On 13 July 2026, the National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China (“NCAC”) published the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Draft Regulation), with a public comment period ending on 12 August 2026. This marks the most significant update to the implementing regulations since the third amendment of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Copyright Law”) in 2020, which took effect on 1 June 2021. The Draft Regulation translate the open-ended rights framework established by the Copyright Law into operable rules, filling institutional gaps in licensing mechanisms, administrative enforcement, and implementation of international treaties. Expanding from 38 articles in the current Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (2013 Revision)(“Regulation”) to 49 articles, the Draft Regulation makes systematic responses in key areas including the definition of works, neighboring rights terminology, presumption of authorship, registration validity, remuneration mechanisms, and administrative enforcement.
Refinement of the Copyright Law’s Rights Framework
The Copyright Law fundamentally restructured its rights framework, shifting from a relatively closed, enumerative system to a more open and inclusive architecture to meet the challenges of digital technology. In alignment with this amendment, the Draft Regulation refines the definition of works, specify copyright-related terminology, and clarify rules on ownership and exercise of rights.
The current Regulation define a “work” as an “intellectual creation with originality in the literary, artistic and scientific domains, capable of being reproduced in a tangible form.” The Draft Regulation deletes this standalone definition and instead systematically enumerate the specific meanings of 13 categories of works in Article 3, integrating the definitional elements into the respective definitions of each category to make the constituent elements of each work type more discernible. Key refinements to the definitions of works include:
1. Audiovisual Works: The term “cinematographic works and works created by a process analogous to cinematography” is renamed “audiovisual works”, with the definition broadened to “a series of consecutive dynamic images, with or without accompanying sound, fixed on any medium by any means.” Emerging online content formats such as “online dramas and variety shows” are explicitly listed alongside films, television series, and documentaries, addressing the classification controversy surrounding online variety content in the streaming media era.
2. Architectural Works: The current Regulation limits architectural works to “works of aesthetic significance expressed in the form of buildings or structures.” The Draft Regulation extends protection to “design drawings, renderings and other graphic works and models that embody the exterior design of such buildings or structures,” thereby incorporating protection for preliminary architectural design.
3. Model Works: To broaden the scope of protection, the Draft Regulation simplifies the original definition by removing the purpose limitation—no longer requiring that the work be “for the purposes of display, experimentation or observation” and “made in proportion”—and instead define model works directly as “three-dimensional works made on the basis of the shape and structure of geographical terrain or objects.”
The Draft Regulations also revise neighboring rights terminology and the scope of right holders. First, the term “interests related to copyright” is uniformly replaced with “rights related to copyright.” Second, the exclusionary definition of video recordings (i.e., those other than cinematographic works and works created by a process analogous to cinematography) is recast as “recordings of a series of related images or pictures produced mechanically by fixed recording equipment,” clarifying the boundary between mechanical recordings and audiovisual works of a higher degree of originality. Third, the definition of “performers” is expanded from “actors, performing units or other persons who perform literary or artistic works” to “persons who perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore by singing, dancing, reciting, declaiming, playing, or otherwise.” Fourth, new definitions are added for “display” and “the communication to the public of the performance of a work by any means,” specifying that broadcasting a performance does not include communication to the public by wire or wireless means.
The Draft Regulation extends the presumption of authorship and refine rules on ownership. The current Regulation establishes the presumption of authorship only for works. Article 9 of the Draft Regulation clarifies and extends this rule to performances, typographical arrangements, sound recordings, video recordings, and broadcasts, providing that where a natural person, legal entity or non-legal entity organization is identified as the right holder on such subject matter, that person or entity is presumed to be the right holder of the relevant rights. This extension significantly enhances the public notice effect of neighboring rights holders’ entitlements. In addition, the Draft Regulation provides a clear procedural basis for joint authors to enforce their rights. The current Regulation provides that where joint authors “cannot reach agreement and there is no legitimate reason, no party may prevent the other party from exercising rights other than assignment.” Article 11 of the Draft Regulation further clarifies that each joint author has the right to bring legal proceedings for the protection of the copyright in the work.
