October 2026
An Analysis of the 2026 Amendments to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Copyright Disputes (Mainland China)
On August 20, 2026, the Supreme People's Court issued 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 Copyright Disputes (Judicial Interpretation [2026] No. 18, hereinafter referred to as the “Decision”), which came into effect on September 1, 2026. The amendments address several prominent issues arising in judicial practice in recent years and further clarify the rules concerning the acceptance of cases, “making available to the public,” fair use, online re-posting, and damages compensation.
I. Expanding the Scope of Judicial Remedies for Copyright Disputes
The Decision expressly provides that civil copyright disputes accepted by the people's courts include disputes concerning the confirmation of non-infringement of copyright and copyright-related rights and interests, as well as disputes over liability for damages arising from applications for pre-litigation or interim measures to stop infringing acts.
This amendment means that judicial remedies for copyright disputes are no longer limited to the traditional scenario in which a right holder brings an infringement action against an alleged infringer. In practice, where an enterprise receives a lawyer's letter, a platform complaint, or an infringement warning but believes that it has not infringed any copyright, it may proactively seek judicial relief by bringing an action for confirmation of non-infringement of copyright. Meanwhile, where a right holder wrongfully applies for a preservation measure and causes losses to the respondent, the amended rules further clarify the corresponding avenue for civil liability and relief.
Accordingly, when handling copyright disputes, lawyers should select an appropriate cause of action and litigation strategy based on the client's actual legal needs, rather than focusing exclusively on traditional copyright infringement proceedings.
II. Further Clarification of Fair Use: Photographing Works in Public Places Does Not Mean They May Be Freely Used for Commercial Purposes
The Decision replaces the term “artistic works located outdoors in public places” in the previous judicial interpretation with “artistic works in public places” and further provides that artistic works located in public places may be reused by means such as imitation, painting, photography, or video recording, within a reasonable manner and scope as permitted by law. However, without the permission of the copyright owner, such works may not be set up, displayed, or publicly disseminated in the same manner. This provision is particularly relevant to commercial entities.
Accordingly, in practice, a distinction should be made between being permitted to access and photograph a work and being permitted to commercially exploit the resulting photographs or recordings. An enterprise should not assume that a work may be freely used merely because it is located in a public place.
III. “Made Public Online” Does Not Mean “Freely Reproducible”
The amendments further clarify that the statutory licensing rules under the Copyright Law concerning the reprinting of works by newspapers and periodicals do not apply to mutual reprinting between newspapers or periodicals and Internet information service providers, or to mutual reprinting among Internet information service providers of works that have already been published.
This rule has a direct impact on content operators such as WeChat official accounts, corporate websites, and news and information platforms. A common misconception in practice is that “an article has already been made publicly available online, so it may be freely reprinted.” This understanding is inaccurate.
Making a work publicly available online merely means that the public may access it; it does not mean that the copyright owner has waived or abandoned its copyright. For Internet information service providers, reprinting articles from other websites, WeChat official accounts, or online platforms should, in principle, still be based on appropriate authorization, unless another legal basis, such as fair use, applies.
Therefore, before reprinting online articles, images, videos, or other content, enterprises should review the source of the relevant rights, the scope of authorization, and the intended manner of use, and should retain relevant authorization documents and records.
IV. Greater Emphasis on the Degree of Fault in Determining Copyright Damages
Where the actual losses suffered by the copyright owner, the illegal gains of the infringer, and the reasonable licensing fees are difficult to determine, the people's court may, in accordance with the law, apply the statutory damages regime to determine the amount of compensation, taking into account factors such as the type of work, the degree of fault of the alleged infringer, and the nature and consequences of the infringement.
This demonstrates that copyright damages are not determined simply by mechanically calculating the number of infringements. The infringer's subjective state and the consequences of the infringement may also be significant factors.
For copyright owners, efforts should be made to provide evidence demonstrating the scale and duration of the infringement, the scope of dissemination, and any commercial gains derived from the infringement. For defendants accused of infringement, it is advisable to actively provide evidence demonstrating the absence of obvious fault, such as a reasonable basis for authorization, fulfillment of necessary copyright review obligations, and prompt deletion or cessation of dissemination after receiving an infringement notice.
Conclusion
These amendments to the judicial interpretation on copyright disputes reflect a broader trend toward more refined judicial protection of copyright. The amendments are not aimed merely at strengthening the protection afforded to copyright owners. Rather, in the context of digital dissemination, they further clarify what constitutes making a work public, what constitutes fair use, when reprinting is legally permissible, and how liability for infringement should be determined and borne.
