On August 20, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Decision on Amending the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright” (Fa Shi [2026] No. 18, hereinafter referred to as the “Decision”). The Decision was adopted at the 1976th meeting of the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on May 25, 2026, and shall enter into force as of September 1, 2026.

In order to ensure the proper application of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, as amended in 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Law), to fully leverage the intellectual property adjudicatory functions of the people’s courts, to strengthen the protection of copyright and related rights, and to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of rights and the public interest, the Supreme People’s Court, after conducting in-depth research, extensively soliciting opinions, and undertaking repeated deliberations, has revised the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Copyright (Fa Shi [2002] No. 31, as amended in 2020; hereinafter referred to as the original judicial interpretation).

The Decision takes Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as its guiding principle, thoroughly studies and implements Xi Jinping’s Thought on the Rule of Law, and comprehensively carries out the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the resolutions of all plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee. It upholds the strict protection of intellectual property rights, adheres to statutory interpretation and a problem‑oriented approach, and, in response to key and difficult issues in copyright judicial practice—such as the determination of when a work is “published,” the boundaries of fair use, and the scope of statutory licenses for newspaper and periodical reprints—further refines and improves the standards for applying the law, ensures uniformity in adjudication, enhances the operability of judicial interpretations, provides clear litigation guidance to the parties involved, and offers the market predictable expectations for conduct, thereby ensuring the proper implementation of the Copyright Law.

First, further clarify the criteria for determining “making public.” The restriction in Article 9 of the original judicial interpretation—“by the copyright holder itself or with the copyright holder’s authorization”—has been deleted, and the phrase “made public” has been clarified to mean making the work accessible to an indefinite audience, without requiring that the public actually become aware of it as a constituent element. The primary rationale is that both the academic community and judicial practice currently recognize that a work may be deemed “made public” even when it is disclosed due to another party’s infringing conduct.

Second, further refine the rules governing the application of fair use. The phrase “artistic works in outdoor public places,” as stipulated in Article 18 of the original judicial interpretation, has been revised to “artistic works in public places,” thereby aligning with the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 10 of the Copyright Law as amended in 2020. At the same time, a proviso has been added to clarify that those who copy, paint, photograph, or videotape artistic works in public places may, in accordance with the law, reuse their resulting works in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable scope; however, they may not, without the copyright holder’s permission, display, exhibit, or publicly disseminate such works in the same manner. The primary rationale for these amendments is that Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Law has removed the qualifier “outdoor” from the term “public place,” thereby expanding the scope of public places to include public and commercial art museums, exhibition halls, and similar venues. Consequently, it has become necessary to impose limits on “reasonable methods and scopes of use” so as to safeguard legitimate uses while also preventing any undue discouragement of copyright holders’ enthusiasm for exhibiting their works.

Third, further clarify the scope of application of the statutory license for newspaper and periodical reprints. The scope of “newspapers and periodicals” in Article 17 of the original judicial interpretation has been clarified to include “paper-based newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authorities, as well as their digital versions that are consistent with their content and page layout,” thereby accommodating the needs of developments in network and digital technologies. At the same time, a new paragraph has been added to specify that mutual reprints between newspapers and periodicals and internet information service providers, as well as mutual reprints among internet information service providers of works already published, are not subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph; such reprints must obtain permission from the copyright holder and remuneration must be paid. The primary rationale behind these amendments is that, at present, the newspaper and periodical industry has expanded its business model from traditional print media to online and digital formats. Transmitting newspaper and periodical pages in their original format via information networks may be regarded as a reasonable extension of the traditional paper‑based reprinting method, allowing alleged infringers to invoke the statutory license under Article 35, Paragraph 2 of the Copyright Law as a defense. Except for the aforementioned circumstances, any other form of transmitting newspaper or periodical content over information networks is not covered by the statutory license for newspaper and periodical reprints.

