SPC Amends Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Copyright Disputes

Date: 20 August 2026

The SPC issued the Decision on Amending the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Copyright Dispute (Fa Shi [2026] No. 18), which was adopted at the 1976th Meeting of the Adjudication Committee of the SPC on 25 May 2026, and will take effect on 1 September 2026. The principal amendments are as follows:

• Clarifying what is meant by a work being made ‘available to the public’. The qualifying phrase ‘by the copyright owner on his/her own initiative or upon the permission of the copyright owner’ has been deleted from Article 9 of the previous Interpretation. As a result, a work will be made available to the public even if its disclosure is the result of an infringing act committed by another person.
• Further defining the rules on fair use. First, the word ‘outdoor’ has been deleted from the phrase ‘art works at an outdoor public place’ in Article 18 of the previous Interpretation, bringing the provision into line with the Copyright Law (2020). Second, a specific limitation has been introduced on the use that can be made of copies of works displayed in public places.  Although persons may reproduce, paint, photograph or make video recordings of such works, they may not, without the permission of the copyright owner, install, display, or disseminatethe further work in the same manner as the original work.
• Clarifying the scope of the statutory licence for reprinting by newspapers and periodicals. First, to accommodate the development of internet and digital technologies, the scope of ‘newspapers or periodicals’ in paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the previous Interpretation has been expanded to cover ‘print newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authorities for newspapers and periodicals, as well as digital versions identical to their print counterparts in content and layout format’. Second, a new paragraph 2 has been added, providing that ‘where newspapers or periodicals and internet information service providers reprint published works from each other, or where internet information service providers reprint published works from each other, the provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply, and permission shall be obtained from and remuneration shall be paid to the copyright holder’. This clarifies that online reprinting, other than that covered by paragraph 1, does not fall within the scope of the statutory licence for reprinting by newspapers and periodicals, and requires permission from, and payment of remuneration to, the copyright holder.

Source: SPC

https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/509271.html

最高人民法院修改《关于审理著作权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》

日期：2026年8月20日

最高人民法院发布《关于修改〈最高人民法院关于审理著作权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释〉的决定》（法释〔2026〕18号），于2026年5月25日经最高人民法院审判委员会第1976次会议通过，自2026年9月1日起施行。本次修改的主要内容包括：

• 明确作品“公之于众”的认定标准。删去原司法解释第九条中的“著作权人自行或者经著作权人许可”的限定条件，明确作品因他人侵权行为而被公开也属于公之于众。
• 细化合理使用规则。首先，删去原司法解释第十八条“室外公共场所的艺术作品”中的“室外”这一要件，与2020年修正的《著作权法》保持一致。其次，新增“但是未经著作权人许可不得以相同方式设置、陈列或者公开传播”，明确公共场所艺术作品的临摹、绘画、摄影、录像人，虽然可以对其成果依法以合理的方式和范围再行使用，但对合理的使用方式和范围进行限制。
• 明确报刊转载法定许可的适用范围。首先，为适应网络和数字技术发展需要，将原司法解释第十七条第一款中的“报纸、期刊”的范围扩大为“报纸、期刊主管部门批准出版的纸质报纸、期刊以及与其内容和版面格式相一致的数字化版本”。其次，新增第二款“报纸、期刊与互联网信息服务提供者之间相互转载、互联网信息服务提供者之间相互转载已发表的作品，不适用前款规定，应当经过著作权人许可并支付报酬”，明确除第一款之外的网络转载不适用报刊转载法定许可，需取得著作权人许可并支付报酬。

资料来源：最高人民法院

新闻链接：https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/509271.html

CNIPA Releases Major Intellectual Property Statistics for the First Half of 2026

Date: 13 August 2026

1. The principal patent statistics are as follows:

Additionally, from January to June 2026, CNIPA received 38,000 PCT international patent applications. Chinese applicants filed a total of 1,588 international design applications.

2. The principal trademark statistics for January–June 2026 is as follows:

Additionally, as of the end of June 2026, China had 54.203 million trademarks in force.

3. The principal statistics on geographical indications and layout-designs of integrated circuits are as follows:

Additionally, from January to June 2026, China received 14,566 applications for the registration of layout-designs of integrated circuits and issued 5,061 certificates.

