Beijing IP Court Releases Typical Case on Copyright Infringement Through Cloud Storage Platforms
Published 28 May 2026
Yu Du
On 11 May 2026, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court published on its official WeChat account a copyright infringement case involving the dissemination of audiovisual works through a cloud storage platform. The case was selected as one of the Top 10 Typical Cases of 2025 released by the Court. By issuing detailed case analyses of these representative decisions, the Court aims to clarify adjudication standards, respond to emerging industry concerns in the digital economy, strengthen judicial guidance, and promote a balanced legal framework that both protects intellectual property rights and supports the healthy development of internet industries.
Background The plaintiffs, three affiliated companies, lawfully owned the information network dissemination right to the television drama Spring Boudoir Dreamer (rough translation). They discovered that a cloud storage platform operated by a Hangzhou-based technology company allowed numerous users to upload the work and generate sharing links for online dissemination. The rights holders repeatedly sent infringement notices requesting the platform operator to disconnect infringing links, filter and block infringing content, delete infringing files, and take measures against repeat infringers.
Another Beijing-based technology company merely provided download services for the cloud storage application. The plaintiffs therefore filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement and sought injunctive relief as well as compensation totaling RMB 3 million.
The court of first instance held that the Beijing company only provided download services and did not participate in the operation of the cloud storage platform, and thus should not bear liability. The Hangzhou company, however, was found liable for failing to fully perform takedown obligations after receiving notices, and was ordered to pay RMB 1 million in damages and reasonable expenses.
Both parties appealed
Upon appeal, the Beijing IP Court found that the cloud storage operator had already taken timely measures to disconnect the vast majority of infringing links identified in qualified notices and had proactively implemented Chinese and English keyword filtering mechanisms for the work at issue. The Court therefore concluded that the platform had generally fulfilled its duty of reasonable care and should only bear liability for a limited number of links that were not removed in a timely manner. Ultimately, the Court reduced the compensation award to RMB 300,000.
Key Judicial Findings
In its judgment, the Court clarified the application of the “notice-and-takedown” framework in the context of cloud storage services and emphasized the balance between copyright protection, technological feasibility, and user privacy.
The Court stated:
“Cloud storage services also fall within the category of information storage space services and, upon receiving notices identifying infringing sharing links from rights holders, shall promptly take measures such as disconnecting or blocking the links.”
The Court further clarified the requirements for valid infringement notices:
“Where a rights holder requests deletion of infringing content, sufficient information capable of locating the infringing content shall be provided; where proactive identification and handling of infringing content is requested, sufficient information capable of identifying and determining the infringing content shall be provided.”
The judgment also held that cloud storage service providers should adopt reasonable preventive measures, such as keyword filtering, against highly related and successive infringing activities involving the same work, the same platform, and the same pattern of conduct occurring within a closely connected time frame. However, the Court expressly rejected any obligation requiring platforms to directly delete content stored privately in users’ personal cloud spaces without careful assessment, recognizing the importance of protecting user privacy and legitimate interests.
Typical Significance of the Case
The judgment refined the practical application of the “notice–necessary measures” regime in cloud storage scenarios and addressed longstanding uncertainties surrounding platform obligations and rights holder notifications.
First, the Court rejected the notion that cloud storage providers should bear a generalized ex ante duty to comprehensively monitor all privately stored user content. By recognizing the technical and commercial characteristics of cloud storage services - where private storage remains the primary function and public sharing is secondary - the Court avoided imposing excessively burdensome obligations on platform operators.
Second, the judgment clarified that the validity of an infringement notice depends on the specific measures requested by the rights holder. Different standards apply when requesting deletion of content, proactive prevention measures, or actions against repeat infringers. This refinement provides clearer guidance for both rights holders and service providers and reduces disputes arising from vague or incomplete notices.
Third, the decision established clearer boundaries for proactive preventive obligations. While platforms may need to implement reasonable filtering measures against closely related repeat infringements, they are not permitted to arbitrarily delete users’ privately stored files. The Court thereby sought to maintain an appropriate balance between copyright enforcement and user privacy protection.
Comment
As cloud storage and online sharing services continue to expand, disputes concerning platform liability, notice standards, and preventive obligations are becoming increasingly prominent. This decision provides a more structured judicial framework for assessing the responsibilities of cloud service providers under China’s copyright law regime.