Clarification of Licensing Mechanisms and Transaction Rules
To facilitate the circulation of copyright industries and ensure transaction security, the Draft Regulation makes the following significant adjustments to licensing mechanisms and transaction rules:
1. Establishing the “Prima Facie Evidence” Effect of Copyright Registration: Article 10 of the Draft Regulation introduces the rule that “the registration certificate issued by the registration authority is prima facie evidence of the registered matters,” and provides that the national copyright authority shall designate and supervise registration authorities. This provision establishes, at the administrative regulation level, the substantive evidentiary effect of the voluntary registration system.
2. Standardizing the Recordal Mechanism for Exclusive Licenses and Assignments: The Draft Regulation further clarifies that exclusive license contracts and assignment contracts may be recorded with a registration authority designated by the national copyright authority, thereby increasing the transparency and erga omnes effect of transactional information.
3. Imposing Reasonable Limitations on the Right of Adaptation of Audiovisual Works: The current Regulation provides that granting permission to produce a cinematographic work or a work created by a process analogous to cinematography is deemed to constitute consent to “necessary alterations.” The Draft Regulations, while maintaining this implied consent, add a red line for the protection of the author’s moral rights: “where substantive modifications are made that fundamentally change the author’s intentions, thoughts and emotions in the original work, the consent of the copyright owner of the original work shall be obtained,” preventing malicious alteration of the original work.
4. Refining the Procedural Pathway for Joint Authors to Initiate Infringement Proceedings: Article 11 of the Draft Regulation clarifies that for indivisible joint works, each joint author has the right to bring legal proceedings in his or her own name; for divisible works, each joint author may bring proceedings in respect of the part he or she created. This provision resolves the procedural bottleneck that previously prevented a single joint author from initiating enforcement when joint authors could not reach consensus.
5. Reforming the Remuneration Mechanism: The current Regulation requires statutory license users to “pay remuneration to the copyright owner within 2 months from the date of use.” Article 37 of the Draft Regulation makes a fundamental change by extending the period to “3 months” and providing that “remuneration shall be paid to the copyright owner through a copyright collective management organization.” This channel also applies comprehensively to the remuneration rates under Article 45 of the Copyright Law concerning “use of sound recordings of others” (i.e., the dual remuneration right for broadcasting and public performance in commercial premises), substantially reducing transaction costs in mass licensing scenarios.
Implementation of Rights Protection Rules under the Copyright Law
The Draft Regulation significantly strengthens administrative enforcement and provide detailed rules for technological protection measures in the digital copyright context:
1. Clarifying the Criteria for Administrative Investigation on “Damage to Public Interests”: The current Regulation primarily relies on economic indicators such as “illegal business turnover” to determine the amount of fines, lacking a substantive definition of “public interest.” Article 47 of the Draft Regulation breaks new ground by enumerating five categories of circumstances constituting “damage to public interests” (including damage to national image or public security, damage to the socialist market economic order, disruption of the cultural market order, acting for profit or making infringement a business, etc.), providing clear enforcement guidance for the competent authorities.
2. Improving the Protection Framework for Technological Protection Measures (TPM) and Rights Management Information (RMI): Articles 43 to 46 of the Draft Regulation provides systematic rules on the definition of technological protection measures, the obligation of right holders to indicate such measures, and rights management information. Article 44 expressly provides that, where the conditions for “fair use” are met and it is genuinely difficult to obtain the work, certain entities may apply to the right holder for circumvention of technological protection measures or to obtain the necessary circumvention technology, reflecting a balance between technological protection and public access. Article 45 explicitly excludes from protection technological measures “used to harm the network or data security of users who use the work without authorization” or “other technological measures that harm public interests and are unrelated to copyright protection,” curbing the abuse of “technological rogue” measures.