Resource: CNIPA

https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/module/download/down.jsp?i_ID=207712&colID=88   

国知局公布2026 年1-6 月知识产权主要统计数据

日期：2026年8月13日

1.专利方面主要统计数据如下：

此外，2026年1-6月，国知局受理PCT国际专利申请3.8万件；中国申请人共提交外观设计国际申请1588件。

2. 商标方面2026年1-6月主要统计数据如下：

此外，截至6月，我国有效注册商标5420.3万件

3.地理标志、集成电路布图设计方面主要统计数据如下：

此外，2026年1-6月，我国集成电路布图设计登记申请14566件；发证5061件。

资料来源：国知局

新闻链接：https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/module/download/down.jsp?i_ID=207712&colID=88   

Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court Concludes Criminal Copyright‑Infringement Case Involving Blossoms Shanghai - Defendant Sentenced to Four Years Six Months’ Imprisonment and Fined RMB 7 Million (Approx. US$ 1.04 Million)

Date: 9 August 2026

Since 2022, the Defendant Wang, acting in collusion with individuals located abroad, operated an overseas video-streaming platform and mobile application (APP) that disseminated a large volume of Chinese film and television works without authorization, and generated profits through paid memberships, embedded advertising, and other commercial means. Investigation revealed that the platform disseminated more than 4,000 unauthorized audiovisual works, including the Mandarin and Shanghainese versions of Blossoms Shanghai which recorded over 5 million and 3 million views, respectively.

When he was apprehended in March 2024, the Defendant Wang refused to make an admission. Following the first-instance judgment finding that he was guilty of the crime of copyright infringement, the Defendant Wang appealed to the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court, arguing that the original judgment had incorrectly determined the facts, that the evidence was insufficient, and that his conduct did not constitute a criminal offence. 

In this case, technical investigators had been engaged to address the difficulties associated with the collection of evidence overseas. Under the guidance of the technical investigators, procuratories organs adopted an online electronic data extraction method, whereby the investigation authority commissioned a qualified forensic institution to extract publicly available data and conduct identity verification and comparison. From data extraction to the presentation of evidence at trial, hash-value verification was carried out at every stage to ensure the authenticity and integrity of the electronic evidence, effectively generating a unique ‘electronic identity card’ for the evidence. When the defence raised a plea of not guilty and contended that the platform's view counts may have been inflated, the public prosecutor produced a specialized forensic opinion, together with comparative screenshots showing the changes in the Spark Index (i.e. playback popularity) of Blossoms Shanghai, to prove that the view counts had increased naturally and had not been artificially inflated.  

Based on the evidence on record, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court, at second instance, held that Defendant Wang had operated an affiliated company within China and provided technical support for the overseas video-streaming platform and mobile application (APP). Together with overseas collaborators, he had, without the authority of the copyright owner, disseminated copyrighted audiovisual works to the public via an information network, thereby committing the crime of copyright infringement. Pursuant to Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Cases Involving IPR Infringement, Defendant Wang's conduct constituted a ‘particularly serious circumstance’, as the number of clicks or views of works disseminated to the public through information networks exceeded one million. Defendant Wang had previously been convicted of the crime of copyright infringement and given a suspended sentence. Having committed a further crime of copyright infringement during the probation period, the suspended sentence was revoked in accordance with the law, and a combined punishment for multiple crimes applied. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.  It sentenced Wang to a total fixed-term imprisonment of four years and six months, and mposed a fine of RMB 7 million (approx. US$ 1.04 million).

https://www.jcrb.com/jc/202608/t20260809_916846.html

上海市三中院审结一起涉《繁花》著作权侵权刑事案件，被告人获刑四年六个月并处罚金700万元

日期：2026-08-09

自2022年起，被告人王某伙同境外人员运营某境外视频网站及APP，未经授权大量传播我国影视作品，并通过会员付费、植入广告等方式获利。经查，该境外平台共传播4000余部未授权影视作品，其中《繁花》普通话版、沪语版点击量分别超500万次、300万次。

2024年3月，王某到案后拒不供述。一审判决王某构成侵犯著作权罪后，王某以原判认定事实错误、证据不足，其行为不构成犯罪为由，向上海三中院提出上诉。

本案调用技术调查官，针对境外取证难题，检察机关在技术调查官的指导下，采用在线提取电子数据的方式，由侦查机关委托有资质的鉴定机构提取公开数据并完成同一性比对。从数据提取到庭审示证，每一步都进行哈希值校验（用于判断电子证据的真实性、完整性），生成独一无二的“电子身份证”。当辩护方提出无罪抗辩，主张平台点击量可能虚增时，公诉人出示专项鉴定意见，并出示《繁花》火花值（即播放热度）变化前后对照截图，证实点击量为自然增长，无虚增情况。

根据在案证据，上海三中院二审审理认定，王某以营利为目的，未经著作权人许可，负责在境内运营关联公司并为境外视频网站及APP提供技术支持，伙同境外人员通过信息网络向公众传播权利人视听作品，已构成侵犯著作权罪。根据《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第13条的规定，王某已构成通过信息网络向公众传播他人作品被点击数量达到100万次以上的“情节特别严重”的情形。王某曾因犯侵犯著作权罪被判处刑罚并宣告缓刑，在缓刑考验期内又犯侵犯著作权罪，依法应当撤销缓刑，实行数罪并罚，合并执行有期徒刑四年六个月，并处罚金700万元。上海三中院最终裁定驳回上诉，维持原判。