In addition, in accordance with the Civil Code, the Copyright Law as amended in 2020, and the relevant judicial interpretations, adaptive revisions have been made to certain provisions, including their wording and numbering.

People’s courts at all levels must thoroughly implement the CPC Central Committee’s decisions and arrangements on strengthening intellectual property protection, adjudicate civil copyright disputes strictly in accordance with the law, and regulate copyright infringement in compliance with the law. They should strive to foster and uphold a rule-of-law environment that incentivizes innovation and promotes the thriving development of socialist culture and science, thereby contributing to high-quality economic and social development.

The “Decision of the Supreme People’s Court on Amending the ‘Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright’” was adopted at the 1976th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on May 25, 2026, and is hereby promulgated, entering into force as of September 1, 2026.

Supreme People's Court

August 19, 2026

Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court No. 18 of 2026

Supreme People's Court

Decision on Amending the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Copyright

(Adopted at the 1976th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on May 25, 2026, and effective as of September 1, 2026)

In accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other relevant laws, and in light of judicial practice in copyright cases, the following amendments are hereby made to the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Copyright:

I. Amend Article 1, Paragraph 1 to read: “Cases involving the ownership of copyright and related rights, infringement, and contractual disputes; among these, infringement disputes include cases concerning the confirmation of non-infringement of copyright and related rights.”

Amend the second item to read: “Cases involving applications for pre-litigation injunctions to stop infringement of copyright and related rights, as well as cases involving applications for pre-litigation property preservation and pre-litigation evidence preservation;”

Add the following as the third item: “Damage liability disputes arising from applications for pre-litigation or in‑process injunctions to cease infringement of copyright and related rights.”

Amend the third item to read: “(4) Other cases involving disputes over copyright and related rights.”

II. Article 2, paragraph 2 of Article 7, and Article 19 are hereby repealed.

III. Article 3 shall be renumbered as Article 2, and the phrase “the administrative department for copyright” therein shall be amended to “the competent authority for copyright.”

IV. Article 7 shall be renumbered as Article 6, and the words “certification” in paragraph 1 shall be supplemented with “or appraisal.”

V. Article 9 shall be renumbered as Article 8; the phrase “by the copyright holder himself/herself or with the copyright holder’s authorization” shall be deleted; and “Article 10, paragraph (1)” shall be amended to “Article 10, paragraph 1, item 1.”

VI. Article 16 shall be renumbered as Article 14, and the following provision shall be deleted: “Purely factual news disseminated through mass media constitutes current affairs news as defined in Article 5, Paragraph (2) of the Copyright Law.” The term “current affairs news” shall be replaced with “purely factual news.”

VII. After Article 17, “newspapers and periodicals,” add the following: “paper newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authorities, as well as their digital versions that are consistent with their content and page layout.”

Add a new paragraph as paragraph 2: “The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to the mutual reproduction of works among newspapers, periodicals, and Internet information service providers, or between Internet information service providers; such reproduction shall be subject to the permission of the copyright holder and the payment of remuneration.”

VIII. Article 18 shall be renumbered as Article 16; the word “outdoor” in paragraph 1 shall be deleted; and “Item (10) of Article 22” shall be replaced with “Item 10 of paragraph 1 of Article 24.”

Amend paragraph 2 to read: “Persons who make copies, drawings, photographs, or video recordings of the artistic works specified in the preceding paragraph may, in accordance with the law, reuse such works in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable scope; however, they may not, without the copyright holder’s permission, display, exhibit, or publicly communicate such works in the same manner.”

9. Article 20 shall be renumbered as Article 18, and in paragraphs 1 and 2, the phrase “bear liability for damages” shall be amended to “bear civil liability.”

X. Article 21 shall be renumbered as Article 19; “Item (1) of Article 48” shall be amended to read “Item 1 of Article 53”; and “Item (1) of Article 24” shall be amended to read “Paragraph 1, Item 1 of Article 24.”