Implementation of International Treaty Obligations under the Copyright Law
Maintaining alignment with copyright-related international treaties is one of the stated objectives of the revision. The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (“Beijing Treaty”) and the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (“Marrakesh Treaty”) have entered into force for China. The Draft Regulations make the following corresponding adjustments:
1. Implementation of the Beijing Treaty’s Requirements for the Protection of Audiovisual Performers’ Rights: the current Regulations defines performers as “actors, performing units or other persons who perform literary or artistic works.” Article 4 of the Draft Regulation expands this to “persons who perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore by singing, dancing, reciting, declaiming, playing, or otherwise.” In addition, Article 35 of the Draft Regulation expressly provides that “performers’ rights” apply to performers in audiovisual works. Although the economic rights of performers in audiovisual works are generally owned by the producer, it expressly grants them the moral rights to “claim authorship of the performance” and “protect the integrity of the performance image” (the rights of attribution and integrity), as well as the right to receive remuneration in accordance with the law.
2. Limitations on Rights for the Benefit of Persons with Print Disabilities: Article 24 of the Draft Regulation defines “persons with print disabilities” as “persons who are blind, visually impaired, or unable to read normally due to visual defects, perceptual disorders, physical disabilities or other reasons,” and clarifies the meaning of “accessible format,” with specific implementing measures to be separately prescribed by the national copyright authority. This provision implements the Marrakesh Treaty’s obligation to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled, providing a direct administrative regulation basis for the smooth implementation of the Treaty in China.
Conclusion
As the first comprehensive revision of the implementing regulations at the administrative regulation level following the 2020 amendment of the Copyright Law, the Draft Regulation transforms the open-ended work type framework into operable rules by deleting the standalone definition of works and instead defining each of the 13 categories of works individually. In terms of licensing and transaction mechanisms and rights protection, the Draft Regulation establishs the prima facie evidence effect of work registration, the recordal mechanism for exclusive licenses, and rules on technological protection measures, and enumerate five specific circumstances constituting damage to public interests, initially forming an institutional circle covering licensing, transaction, enforcement, and administrative action. In terms of international treaty implementation, the Draft Regulation expands the definition of performers to cover expressions of folklore, clarify the moral rights of performers in audiovisual works, and define the scope of persons with print disabilities, thereby completing the domestic legal transformation of the core obligations under the Beijing Treaty and the Marrakesh Treaty.
Refinement of the Copyright Law’s Rights Framework
The Copyright Law fundamentally restructured its rights framework, shifting from a relatively closed, enumerative system to a more open and inclusive architecture to meet the challenges of digital technology. In alignment with this amendment, the Draft Regulation refines the definition of works, specify copyright-related terminology, and clarify rules on ownership and exercise of rights.
The current Regulation define a “work” as an “intellectual creation with originality in the literary, artistic and scientific domains, capable of being reproduced in a tangible form.” The Draft Regulation deletes this standalone definition and instead systematically enumerate the specific meanings of 13 categories of works in Article 3, integrating the definitional elements into the respective definitions of each category to make the constituent elements of each work type more discernible. Key refinements to the definitions of works include:
1. Audiovisual Works: The term “cinematographic works and works created by a process analogous to cinematography” is renamed “audiovisual works”, with the definition broadened to “a series of consecutive dynamic images, with or without accompanying sound, fixed on any medium by any means.” Emerging online content formats such as “online dramas and variety shows” are explicitly listed alongside films, television series, and documentaries, addressing the classification controversy surrounding online variety content in the streaming media era.
2. Architectural Works: The current Regulation limits architectural works to “works of aesthetic significance expressed in the form of buildings or structures.” The Draft Regulation extends protection to “design drawings, renderings and other graphic works and models that embody the exterior design of such buildings or structures,” thereby incorporating protection for preliminary architectural design.
3. Model Works: To broaden the scope of protection, the Draft Regulation simplifies the original definition by removing the purpose limitation—no longer requiring that the work be “for the purposes of display, experimentation or observation” and “made in proportion”—and instead define model works directly as “three-dimensional works made on the basis of the shape and structure of geographical terrain or objects.”