For copyright owners, the case underscores the importance of submitting precise and well-supported infringement notices capable of identifying infringing content and facilitating enforcement measures. For cloud storage operators, the judgment offers clearer compliance guidance by confirming that reasonable and proportionate preventive measures - rather than unlimited monitoring obligations - are sufficient under the law.
Background The plaintiffs, three affiliated companies, lawfully owned the information network dissemination right to the television drama Spring Boudoir Dreamer (rough translation). They discovered that a cloud storage platform operated by a Hangzhou-based technology company allowed numerous users to upload the work and generate sharing links for online dissemination. The rights holders repeatedly sent infringement notices requesting the platform operator to disconnect infringing links, filter and block infringing content, delete infringing files, and take measures against repeat infringers.
Another Beijing-based technology company merely provided download services for the cloud storage application. The plaintiffs therefore filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement and sought injunctive relief as well as compensation totaling RMB 3 million.
The court of first instance held that the Beijing company only provided download services and did not participate in the operation of the cloud storage platform, and thus should not bear liability. The Hangzhou company, however, was found liable for failing to fully perform takedown obligations after receiving notices, and was ordered to pay RMB 1 million in damages and reasonable expenses.
Both parties appealed
Upon appeal, the Beijing IP Court found that the cloud storage operator had already taken timely measures to disconnect the vast majority of infringing links identified in qualified notices and had proactively implemented Chinese and English keyword filtering mechanisms for the work at issue. The Court therefore concluded that the platform had generally fulfilled its duty of reasonable care and should only bear liability for a limited number of links that were not removed in a timely manner. Ultimately, the Court reduced the compensation award to RMB 300,000.
Key Judicial Findings
In its judgment, the Court clarified the application of the “notice-and-takedown” framework in the context of cloud storage services and emphasized the balance between copyright protection, technological feasibility, and user privacy.
The Court stated:
“Cloud storage services also fall within the category of information storage space services and, upon receiving notices identifying infringing sharing links from rights holders, shall promptly take measures such as disconnecting or blocking the links.”
The Court further clarified the requirements for valid infringement notices:
“Where a rights holder requests deletion of infringing content, sufficient information capable of locating the infringing content shall be provided; where proactive identification and handling of infringing content is requested, sufficient information capable of identifying and determining the infringing content shall be provided.”
The judgment also held that cloud storage service providers should adopt reasonable preventive measures, such as keyword filtering, against highly related and successive infringing activities involving the same work, the same platform, and the same pattern of conduct occurring within a closely connected time frame. However, the Court expressly rejected any obligation requiring platforms to directly delete content stored privately in users’ personal cloud spaces without careful assessment, recognizing the importance of protecting user privacy and legitimate interests.
Typical Significance of the Case
The judgment refined the practical application of the “notice–necessary measures” regime in cloud storage scenarios and addressed longstanding uncertainties surrounding platform obligations and rights holder notifications.
First, the Court rejected the notion that cloud storage providers should bear a generalized ex ante duty to comprehensively monitor all privately stored user content. By recognizing the technical and commercial characteristics of cloud storage services - where private storage remains the primary function and public sharing is secondary - the Court avoided imposing excessively burdensome obligations on platform operators.
Second, the judgment clarified that the validity of an infringement notice depends on the specific measures requested by the rights holder. Different standards apply when requesting deletion of content, proactive prevention measures, or actions against repeat infringers. This refinement provides clearer guidance for both rights holders and service providers and reduces disputes arising from vague or incomplete notices.
Third, the decision established clearer boundaries for proactive preventive obligations. While platforms may need to implement reasonable filtering measures against closely related repeat infringements, they are not permitted to arbitrarily delete users’ privately stored files. The Court thereby sought to maintain an appropriate balance between copyright enforcement and user privacy protection.
Comment
As cloud storage and online sharing services continue to expand, disputes concerning platform liability, notice standards, and preventive obligations are becoming increasingly prominent. This decision provides a more structured judicial framework for assessing the responsibilities of cloud service providers under China’s copyright law regime.
For copyright owners, the case underscores the importance of submitting precise and well-supported infringement notices capable of identifying infringing content and facilitating enforcement measures. For cloud storage operators, the judgment offers clearer compliance guidance by confirming that reasonable and proportionate preventive measures - rather than unlimited monitoring obligations - are sufficient under the law.