Copyright Protection for Avatars — A Decision by the Beijing Internet Court

Avatars are gradually stepping out of science fiction and into real life. From e-commerce livestreaming to cultural tourism, they have become an important force in emerging industries. But when Avatar images are copied and disseminated, can they receive copyright protection in the same way as paintings or sculptures?

On August 18, 2025, the Beijing Internet Court released a case clarifying that Avatar images with originality can constitute works of fine art and are protected by the Copyright Law. Building upon existing precedents, this case further refined judicial thinking on copyright protection for Avatars, which is of significant importance for compliance in the digital industry and the operation of virtual IPs. This article interprets the court’s reasoning and legal key points, and provides compliance recommendations for enterprises.

I. Case Background
The Avatars in question, A and B, were jointly produced by four companies, including Plaintiff Ju Company and Plaintiff Yuan Company. Ju Company was the copyright holder, while Yuan Company was responsible for operations. Avatar A had more than 4.4 million followers and was recognized as a cultural industry hot topic in 2022.
The plaintiffs claimed that after Defendant Sun (a former employee of one of the co-creation units) left the company, he sold models of Avatars A and B on the CG Model Network operated by Defendant Xi Company without authorization. This infringed on the plaintiffs’ reproduction rights and information network dissemination rights over the images. They further argued that Xi Company, as the platform operator, failed to fulfill its supervisory duties and should bear joint liability with Sun.Defendant 1 (Sun) argued that the uploaded works were full-body models, which had a low degree of similarity to the plaintiffs’ claimed head models, and that the evidence was flawed, so no infringement was constituted.Defendant 2 (Xi Company) argued that it had already taken reasonable measures to prevent infringement; the Avatars in question were not well-known enough for the platform to proactively recognize them; and thus it should not be held liable.
II. Court’s Legal Analysis
1. The Nature of Avatar Images as WorksThe court held that the full-body image of Avatar A and the head image of Avatar B were not directly derived from real persons but rather created by a production team through artistic design. They demonstrated significant artistic creation effects and reflected unique choices in lines, colors, and shapes, thereby meeting the requirement of originality and constituting works of fine art.Even though real human makeup and body modeling materials were used in the process, the displayed results were virtual designs rather than natural human traits, which did not affect their recognition as works of fine art.
2. Copyright Ownership
Through contractual arrangements, Ju Company obtained the copyright to the Avatar images and exclusively licensed all rights (except the right of publication and the right of attribution) to Yuan Company. The court ruled that:
1)	Ju Company, as the copyright holder, had the right to enforce its rights;2)	Yuan Company, as the exclusive licensee, also enjoyed standing to sue.
3. Determination of Infringement
After comparing the Avatars A and B with Sun’s uploaded models, the court found a high degree of similarity in facial features, hair accessories, clothing, and overall style, thereby constituting substantial similarity. Sun’s actions infringed upon the plaintiffs’ right of dissemination through information networks.
As for Xi Company, the court considered factors such as its service type, degree of intervention, and whether it directly profited. It concluded that the platform had already taken measures like upload review, keyword blocking, and infringement complaint channels, and had not directly profited from the infringing activity. Therefore, Xi Company was not jointly liable for the infringement.
4. Amount of Damages
The court noted that Avatars are complex right-holding entities, encompassing not only the value of fine art works in their outward appearance but also potentially involving portrait rights, voice rights, trademark rights, as well as software and algorithmic achievements.
In determining damages, the court did not rigidly apply traditional compensation models for fine art but instead comprehensively considered:
1)	the market value and popularity of the Avatars,2)	the subjective fault and scale of the infringement, and3)	the damage caused by the infringement.
The final judgment:
1)	Sun was ordered to compensate economic losses of RMB 15,000 in total, including RMB 10,000 for Avatar A and RMB 5,000 for Avatar B;
2)	Xi Company bore no liability for compensation.
III. Case Implications and Professional Interpretation
1.	Confirmation of Copyright Protection for AvatarsThis case affirmed that Avatar images with originality can constitute fine art works and enjoy protection under the Copyright Law, providing judicial guidance on the boundaries of rights in the digital human industry.
2.	Importance of Clarifying OwnershipSince Avatars often involve commissioned creations, multi-party collaboration, and operational divisions, rights holders should 
clearly specify copyright ownership and licensing scope in contracts to avoid disputes.
3.	Boundaries of Platform Liability
The court distinguished between direct infringers and platform operators. Platforms that adopt reasonable preventive measures and do not directly profit from infringement may not bear joint liability, thus establishing the “duty of reasonable care” standard for online service providers.
4.	Comprehensive Consideration of Damages
Although Avatars embody multiple rights, this case only recognized them as fine art works. The court nevertheless took into account their diverse value attributes when determining damages, reflecting a balanced and reasonable approach to compensation.
Comment
With the widespread application of Avatars in e-commerce, media, cultural tourism, finance, and other fields, their market size is expected to exceed RMB 40 billion in 2025. This ruling not only responds to the legal needs of industrial practice but also provides a workable judicial paradigm for intellectual property protection in the digital human industry.
We recommend that enterprises engaged in the development and operation of Avatars should:
1)	clearly define copyright, trademark, and other ownership rights through contracts in advance,2)	pay attention to the relationship between virtual images and real human personality rights to avoid infringement risks, and3)	for operating platforms, establish robust copyright protection mechanisms to reduce liability risks.
Only by planning ahead for compliance and rights protection can Avatars truly become “assets” rather than potential liabilities.