices, character settings, pacing of dialogue, visual presentation, or textual layout are highly similar.

The Same Subject Does Not Constitute Copyright Infringement

Copyright law protects specific expression, not mere ideas, concepts, procedures, methods, principles, or facts. Accordingly, even if a business or creator is inspired after viewing another work, it may still create a new work using the same subject, concept, or issue, provided that it does not appropriate the specific expression of another person.

For example, "Five Trademark Mistakes Commonly Made by Entrepreneurs," "Patent Risks to Consider Before Product Launch," and "Three-Part Structure for Short-Form Video Scripts" all primarily concern subjects, concepts, or methods. Different creators may use these topics, provided that each completes the work using original wording, examples, structure, and visuals. In principle, the mere use of the same subject does not constitute copyright infringement.

Parallel Creation May Also Be Protected

Copyright law recognizes parallel creation. That is, if different creators do not copy one another but independently happen to create similar works because they use the same source materials, public information, or popular subjects, each may still enjoy copyright.

In short-form videos and social media copy, much content is influenced by platform formats, trending topics, formulaic openings, common marketing phrases, or customary industry expressions. A certain degree of similarity is therefore not uncommon. The key issue is whether the later work appropriates the creative, specific expression of the earlier work.

Common Business Risks: Excessive Referencing and Poor Internal Management of Source Materials

For businesses, copyright disputes often arise not from exact copying but from "excessive referencing." Examples include a marketing team instructing a designer to "make a version in this style," an external vendor delivering a presentation highly similar to that of a competitor, a social media editor rewriting and publishing another person's post, or a sales presentation directly using another person's charts and structure.

If a business has not established processes for managing sources of materials, authorization records, outsourcing agreements, and content review, it may be difficult to prove independent creation once a dispute arises, and difficult to determine whether responsibility lies with internal personnel, an external designer, a marketing agency, or a content supplier.

Recommendations for Intellectual Property Strategy

Businesses, brand operators, content creators, and marketing teams should establish basic copyright risk-control procedures when producing short-form videos, social media posts, course materials, presentations, advertising copy, or graphic and textual materials.

• Retain records of the creative process: Preserve drafts, script versions, design drafts, revision records, meeting minutes, and creation dates as important evidence of independent creation in the event of a future dispute.
• Avoid directly copying the structure of another work: When referencing competitors or popular content, redesign the paragraph arrangements, examples, wording, and visual presentation of the new work.
• Distinguish ideas from expression: Topics, methods, or trends may be referenced, but the specific text, dialogue, images, storyboards, or arrangement of another person should not be used directly.
• Outsourcing agreements should specify ownership of rights: If content is produced by a marketing agency, designer, photographer, or editor, the agreement should clearly specify the sources of materials, responsibility for obtaining authorization, ownership of economic rights, and warranties against infringement.
• Establish a list of licensed materials: The scope of authorization for images, music, fonts, video clips, charts, and templates should be confirmed to avoid being unable to explain their sources at a later date.

Case Conclusion

Whether a short-form video script, social media copy, or brand content constitutes plagiarism cannot be determined merely by whether the subject is the same or whether the same concept is used. The central inquiry is whether the author of the later work had access to the original work and whether the two works are substantially similar in their protected specific expression.

If only the same subject, public facts, industry knowledge, or abstract concepts are used, copyright infringement generally does not directly arise. However, if the specific wording, dialogue, paragraph arrangements, visual design, or creative expression is highly similar, the conduct may infringe the right of reproduction or the right of adaptation.

For businesses, the best approach is not to avoid all reference to the market, but to establish clear creative processes, authorization records, and review mechanisms so that content marketing and brand management can remain efficient while reducing the risk of copyright disputes.

Source: Taiwan Intellectual Property Office｜Copyright Basics: Under What Circumstances Does "Plagiarism" Occur?
Laws & Regulations Database of the Republic of China (Taiwan)｜Copyright Act