XI. Article 25 shall be renumbered as Article 23; the phrase “cannot be determined” in paragraph 1 shall be deleted; and after “the infringer’s illegal gains” in paragraph 1, the words “where reasonable royalty fees are difficult to calculate” shall be added.

Delete the phrase “reasonable royalty” in paragraph 2, and add “the degree of fault of the alleged infringer” after “type of work”; amend “nature and consequences of the infringing act” to “nature and consequences of the infringing act.”

XII. Article 26 shall be renumbered as Article 24, and the words “investigation, evidence collection” in paragraph 1 shall be supplemented with “and other related activities.”

Thirteen: Article 27 shall be renumbered as Article 25, and the term “statute of limitations” therein shall be amended to “period of the statute of limitations.”

XIV. Article 29 shall be renumbered as Article 27; the order of the provisions shall be adjusted; the phrase “except as otherwise provided in this Interpretation” shall be deleted; and the term “civil act” therein shall be amended to “legal fact.”

After the provisions “For legal facts occurring prior to the amendment of the Copyright Law, the provisions of the Copyright Law in force before the amendment shall apply” and “For legal facts that arose before the amendment of the Copyright Law and continued after the amendment, the provisions of the Copyright Law as amended shall apply,” add the following: “Unless otherwise provided by law or judicial interpretation.”

15. The numbering of the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law shall be adjusted accordingly in light of the amended Copyright Law.

XVI. The order of the provisions shall be adjusted accordingly.

This Decision shall enter into force on September 1, 2026.

In accordance with this Decision, the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Copyright” shall be revised accordingly and republished.

Supreme People's Court

On the Application of Law in Adjudicating Civil Disputes Involving Copyright

Interpretation of Certain Issues

(Adopted at the 1246th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on October 12, 2002; first amended pursuant to the “Decision of the Supreme People’s Court on Amending Eighteen Judicial Interpretations on Intellectual Property, Including the ‘Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (II)’,” adopted at the 1823rd Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on December 23, 2020; second amended pursuant to the “Decision of the Supreme People’s Court on Amending the ‘Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright,’” adopted at the 1976th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on May 25, 2026; this amendment shall take effect as of September 1, 2026.)

In order to properly adjudicate civil disputes involving copyright, and in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other relevant laws, the following interpretations are hereby issued on certain issues concerning the application of law:

Article 1 The People’s Courts shall accept the following civil disputes concerning copyright:

(1) Cases involving ownership of copyright and related rights, infringement, and contractual disputes; among these, infringement disputes include cases concerning the confirmation of non-infringement of copyright and related rights.

(2) Cases involving applications for pre-litigation injunctions to cease infringement of copyright and related rights, as well as cases involving applications for pre-litigation property preservation and pre-litigation evidence preservation;

(3) Disputes over liability for damages arising from applications to order the cessation, prior to or during litigation, of acts infringing copyright and related rights;

(4) Other cases involving disputes over copyright and related rights.

Article 2: Where a party brings a civil action before the People’s Court to hold liable for an act of copyright infringement that has been investigated and dealt with by the competent copyright authority, the People’s Court shall accept the case.

When hearing civil disputes involving copyright infringement that have already been handled by the competent copyright authority, the people’s courts shall conduct a comprehensive review of the facts of the case.

Article 3. Civil actions brought for infringement of copyright shall be under the jurisdiction of the people’s court at the place where the infringing act was committed, the place where the infringing copies are stored or seized and impounded, or the defendant’s domicile, as prescribed in Articles 52 and 53 of the Copyright Law.

The place of storage of infringing copies referred to in the preceding paragraph means the location where such copies are stored in large quantities or on a regular basis, or where they are concealed; the place of seizure and detention means the location where customs authorities, copyright administrative agencies, or other competent administrative organs have lawfully seized or detained infringing copies.

