China’s Supreme Court Amends Judicial Interpretation on Copyright Civil Disputes
Published 21 August 2026
Yu Du
On 20 August 2026, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued the amended Interpretation of the SPC on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Copyright Dispute Cases (Interpretation). The amended Interpretation will take effect on 1 September 2026.
The original Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Copyright Dispute Cases was adopted in 2002 and came into force in October of that year. It was first amended in 2020 as part of the SPC’s broader revision of a number of intellectual property judicial interpretations, following major developments in China’s civil and intellectual property legislation. The 2026 amendment constitutes the second revision of the Interpretation.
The latest amendments are intended primarily to align the Interpretation with the PRC Civil Code and the Copyright Law as amended in 2020, and to address issues that have become increasingly prominent in copyright litigation and content distribution practices.
According to the SPC, the amendments seek to further clarify applicable legal standards, promote consistency in judicial decisions, strengthen the protection of copyright and copyright-related interests, and at the same time maintain an appropriate balance between rights protection and the public interest. Particular attention has been given to the determination of whether a work has been “made available to the public”, the boundaries of fair use, and the scope of the statutory licence for the reprinting of works by newspapers and periodicals.
Clarification of When a Work Is “Made Available to the Public”
One of the more substantive changes concerns the meaning of “making a work available to the public” for the purposes of the right of publication.
Under the previous Interpretation, the relevant provision referred to a work being made public “by the copyright owner or with the permission of the copyright owner”. The 2026 Interpretation removes this qualification. It now provides that a work is made available to the public when it is disclosed to an unspecified group of persons, and that actual knowledge of the work by members of the public is not required.
The change is significant because publication is no longer dependent on the disclosure having been authorised by the copyright owner. As the SPC explained, a work may therefore be regarded as having been made available to the public even where the disclosure resulted from an infringement by a third party. This clarification may be relevant in disputes concerning unpublished works, unauthorised online disclosure, leaks and other forms of dissemination without the copyright owner’s consent.
Refined Rules on Fair Use of Artworks in Public Places
The 2026 Interpretation also revises the rules concerning the use of artistic works installed or displayed in public places.
The previous Interpretation referred to artistic works located in “outdoor public places”. Consistent with the 2020 amendment to the Copyright Law, the word “outdoor” has now been removed. The relevant provision therefore applies more broadly to artistic works such as sculptures, paintings and calligraphy installed or displayed in places where members of the public carry out activities. The SPC has indicated that the concept may extend beyond outdoor spaces to public and commercial museums, galleries and exhibition venues.
At the same time, the 2026 Interpretation introduces an express limitation on downstream use. A person who copies, draws, photographs or records such an artwork may further use the resulting work in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable scope in accordance with law. However, without the copyright owner’s permission, the resulting work may not be installed, displayed or publicly disseminated in the same manner as the original artwork.
This amendment seeks to preserve legitimate space for fair use while preventing the exception from being relied upon in a manner that could substitute for, or materially interfere with, the copyright owner’s normal exploitation of an artwork.
Narrower and Clearer Scope of the Statutory Licence for Newspaper and Periodical Reprinting
Another important amendment concerns the statutory licence for the reprinting of published works by newspapers and periodicals under Article 35 of the Copyright Law.
The 2026 Interpretation clarifies that, for this purpose, “newspapers and periodicals” refer to printed newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authorities, as well as digital versions that are consistent with the content and layout of their corresponding printed editions. The clarification recognises that traditional publishers increasingly distribute digital replicas of their print publications and treats such digital editions as an extension of conventional newspaper and periodical publication.
More importantly, the Interpretation expressly provides that the statutory licence does not apply to the reprinting of published works between newspapers or periodicals and internet information service providers, or between internet information service providers themselves. Such uses require the copyright owner’s permission and payment of remuneration.
Accordingly, the mere fact that content was first published in a newspaper or periodical does not permit an online platform, website, app or other internet information service provider to reproduce or redistribute that content under the newspaper and periodical reprinting exception. Except for qualifying digital editions that reproduce the corresponding print publication in a consistent content and layout format, online republication will generally need to be supported by appropriate copyright authorisation.
For media companies, digital publishers, news aggregators and online content platforms, this clarification makes the distinction between traditional statutory reprinting and internet-based content redistribution considerably more important.
Adjustments to the Rules on Copyright Damages
The 2026 Interpretation also updates the provisions concerning the calculation of damages.
Under the amended provision, where the copyright owner’s actual loss, the infringer’s unlawful gains or a reasonable royalty is difficult to calculate, the court may determine damages in accordance with Article 54(2) of the Copyright Law, either upon a party’s request or on its own initiative. When determining the amount, the court should consider factors including the type of work, the degree of fault of the alleged infringer, and the nature and consequences of the infringement.
The express inclusion of the infringer’s degree of fault as a relevant factor provides a clearer basis for courts to distinguish between different levels of culpability when assessing compensation. The reference to a “reasonable royalty” also aligns the Interpretation more closely with the damages framework introduced by the amended Copyright Law.
The Interpretation further confirms that reasonable expenses incurred by a copyright owner or its authorised representative in investigating and obtaining evidence of infringement may be recoverable as expenses incurred to stop the infringement, and that qualifying lawyers’ fees may also be included in the compensation awarded depending on the claims and circumstances of the case.
Comment
The 2026 amendments primarily clarify and update the existing copyright litigation framework to reflect the 2020 Copyright Law and developments in digital content distribution. In particular, the revised rules provide greater certainty on when a work is regarded as having been made available to the public, the permissible use of artworks displayed in public places, and the scope of the statutory licence for newspaper and periodical reprinting.