I. Expanding the Scope of Judicial Remedies for Copyright Disputes
The Decision expressly provides that civil copyright disputes accepted by the people's courts include disputes concerning the confirmation of non-infringement of copyright and copyright-related rights and interests, as well as disputes over liability for damages arising from applications for pre-litigation or interim measures to stop infringing acts.
This amendment means that judicial remedies for copyright disputes are no longer limited to the traditional scenario in which a right holder brings an infringement action against an alleged infringer. In practice, where an enterprise receives a lawyer's letter, a platform complaint, or an infringement warning but believes that it has not infringed any copyright, it may proactively seek judicial relief by bringing an action for confirmation of non-infringement of copyright. Meanwhile, where a right holder wrongfully applies for a preservation measure and causes losses to the respondent, the amended rules further clarify the corresponding avenue for civil liability and relief.
Accordingly, when handling copyright disputes, lawyers should select an appropriate cause of action and litigation strategy based on the client's actual legal needs, rather than focusing exclusively on traditional copyright infringement proceedings.
II. Further Clarification of Fair Use: Photographing Works in Public Places Does Not Mean They May Be Freely Used for Commercial Purposes
The Decision replaces the term “artistic works located outdoors in public places” in the previous judicial interpretation with “artistic works in public places” and further provides that artistic works located in public places may be reused by means such as imitation, painting, photography, or video recording, within a reasonable manner and scope as permitted by law. However, without the permission of the copyright owner, such works may not be set up, displayed, or publicly disseminated in the same manner. This provision is particularly relevant to commercial entities.
Accordingly, in practice, a distinction should be made between being permitted to access and photograph a work and being permitted to commercially exploit the resulting photographs or recordings. An enterprise should not assume that a work may be freely used merely because it is located in a public place.
III. “Made Public Online” Does Not Mean “Freely Reproducible”
The amendments further clarify that the statutory licensing rules under the Copyright Law concerning the reprinting of works by newspapers and periodicals do not apply to mutual reprinting between newspapers or periodicals and Internet information service providers, or to mutual reprinting among Internet information service providers of works that have already been published.
This rule has a direct impact on content operators such as WeChat official accounts, corporate websites, and news and information platforms. A common misconception in practice is that “an article has already been made publicly available online, so it may be freely reprinted.” This understanding is inaccurate.
Making a work publicly available online merely means that the public may access it; it does not mean that the copyright owner has waived or abandoned its copyright. For Internet information service providers, reprinting articles from other websites, WeChat official accounts, or online platforms should, in principle, still be based on appropriate authorization, unless another legal basis, such as fair use, applies.
Therefore, before reprinting online articles, images, videos, or other content, enterprises should review the source of the relevant rights, the scope of authorization, and the intended manner of use, and should retain relevant authorization documents and records.
IV. Greater Emphasis on the Degree of Fault in Determining Copyright Damages
Where the actual losses suffered by the copyright owner, the illegal gains of the infringer, and the reasonable licensing fees are difficult to determine, the people's court may, in accordance with the law, apply the statutory damages regime to determine the amount of compensation, taking into account factors such as the type of work, the degree of fault of the alleged infringer, and the nature and consequences of the infringement.
This demonstrates that copyright damages are not determined simply by mechanically calculating the number of infringements. The infringer's subjective state and the consequences of the infringement may also be significant factors.
For copyright owners, efforts should be made to provide evidence demonstrating the scale and duration of the infringement, the scope of dissemination, and any commercial gains derived from the infringement. For defendants accused of infringement, it is advisable to actively provide evidence demonstrating the absence of obvious fault, such as a reasonable basis for authorization, fulfillment of necessary copyright review obligations, and prompt deletion or cessation of dissemination after receiving an infringement notice.
Conclusion
These amendments to the judicial interpretation on copyright disputes reflect a broader trend toward more refined judicial protection of copyright. The amendments are not aimed merely at strengthening the protection afforded to copyright owners. Rather, in the context of digital dissemination, they further clarify what constitutes making a work public, what constitutes fair use, when reprinting is legally permissible, and how liability for infringement should be determined and borne.
The contents of all newsletters of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners (Content) available on the webpage belong to and remain with Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. All rights are reserved by Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners, and the Content may not be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, published, or transferred in any form or by any means, except with the prior permission of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
The Content is for informational purposes only and is not offered as legal or professional advice on any particular issue or case. The Content may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners and the editors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The contributing authors' opinions do not represent the position of Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners. If the reader has any suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to contact Shanghai Lee, Tsai & Partners.
