I would like to post a comment, but as I do not have enough "reputation" score to do so, here is my complement to @asdflex's comment.

As you probably know, motion is always defined relative to a reference (the point you define as fix in YOUR convention, plus the 3 orthogonal Cartesian axis in 3D space of YOUR CHOOSING). By definition then, your description of motion would be meaningless if you leave ambiguous your conventions. 

Now, to address your question specifically:

It looks like your video is made with the type of reference called Celestial Reference Frame. There is an internationally agreed one called the ICRF. As an introduction to this concept you can look at this paper: The Next Generation Celestial Reference Frame by M. Johnson et al (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.11145.pdf). Below is an extract  of the intro:
"*It is only by using this inertial reference frame that we are able to disentangle our observations of the motions of celestial objects from our own complex path around our star, and its path through the galaxy, ...*"

Your next drawing seems to designate the Sun as the center of the reference frame. Note that you still have to specify the 3 axis to have a fully-defined reference. And here you have the choice between many possibilities (cf this link https://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/grid/iau/extra/local_copy/SP_coords/heliosys.htm).

Note that people also use ECI (Earth-Centered Inertial) and ECEF (Eart-Centered-Earth-Fixed) references.