Judicial Guidance on Digital Sports Disputes - Interpretation of Ten Typical Cases by the Guangzhou Internet Court
Published 22 August 2025
Sarah Xuan
On August 14, 2025, the Guangzhou Internet Court released ten typical cases involving digital sports disputes. These cases systematically addressed complex issues such as copyright, portrait rights, reputation rights, and platform liability in the field of digital sports, thereby providing clear legal boundaries and operational guidance for the healthy development of the industry. The following is a case-by-case analysis.
Case 1: Whether GIF Animations of Event Clips Constitute Fair UseBasic Facts
A certain network company, by authorization, enjoyed the network broadcasting rights of the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games event footage. During the games, a computer company intercepted competition content broadcast by CCTV, made them into GIF animations and screenshots, and publicly disseminated them on its website and mobile client under the “Olympic Special” and “Event Center” sections. The rights holder believed this behavior constituted unauthorized infringement of its information network dissemination right and broadcasting organization right, and thus filed a lawsuit.
Judicial Reasoning
The court held that sports event video footage constitutes an audiovisual work, and television stations enjoy the broadcasting organization right over the programs they produce. Although GIF animations are only event clips, they often capture the most exciting moments (such as goals or championship victories), which are sufficient to provide an experience close to watching the complete event, thereby substituting for legitimate broadcasts. Such conduct exceeded the limits of fair use and substantially infringed upon the rights holder’s rights. Ultimately, the court ordered the infringer to compensate 1.08 million yuan.
Significance
This case clarified the standards for determining infringement in “event clip dissemination”, emphasizing that even fragmented use, as long as it has a substitutive effect, should be deemed infringing. This judgment effectively closed the loophole of “clip dissemination” used by online users to evade copyright restrictions, providing judicial reference for handling similar cases and promoting healthy operation of event dissemination under the framework of the rule of law.
Case 2: Whether Broadcasting Signals from Overseas Infringes Domestic Exclusive Rights
Basic Facts
A certain network company obtained the exclusive broadcasting rights of the “2020 European Cup” in mainland China, including live broadcast, delayed broadcast, and on-demand. However, a media company streamed live matches through its livestreaming room and argued that the signal originated from an overseas platform rather than the rights holder’s channel, and thus did not constitute infringement.
Judicial Reasoning
The court determined that the rights holder, by authorization, obtained the exclusive right of use within the territory, namely the exclusive broadcasting rights of the event program in mainland China. Even if the infringing footage came from overseas, as long as it was publicly broadcast in the mainland, it still constituted infringement of the rights holder’s broadcasting rights. Therefore, the infringing party could not use “signal from overseas” as a defense. The court ultimately ordered the media company to pay 300,000 yuan in damages.
Significance
This case addressed the complex issue of cross-border piracy and confirmed that retransmission of overseas signals is equally subject to domestic copyright protection. It reminds livestreaming platforms to establish strict verification mechanisms for signal sources to avoid evading legal responsibility under the guise of “overseas reference.” This judgment strengthens the protection of international event rights in the local market and provides judicial guidance for regulating cross-border dissemination of sports events.
Case 3: Platform Liability in Piracy of Popular Sports Events
Basic Facts
A certain network company obtained the exclusive broadcasting rights of the European Cup events in mainland China. During the event, a livestreaming platform operated by a technology company hosted a large number of unauthorized pirated livestreams. Despite repeated complaints by the rights holder, infringement remained severe. The platform argued that it merely provided services, that infringing content was uploaded by users, and that it had already taken punitive measures.
Judicial Reasoning
The court held that popular sports events attract extremely high public attention, and therefore the platform should bear a “higher duty of care.” When the rights holder had lodged multiple complaints, and the infringing content was concentrated and easily identifiable, if the platform only adopted minimal measures (such as briefly suspending broadcasts for one minute), such actions were insufficient to stop continued infringement. This amounted to failure to fulfill reasonable duty of care. Such conduct constituted contributory infringement, and the platform must bear corresponding liability for damages.
Significance
This case established the rule that “during popular events, platforms bear higher responsibility”, drawing a clear line between technological neutrality and regulatory obligations. It sends a judicial signal to the livestreaming industry: platforms cannot shirk responsibility by claiming “user uploads.” Instead, they must proactively adopt effective measures, otherwise they will face heavy compensation. This provides a replicable model for the protection of sports event copyright.
Case 4: Whether Livestreams of Esports Events Can Constitute Protected Audiovisual Works
Basic Facts
A certain technology company reached a strategic cooperation agreement with the renowned European esports organizer ESL, obtaining the Chinese livestreaming rights for the ESL series of tournaments, and streamed them in real time through its own platform. However, another network company, without authorization, opened a function allowing hosts to livestream ESL events. Even after repeated written requests from the rights holder to stop infringement, the platform continued to allow its users to livestream the entire season, causing prolonged infringement. The rights holder filed a lawsuit, requesting cessation of infringement and compensation for losses.