The Draft Regulations also revise neighboring rights terminology and the scope of right holders. First, the term “interests related to copyright” is uniformly replaced with “rights related to copyright.” Second, the exclusionary definition of video recordings (i.e., those other than cinematographic works and works created by a process analogous to cinematography) is recast as “recordings of a series of related images or pictures produced mechanically by fixed recording equipment,” clarifying the boundary between mechanical recordings and audiovisual works of a higher degree of originality. Third, the definition of “performers” is expanded from “actors, performing units or other persons who perform literary or artistic works” to “persons who perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore by singing, dancing, reciting, declaiming, playing, or otherwise.” Fourth, new definitions are added for “display” and “the communication to the public of the performance of a work by any means,” specifying that broadcasting a performance does not include communication to the public by wire or wireless means.
The Draft Regulation extends the presumption of authorship and refine rules on ownership. The current Regulation establishes the presumption of authorship only for works. Article 9 of the Draft Regulation clarifies and extends this rule to performances, typographical arrangements, sound recordings, video recordings, and broadcasts, providing that where a natural person, legal entity or non-legal entity organization is identified as the right holder on such subject matter, that person or entity is presumed to be the right holder of the relevant rights. This extension significantly enhances the public notice effect of neighboring rights holders’ entitlements. In addition, the Draft Regulation provides a clear procedural basis for joint authors to enforce their rights. The current Regulation provides that where joint authors “cannot reach agreement and there is no legitimate reason, no party may prevent the other party from exercising rights other than assignment.” Article 11 of the Draft Regulation further clarifies that each joint author has the right to bring legal proceedings for the protection of the copyright in the work.
Clarification of Licensing Mechanisms and Transaction Rules
To facilitate the circulation of copyright industries and ensure transaction security, the Draft Regulation makes the following significant adjustments to licensing mechanisms and transaction rules:
1. Establishing the “Prima Facie Evidence” Effect of Copyright Registration: Article 10 of the Draft Regulation introduces the rule that “the registration certificate issued by the registration authority is prima facie evidence of the registered matters,” and provides that the national copyright authority shall designate and supervise registration authorities. This provision establishes, at the administrative regulation level, the substantive evidentiary effect of the voluntary registration system.
2. Standardizing the Recordal Mechanism for Exclusive Licenses and Assignments: The Draft Regulation further clarifies that exclusive license contracts and assignment contracts may be recorded with a registration authority designated by the national copyright authority, thereby increasing the transparency and erga omnes effect of transactional information.
3. Imposing Reasonable Limitations on the Right of Adaptation of Audiovisual Works: The current Regulation provides that granting permission to produce a cinematographic work or a work created by a process analogous to cinematography is deemed to constitute consent to “necessary alterations.” The Draft Regulations, while maintaining this implied consent, add a red line for the protection of the author’s moral rights: “where substantive modifications are made that fundamentally change the author’s intentions, thoughts and emotions in the original work, the consent of the copyright owner of the original work shall be obtained,” preventing malicious alteration of the original work.
4. Refining the Procedural Pathway for Joint Authors to Initiate Infringement Proceedings: Article 11 of the Draft Regulation clarifies that for indivisible joint works, each joint author has the right to bring legal proceedings in his or her own name; for divisible works, each joint author may bring proceedings in respect of the part he or she created. This provision resolves the procedural bottleneck that previously prevented a single joint author from initiating enforcement when joint authors could not reach consensus.
5. Reforming the Remuneration Mechanism: The current Regulation requires statutory license users to “pay remuneration to the copyright owner within 2 months from the date of use.” Article 37 of the Draft Regulation makes a fundamental change by extending the period to “3 months” and providing that “remuneration shall be paid to the copyright owner through a copyright collective management organization.” This channel also applies comprehensively to the remuneration rates under Article 45 of the Copyright Law concerning “use of sound recordings of others” (i.e., the dual remuneration right for broadcasting and public performance in commercial premises), substantially reducing transaction costs in mass licensing scenarios.