Article 4. In a joint action brought against multiple defendants whose acts of infringement occurred in different jurisdictions, the plaintiff may elect to file the suit with the people’s court at the place where any one of the defendants committed the infringing act; if the suit is brought solely against a particular defendant, the people’s court at the place where that defendant committed the infringing act shall have jurisdiction.

Article 5: A copyright collective management organization duly established in accordance with the law, upon receiving written authorization from the copyright holder, may bring an action in its own name, and the people’s court shall accept such case.

Article 6: Drafts, originals, legally published works, copyright registration certificates, certificates issued by certification or appraisal institutions, contracts evidencing the acquisition of rights, and other materials submitted by the parties relating to copyright may be admitted as evidence.

Article 7: Physical items, invoices, and other evidence obtained by the parties themselves or through an agent via methods such as pre-ordering or on-site transactions may be admissible as evidence.

A notarial certificate issued by a notary, without disclosing his or her identity to the party alleged to have committed the infringement, and which accurately records the evidence obtained and the evidentiary procedures followed in accordance with the preceding paragraph as presented by the other party, shall be admissible as evidence, unless contrary evidence is adduced.

Article 8. The “making available to the public” referred to in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Copyright Law means disclosing a work to an indefinite group of persons, without requiring that the public be aware of such disclosure as a constituent element.

Article 9. With respect to works referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Copyright Law, where the copyright holder is a natural person, the term of protection shall be governed by the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Copyright Law; where the copyright holder is a legal entity or an unincorporated organization, the term of protection shall be governed by the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Copyright Law.

Article 10. Disputes arising over the order of authorship shall be resolved by the people’s courts in accordance with the following principles: where an agreement exists, the order of authorship shall be determined as agreed; in the absence of such an agreement, the order may be determined based on the extent of each author’s contribution to the work, the sequence in which the works are listed, or the number of strokes in the authors’ surnames, among other relevant factors.

Article 11. Except in the circumstances specified in Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Copyright Law, where a report, speech, or other work is written by another person but reviewed and finalized by the author and published under the author’s name, the copyright shall vest in the author of the report or speech. The copyright holder may pay the writer appropriate remuneration.

Article 12. Where the parties have agreed to produce an autobiographical work based on the life experiences of a specific individual, and they have made arrangements regarding the ownership of copyright, such arrangements shall prevail. In the absence of any such agreement, the copyright shall vest in that specific individual. If the author or compiler has contributed labor to the completion of the work, the copyright holder may pay them appropriate remuneration.

Article 13: Where works on the same subject matter are created by different authors, and the expression of each work is independently conceived and possesses originality, each author shall be recognized as enjoying independent copyright in that work.

Article 14: When disseminating and reporting purely factual news items gathered by others, the source shall be clearly indicated.

Article 15. Where, pursuant to Article 19 of the Copyright Law, the copyright in a commissioned work vests in the commissioning party, the commissioning party shall enjoy the right to use the work within the scope of the agreed‑upon usage; if the parties have not specified such scope, the commissioning party may use the work free of charge within the specific purpose for which it was commissioned.

Article 16. The artistic works in public places referred to in Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 10 of the Copyright Law shall mean sculptures, paintings, calligraphy, and other artistic works that are installed or displayed in venues open to the public.

Individuals who make copies, drawings, photographs, or video recordings of the artistic works referred to in the preceding paragraph may, in accordance with the law, reuse such reproductions in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable scope; however, they may not, without the copyright holder’s permission, display, exhibit, or publicly communicate such reproductions in the same manner.

Article 17. The “reprinting” referred to in Paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the Copyright Law means the act of publishing, in paper newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authorities, as well as in digital versions that are consistent with their content and layout, works already published in other newspapers and periodicals. Where reprints fail to indicate the author of the work being reprinted or the source—namely, the original newspaper or periodical—in which the work first appeared, the reproducer shall bear civil liabilities, including eliminating the adverse effects and offering an apology.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to the mutual reproduction of works among newspapers, periodicals, and Internet information service providers, or to the mutual reproduction of published works among Internet information service providers; such reproduction shall be subject to the permission of the copyright holder and the payment of remuneration.