Judicial Reasoning
The court pointed out that traditional sports events, due to the originality of their footage and their editing methods, are regarded as “works created in a manner similar to cinematographic works.” Although esports events are based on video games, their livestreaming equally involves real-time capture of event footage, director’s camera switching, commentary, and special effect editing. These elements are not mere mechanical reproduction but instead embody independent creative ideas and aesthetic expression by the producers, thus possessing originality. Therefore, esports event livestreams can fully fall within the scope of protection as audiovisual works. Ultimately, the court ordered the infringing platform to compensate for economic losses of 1 million yuan.
Significance
This was the nation’s first case to confirm that esports event livestreams constitute “audiovisual works” within the meaning of copyright law. It altered the previously ambiguous stance toward protection of esports, formally placing electronic sports on the same level of protection as traditional sports events. This not only provided a clear legal shield for the gaming and esports industry, but also carried symbolic significance for the healthy development of the digital cultural industry. Through this case, the judiciary sent a signal: whether in sports or esports, as long as there is original expression, it should be protected by law.
Case 5: Dissemination of Athlete-Derived Emoji Stickers
Basic Facts
A certain technology company created and owned the copyright of an emoji sticker set “H”, which was derived from an interview photo of an athlete. The emoji set became widely circulated on the internet. However, a trading company, without authorization, used the stickers in articles on its WeChat public account to promote automobile products. The rights holder believed this behavior infringed its right of communication through information networks and thus filed a lawsuit.
Judicial Reasoning
The court held that although the emoji stickers originated from the athlete’s portrait, they were processed artistically, with originality in line, color, and composition, thereby constituting an artistic work and protected by copyright law. However, since the creator of the stickers did not obtain authorization from the athlete regarding portrait rights, the scope of the creator’s profit was limited. But this does not mean that other third parties can freely disseminate them. Dissemination without authorization from the copyright holder still constitutes infringement of the right of communication through information networks. The court ultimately ordered the trading company to bear liability for damages.
Significance
This case highlighted the “dual attributes” of emoji stickers: on the one hand, they are original artistic works; on the other hand, they may also infringe portrait rights. The judicial meaning lies in the principle that illegal creation does not negate the work’s own protection, but the rights holder cannot profit from illegality. In other words, third parties cannot use the excuse of “illegality of the original work” to freely disseminate or exploit it. This case not only established boundaries of protection and restriction for emoji stickers in online culture, but also reminded creators to respect portrait rights and avoid conflicts of rights.
Case 6: Fair Use of Athlete Portraits in News Reports
Basic Facts
A famous athlete, Mr. A, discovered that a business company had published an event-related news article on its WeChat public account, accompanied by photos of him in competition. At the end of the article, the company’s basic information was indicated. The athlete argued that the company used his fame to attract traffic, thereby constituting infringement of his portrait rights.
Judicial Reasoning
The court held that the article was published the day after the event, bearing strong timeliness, and constituted a typical current news report. Its core content focused on the athlete’s performance in the event, with no direct connection to the company’s main business, nor was it sufficient to mislead the public into believing there was a commercial endorsement relationship. Therefore, it should be recognized as fair use based on public interest. The court dismissed all of the athlete’s claims.
Significance
This case clarified the boundary between the “portrait rights of public figures” and “public interest reporting.” As a public figure, an athlete’s portraits in open events carry a public attribute, and reporting should not be lightly deemed infringement. The case both safeguarded the media’s right to reasonable reporting and prevented the overexpansion of portrait rights protection, helping to establish a dynamic balance in the digital era.
Case 7: Whether Commercial Use of Athlete Portraits Constitutes Infringement
Basic Facts
Another famous athlete, Mr. B, found that an information company had published an article on its WeChat public account extensively using his portrait images (a total of nine) and repeatedly inserting advertising slogans such as “Find a coach, come to iCoach”, to promote its private coaching service platform. Although the article included a small amount of description related to the sporting event, the overall content was clearly centered on commercial promotion. Mr. B believed that the company used his portrait directly for commercial promotion without authorization, thereby infringing his personality right to portrait.
Judicial Reasoning
The court pointed out that while public figures’ portraits do carry certain public and social attributes and can be reasonably used in public-interest reports or news, such tolerance does not mean their portraits can be used arbitrarily, especially not for pure commercial promotion. Although the article was superficially connected to sports events, most of its content served the company’s commercial publicity, constituting a typical advertisement. Such conduct could easily mislead the public into believing that the athlete had a commercial cooperation or endorsement relationship with the company, seriously damaging the athlete’s commercial value and personal interests. The court ultimately held the information company liable for infringement and ordered it to pay economic damages.
Significance
This case accurately defined the boundary between public-interest reporting and commercial promotion. It emphasized that while public figures’ portraits can be reasonably used for news reporting or public-interest expression, they cannot be commercially exploited without authorization. When applying the Civil Code’s Personality Rights section, the court comprehensively considered the nature of the infringement, its scope of influence, and the profits obtained, thereby reasonably determining the amount of compensation. This ruling not only highlighted the law’s protection of athletes’ commercial value, but also provided companies with clear guidance on the lawful use of public figures’ portraits, offering a judicial paradigm for increasingly frequent online portrait disputes.