Implementation of Rights Protection Rules under the Copyright Law
The Draft Regulation significantly strengthens administrative enforcement and provide detailed rules for technological protection measures in the digital copyright context:
1. Clarifying the Criteria for Administrative Investigation on “Damage to Public Interests”: The current Regulation primarily relies on economic indicators such as “illegal business turnover” to determine the amount of fines, lacking a substantive definition of “public interest.” Article 47 of the Draft Regulation breaks new ground by enumerating five categories of circumstances constituting “damage to public interests” (including damage to national image or public security, damage to the socialist market economic order, disruption of the cultural market order, acting for profit or making infringement a business, etc.), providing clear enforcement guidance for the competent authorities.
2. Improving the Protection Framework for Technological Protection Measures (TPM) and Rights Management Information (RMI): Articles 43 to 46 of the Draft Regulation provides systematic rules on the definition of technological protection measures, the obligation of right holders to indicate such measures, and rights management information. Article 44 expressly provides that, where the conditions for “fair use” are met and it is genuinely difficult to obtain the work, certain entities may apply to the right holder for circumvention of technological protection measures or to obtain the necessary circumvention technology, reflecting a balance between technological protection and public access. Article 45 explicitly excludes from protection technological measures “used to harm the network or data security of users who use the work without authorization” or “other technological measures that harm public interests and are unrelated to copyright protection,” curbing the abuse of “technological rogue” measures.
Implementation of International Treaty Obligations under the Copyright Law
Maintaining alignment with copyright-related international treaties is one of the stated objectives of the revision. The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances (“Beijing Treaty”) and the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (“Marrakesh Treaty”) have entered into force for China. The Draft Regulations make the following corresponding adjustments:
1. Implementation of the Beijing Treaty’s Requirements for the Protection of Audiovisual Performers’ Rights: the current Regulations defines performers as “actors, performing units or other persons who perform literary or artistic works.” Article 4 of the Draft Regulation expands this to “persons who perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore by singing, dancing, reciting, declaiming, playing, or otherwise.” In addition, Article 35 of the Draft Regulation expressly provides that “performers’ rights” apply to performers in audiovisual works. Although the economic rights of performers in audiovisual works are generally owned by the producer, it expressly grants them the moral rights to “claim authorship of the performance” and “protect the integrity of the performance image” (the rights of attribution and integrity), as well as the right to receive remuneration in accordance with the law.
2. Limitations on Rights for the Benefit of Persons with Print Disabilities: Article 24 of the Draft Regulation defines “persons with print disabilities” as “persons who are blind, visually impaired, or unable to read normally due to visual defects, perceptual disorders, physical disabilities or other reasons,” and clarifies the meaning of “accessible format,” with specific implementing measures to be separately prescribed by the national copyright authority. This provision implements the Marrakesh Treaty’s obligation to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled, providing a direct administrative regulation basis for the smooth implementation of the Treaty in China.
Conclusion
As the first comprehensive revision of the implementing regulations at the administrative regulation level following the 2020 amendment of the Copyright Law, the Draft Regulation transforms the open-ended work type framework into operable rules by deleting the standalone definition of works and instead defining each of the 13 categories of works individually. In terms of licensing and transaction mechanisms and rights protection, the Draft Regulation establishs the prima facie evidence effect of work registration, the recordal mechanism for exclusive licenses, and rules on technological protection measures, and enumerate five specific circumstances constituting damage to public interests, initially forming an institutional circle covering licensing, transaction, enforcement, and administrative action. In terms of international treaty implementation, the Draft Regulation expands the definition of performers to cover expressions of folklore, clarify the moral rights of performers in audiovisual works, and define the scope of persons with print disabilities, thereby completing the domestic legal transformation of the core obligations under the Beijing Treaty and the Marrakesh Treaty.