Article 18: Where a publication infringes upon another person’s copyright, the publisher shall bear civil liability in accordance with its degree of fault, the extent of the infringement, and the resulting damages.

If a publisher fails to exercise due diligence with respect to authorizing its publishing activities, the source and attribution of manuscripts, and the content of the works it edits and publishes, it shall bear civil liability in accordance with Article 52 of the Copyright Law.

The publisher shall bear the burden of proof for having exercised due diligence.

Article 19: Where a computer software user engages in commercial use of computer software without authorization or beyond the scope of such authorization, the user shall bear civil liability in accordance with Article 53, Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Law and Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Regulations on the Protection of Computer Software.

Article 20: Where a copyright transfer contract is not concluded in writing, the people’s court shall, in accordance with Article 490 of the Civil Code, examine whether the contract has been validly formed.

Article 21: If a publisher loses or damages a work entrusted for publication by the copyright holder, thereby rendering the publishing contract impossible to perform, the copyright holder shall be entitled, in accordance with Articles 186, 238, and 1184 of the Civil Code, to require the publisher to bear the corresponding civil liability.

Article 22. The actual losses of the rights holder may be calculated by multiplying the reduction in the number of copies distributed due to the infringement, or the sales volume of the infringing copies, by the unit profit that the rights holder would have realized from distributing such copies.

Where the amount of the infringement is difficult to determine, it shall be ascertained based on the market sales volume of the infringing copies.

Article 23 Where the actual losses of the rights holder, the illegal gains of the infringer, or the reasonable royalty for the use of the right are difficult to calculate, the people’s court shall, upon the request of the parties or on its own initiative, determine the amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions of Article 54, paragraph 2, of the Copyright Law.

When determining the amount of compensation, the people’s court shall take into account, in a comprehensive manner, such factors as the type of work, the degree of fault on the part of the defendant, and the nature and consequences of the infringing act.

If the parties have reached an agreement on the amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, such agreement shall be approved.

Article 24: The reasonable expenses incurred in stopping infringing acts as stipulated in Paragraph 3 of Article 54 of the Copyright Law include the reasonable costs borne by the rights holder or their authorized agent for investigating and gathering evidence of such infringements.

The people’s court, in accordance with the parties’ claims and the specific circumstances of the case, may include attorney’s fees that comply with the relevant regulations of the competent state authorities within the scope of compensation.

Article 25: The statute of limitations for actions alleging infringement of copyright shall be three years, commencing from the date on which the copyright holder knew or ought to have known that his or her rights had been infringed and the identity of the infringer. If the copyright holder brings suit after the expiration of such three-year period, and the infringing act is still ongoing at the time of filing, the people’s court shall, within the term of protection of the copyright, order the defendant to cease the infringing act; the amount of damages shall be calculated by retroactively applying a three-year limitation period from the date the copyright holder filed the lawsuit with the people’s court.

Article 26: Where the people’s courts take measures for property preservation, such measures shall be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Reviewing Cases of Behavioral Preservation in Intellectual Property Disputes.

Article 27. With respect to civil copyright disputes accepted by the people’s courts, where the legal facts occurred after the amendment of the Copyright Law, the provisions of the amended Copyright Law shall apply; where the legal facts occurred prior to the amendment of the Copyright Law, the provisions of the pre-amendment Copyright Law shall apply, unless otherwise provided by law or judicial interpretations; and where the legal facts arose before the amendment of the Copyright Law but continued into the period following the amendment, the provisions of the amended Copyright Law shall apply, unless otherwise provided by law or judicial interpretations.

Article 28: In the event of any inconsistency between this Interpretation and any prior relevant provisions, this Interpretation shall prevail.

( Source: News Bureau of the Supreme People’s Court)

Follow us