Case 8: Copyright Protection of Sports Event Photography
Basic Facts
Since 2017, a certain sports company had repeatedly organized vertical marathon events and commissioned professional photographers to take numerous event photos, with contracts clearly stipulating that the copyrights belonged to the company. In 2024, the company discovered that a competitor, a development company, had used three of its copyrighted event photos in a WeChat article for volunteer recruitment without authorization. The rights holder believed that such use not only infringed its right of communication through information networks but also misled the public and weakened its brand value, and thus filed a lawsuit.
Judicial Reasoning
The court held that once created, photographic works automatically enjoy copyright protection. Unauthorized use on an open platform such as a WeChat public account, enabling unrestricted public browsing, constitutes infringement of the right of communication through information networks. Even if the defendant argued “industry practice” or “public-interest publicity”, such defenses could not negate the fact of unauthorized use. The event organizer held clear rights over the photos, and the defendant’s actions obviously infringed upon those rights, thus requiring compensation. The court upheld the plaintiff’s claims, ordering compensation for economic losses and reasonable enforcement expenses.
Significance
This case underscored that respect for intellectual property is the basic premise in industry competition. Sports event photos often embody brand and cultural value, and unauthorized use not only infringes rights but also disrupts industry order. The case sent a clear signal: regardless of event size, the use of photos must be legally authorized. This both strengthens awareness of rights among organizers and promotes fair competition in the sports industry under the rule of law.Case 9: Pirated Recording and Low-Price Sale of Exercise Course Videos
Basic Facts
A sports company developed a yoga course and offered it to paying students via online livestreaming. A student, Liang, without authorization, recorded the course videos during class and sold them on e-commerce platforms such as Xianyu at low prices, providing download links via Baidu Netdisk to buyers. The rights holder argued that such pirating and dissemination seriously damaged its legitimate rights and interests, reduced course revenue, and had a malign effect on the market, and thus filed a lawsuit.
Judicial Reasoning
The court pointed out that copyright law protects not only literary and artistic works, but also instructional works fixed in the form of video courses. Liang’s unauthorized recording and sale infringed the rights holder’s reproduction right and right of communication through information networks. More seriously, such conduct disrupted the course provider’s market order and undermined the normal ecosystem of education and training. The court ordered Liang to immediately cease infringement and compensate for economic losses.
Significance
With the rise of nationwide fitness and online education, high-quality exercise courses have become valuable resources, yet piracy is rampant. This case clearly defined the legal nature of pirated exercise course videos, recognizing the infringement and liability involved. It both safeguarded the legitimate interests of original creators and protected consumers’ rights to access genuine, high-quality content. This judgment provides a clear judicial boundary for the fitness education industry, encouraging institutions to continue investing in content innovation.
Case 10: Boundaries of Rights Protection Statements and Reputation Rights
Basic Facts
Since 2017, a technology company had registered the trademark “X Hui” for sports goods production and sales. In 2021, a sports company obtained authorization from a third party to use the trademark “X Hui Zhongkao”, promoting sales via its WeChat public account. A dispute arose over the authenticity of the trademarks: the technology company issued a statement on its official website, “Several Steps to Identify Genuine and Fake X Hui Jump Ropes”, claiming that “X Hui Zhongkao” was counterfeit; the sports company retaliated, emphasizing on its public account that “X Hui Zhongkao” was genuine and implying that the technology company had made false accusations. Both parties filed lawsuits, alleging that the other had infringed its reputation rights.
Judicial Reasoning
The court held that in determining whether a rights protection statement infringes reputation rights, it is necessary to distinguish between “factual statements” and “expressions of opinion.” The technology company’s statement was supported by certain evidence, its description roughly consistent with the facts, and its purpose was to maintain market order, thus it should be regarded as reasonable rights protection. The sports company’s statement mainly reminded consumers to distinguish products, likewise constituting opinion expression, and did not reach the level of damaging the other’s social reputation. Therefore, neither party’s speech constituted reputational infringement, and the court dismissed all claims.
Significance
This case clearly defined the legal boundary between reasonable rights protection and malicious defamation. It indicated that enterprises, in competition, may engage in market rights protection through factual statements and reasonable expressions of opinion, but may not fabricate facts or engage in malicious slander. This ruling both provided enterprises with legitimate space for rights protection and prevented reputation rights from being abused as a competitive weapon, promoting fair and orderly competition in the sports goods industry.
Conclusion and Insights
These ten cases collectively addressed the most contentious legal issues in the digital sports era: copyright protection of event livestreams, reasonable use of portraits and emoji stickers, boundaries of platform liability, and the scope of reputational rights in rights protection statements. Together, they conveyed several core messages:
1. Respect for Originality: Event footage, photography, and online courses are all protected under copyright law.2. Defining Fair Use: Public interest reporting can enjoy exemption, but must not be misused for commercial promotion.3. Increased Platform Responsibility: During popular events, platforms must proactively bear higher duties of care.4. Balancing Rights: Courts must find balance between individual rights and public interests.
Overall, these cases not only filled legal gaps in the field of digital sports, but also set clear compliance benchmarks for the industry, carrying milestone significance for promoting the healthy development of sports and the digital economy.