资料来源：正义网  2026-08-09

新闻链接：https://www.jcrb.com/jc/202608/t20260809_916846.html

China's First Case Involving Malicious Evidence Gathering by Exploiting AI Hallucinations

Date: 20 August 2026

The Plaintiff, Su Company, is the proprietor of the trademark ‘ZHISUMAI’, registered for use on goods including engraving machines. Su Company alleged that, after entering the keywords ‘engraving machines equipment ZHISUMAI’ into the Baidu search engine and clicking a link in the search results, it was redirected to ‘ZHEN X HANG’, a platform operated by the Defendant, Zhen Company, which offered the same goods as Su Company. Su Company alleged that Zhen Company had used, through Baidu paid search advertising, a sign identical to the trademark at issue in relation to identical goods, which was likely to cause confusion among the relevant public as to the source of the goods. Su Company therefore brought a trademark infringement action.

The Primary People's Court of Qingpu District of Shanghai Municipality found that Su Company had deliberately conducted frequent, concentrated and targeted searches to induce the artificial intelligence system of the Baidu search website to establish false associations among ‘ZHISUMAI’, ‘engraving machines’ and ‘ZHEN X HANG’, and had used those false associations as the basis for bringing a trademark infringement action. Specifically, Su Company conducted multiple, consecutive abnormal searches for specific keywords including ‘ZHISUMAI’. When the search engine returned correct links such as Su Company’s official website, the relevant personnel did not click on such links. Instead, they kept repeating the search operations until the Defendant’s promotional link appeared at the top of the search results. They then clicked and browsed only the Defendant’s promotional link. This caused the AI large model to develop cognitive bias, incorrectly determining that the promotional link was the relevant result users sought when searching for such keywords. Consequently, the AI large model continuously prioritized pushing the Defendant’s promotional link in subsequent searches. As a result, a false impression of an association between ‘ZHISUMAI’ and Zhen Company’s promotional link was created. The Court ultimately found that no trademark infringement had been established. The judgment has taken legal effect.

The Primary People's Court of Qingpu District of Shanghai Municipality subsequently decided to impose a fine of RMB 100,000 (approx. US$ 14,900) on Su Company for fabricating evidence, fabricating the basic facts of the case, attempting to obtain improper benefits and abusing its litigation rights. Su Company, dissatisfied with the decision, applied to Shanghai Intellectual Property Court for reconsideration. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ultimately dismissed the application for reconsideration and upheld the original decision.

Source: China Intellectual Property News

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/GTjnnCvZYMsutBRGfFhk5w

全国首例利用人工智能“幻觉”恶意取证案

日期：2026年8月20日

原告速某公司系“智速迈”注册商标权利人，该商标被核定用于雕刻机等商品。速某公司称其在百度搜索引擎输入关键字“雕刻机设备智速迈”后，搜索结果链接点击后跳转至被告震某公司经营的平台“震某行”，该平台提供与原告相同的商品。速某公司主张震某公司通过百度搜索竞价广告的方式，在相同商品上使用与涉案商标相同的标识，易使相关公众对商品来源产生混淆，遂提起商标侵权诉讼。

上海市青浦区人民法院审理查明，速某公司故意通过高频次、集中性的定向搜索行为，诱导百度搜索网站人工智能系统建立“智速迈”与“雕刻机”“震某行”的错误关联，并借此提起商标诉讼。具体而言，速某公司对“智速迈”等特定关键词进行多次、连续的非正常搜索，当搜索引擎返回速某公司官方网站等正确链接时，该相关人员未点击相应链接，持续重复搜索操作，直至被告的推广链接出现在搜索结果首位，仅点击该被告推广链接并进行浏览。 导致AI大模型产生认知偏差，错误将推广链接判定为用户搜索该关键词所需的相关结果，进而在后续搜索中持续优先推送该被告推广链接，造成“智速迈”与震某行公司网络推广页面产生“关联”假象。法院最终认定商标侵权行为不成立，该判决已生效。

随后上海市青浦区人民法院根据速某公司的虚假取证、捏造案件基本事实、意图谋取不当利益及滥用诉讼权利等行为，对速某公司作出罚款10万元的决定。速某公司不服，向上海知识产权法院申请复议。上海知识产权法院最终驳回复议申请，维持原决定。

资料来源：中国知识产权报

新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/GTjnnCvZYMsutBRGfFhk5w