The amendments are expected to have practical implications for rights holders, publishers, online platforms and other businesses that use or distribute third-party content. Relevant businesses should review their copyright clearance, reprinting and content-use practices, particularly for online republication and the use of publicly displayed artworks, before the amended Interpretation takes effect on 1 September 2026.
The original Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Copyright Dispute Cases was adopted in 2002 and came into force in October of that year. It was first amended in 2020 as part of the SPC’s broader revision of a number of intellectual property judicial interpretations, following major developments in China’s civil and intellectual property legislation. The 2026 amendment constitutes the second revision of the Interpretation.
The latest amendments are intended primarily to align the Interpretation with the PRC Civil Code and the Copyright Law as amended in 2020, and to address issues that have become increasingly prominent in copyright litigation and content distribution practices.
According to the SPC, the amendments seek to further clarify applicable legal standards, promote consistency in judicial decisions, strengthen the protection of copyright and copyright-related interests, and at the same time maintain an appropriate balance between rights protection and the public interest. Particular attention has been given to the determination of whether a work has been “made available to the public”, the boundaries of fair use, and the scope of the statutory licence for the reprinting of works by newspapers and periodicals.
Clarification of When a Work Is “Made Available to the Public”
One of the more substantive changes concerns the meaning of “making a work available to the public” for the purposes of the right of publication.
Under the previous Interpretation, the relevant provision referred to a work being made public “by the copyright owner or with the permission of the copyright owner”. The 2026 Interpretation removes this qualification. It now provides that a work is made available to the public when it is disclosed to an unspecified group of persons, and that actual knowledge of the work by members of the public is not required.
The change is significant because publication is no longer dependent on the disclosure having been authorised by the copyright owner. As the SPC explained, a work may therefore be regarded as having been made available to the public even where the disclosure resulted from an infringement by a third party. This clarification may be relevant in disputes concerning unpublished works, unauthorised online disclosure, leaks and other forms of dissemination without the copyright owner’s consent.
Refined Rules on Fair Use of Artworks in Public Places
The 2026 Interpretation also revises the rules concerning the use of artistic works installed or displayed in public places.
The previous Interpretation referred to artistic works located in “outdoor public places”. Consistent with the 2020 amendment to the Copyright Law, the word “outdoor” has now been removed. The relevant provision therefore applies more broadly to artistic works such as sculptures, paintings and calligraphy installed or displayed in places where members of the public carry out activities. The SPC has indicated that the concept may extend beyond outdoor spaces to public and commercial museums, galleries and exhibition venues.
At the same time, the 2026 Interpretation introduces an express limitation on downstream use. A person who copies, draws, photographs or records such an artwork may further use the resulting work in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable scope in accordance with law. However, without the copyright owner’s permission, the resulting work may not be installed, displayed or publicly disseminated in the same manner as the original artwork.
This amendment seeks to preserve legitimate space for fair use while preventing the exception from being relied upon in a manner that could substitute for, or materially interfere with, the copyright owner’s normal exploitation of an artwork.
Narrower and Clearer Scope of the Statutory Licence for Newspaper and Periodical Reprinting
Another important amendment concerns the statutory licence for the reprinting of published works by newspapers and periodicals under Article 35 of the Copyright Law.
The 2026 Interpretation clarifies that, for this purpose, “newspapers and periodicals” refer to printed newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authorities, as well as digital versions that are consistent with the content and layout of their corresponding printed editions. The clarification recognises that traditional publishers increasingly distribute digital replicas of their print publications and treats such digital editions as an extension of conventional newspaper and periodical publication.
More importantly, the Interpretation expressly provides that the statutory licence does not apply to the reprinting of published works between newspapers or periodicals and internet information service providers, or between internet information service providers themselves. Such uses require the copyright owner’s permission and payment of remuneration.
Accordingly, the mere fact that content was first published in a newspaper or periodical does not permit an online platform, website, app or other internet information service provider to reproduce or redistribute that content under the newspaper and periodical reprinting exception. Except for qualifying digital editions that reproduce the corresponding print publication in a consistent content and layout format, online republication will generally need to be supported by appropriate copyright authorisation.
For media companies, digital publishers, news aggregators and online content platforms, this clarification makes the distinction between traditional statutory reprinting and internet-based content redistribution considerably more important.
Adjustments to the Rules on Copyright Damages
The 2026 Interpretation also updates the provisions concerning the calculation of damages.
Under the amended provision, where the copyright owner’s actual loss, the infringer’s unlawful gains or a reasonable royalty is difficult to calculate, the court may determine damages in accordance with Article 54(2) of the Copyright Law, either upon a party’s request or on its own initiative. When determining the amount, the court should consider factors including the type of work, the degree of fault of the alleged infringer, and the nature and consequences of the infringement.
The express inclusion of the infringer’s degree of fault as a relevant factor provides a clearer basis for courts to distinguish between different levels of culpability when assessing compensation. The reference to a “reasonable royalty” also aligns the Interpretation more closely with the damages framework introduced by the amended Copyright Law.
The Interpretation further confirms that reasonable expenses incurred by a copyright owner or its authorised representative in investigating and obtaining evidence of infringement may be recoverable as expenses incurred to stop the infringement, and that qualifying lawyers’ fees may also be included in the compensation awarded depending on the claims and circumstances of the case.
Comment
The 2026 amendments primarily clarify and update the existing copyright litigation framework to reflect the 2020 Copyright Law and developments in digital content distribution. In particular, the revised rules provide greater certainty on when a work is regarded as having been made available to the public, the permissible use of artworks displayed in public places, and the scope of the statutory licence for newspaper and periodical reprinting.
The amendments are expected to have practical implications for rights holders, publishers, online platforms and other businesses that use or distribute third-party content. Relevant businesses should review their copyright clearance, reprinting and content-use practices, particularly for online republication and the use of publicly displayed artworks, before the amended Interpretation takes effect on 1 September 2026.