Perspective | A Practical Study on Infringement Cases of the Right of Reproduction under Copyright Law

According to Article 10, Item 5 of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2020), the right of reproduction refers to the right to make one or more copies of a work by means of printing, photocopying, rubbing, recording, video recording, transcription, filming, digitization, and other similar methods. According to Article 10, Item 12 of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2020), the right of information network dissemination refers to the right to make a work available to the public via wired or wireless means, enabling the public to access it at a time and place of their own choosing. The core of the “right of reproduction” lies in “fixing the work in a tangible form”; the objects of protection must meet the “originality” requirement stipulated in Article 2 of the Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2013)—that is, the work must be an intellectual creation with originality in the fields of literature, art, and science, and capable of being reproduced in some tangible form. In judicial practice, courts typically determine whether a copying act has occurred based on the “access plus substantial similarity” rule: that is, the infringer must have had the possibility of accessing the original work, and the allegedly infringing work must be substantially similar in expression to the original work.

Both the right of reproduction and the right of information network dissemination are significant property rights enjoyed by copyright holders over their works. However, these two rights differ markedly in terms of their nature, modes of conduct, and focus of protection: First, the core content of the rights differs. The core of the right of reproduction is “producing copies”—that is, fixing a work onto a tangible medium through various means (including both traditional physical media and digital formats), thereby creating a tangible copy of the work. This right focuses on the process of transforming a work from “non-existence” to “existence.” In contrast, the core of the right of information network dissemination is “making the work available to the public”—that is, using network technologies to enable the public to access the work at a time and place of their choosing. This right focuses on the process of disseminating a work from “existence” to “accessibility.” Second, the forms of conduct differ. The conduct underlying the right of reproduction is “production”—whether it involves traditional printing or photocopying, or digital scanning and storage—each of which transforms a work into a copy. By contrast, the conduct underlying the right of information network dissemination is “provision”—that is, placing the work in an accessible online space via network servers, cloud storage, or other means, enabling the public to actively retrieve it. For example, video websites uploading movies for users to watch online, or cloud-storage users sharing links to their works for others to download. Third, the manner in which the public participates differs. The exercise of the right of reproduction does not directly involve the public’s act of obtaining the work; once a copy has been produced, it constitutes an infringement of the right of reproduction, regardless of whether the public actually obtains the copy. By contrast, the exercise of the right of information network dissemination requires that the public be able to “obtain the work at a time and place of their choosing.” The public’s active retrieval is the essential feature of this right. If a work is merely placed in cyberspace without being made accessible to the public—for instance, if it is stored only on a private server and not shared—such action does not constitute an infringement of the right of information network dissemination. Fourth, the focus of protection differs. The right of reproduction focuses on protecting the “copies” of a work, preventing others from producing tangible or intangible copies of the work without permission. By contrast, the right of information network dissemination focuses on protecting the “right of dissemination,” preventing others from transmitting the work to the public via the internet without authorization, thereby ensuring that the copyright holder maintains control over how their work is disseminated.

Such infringement typically manifests as the physical reproduction of works—such as texts, artworks, and photographs—without permission. Typical examples include the printing of pirated books, the reproduction of artworks followed by their commercialization, and the development of photographic prints for sale. For instance, if a publishing house prints 100,000 copies of a novel by author A without obtaining A’s permission and then publicly sells these copies, this would constitute a direct infringement of the right of reproduction (Article 53, Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Law).

With the development of digital technology, the act of digitally storing and transmitting works via electronic devices has become a major type of copyright infringement. For example, when a website operator uploads scholarly papers protected by copyright to a server for users to download, or when an individual shares the original images of others’ photographic works via cloud storage, both actions constitute “producing copies of a work in a digital format”—an extension of the “digitalization” provision under Article 10, Item 5 of the Copyright Law. Another example is when a video website uploads films or TV series protected by copyright without permission, making them available for users to watch or download online, thereby directly infringing upon the right of information network dissemination.

Although some infringing acts do not directly copy the work in its entirety, they achieve partial or functional replication of the work through technical means—for example, partially copying software code or constructing a building based on its design drawings (which essentially constitutes a reproduction of the design’s expressed content).

According to Article 52 of the Copyright Law, an infringer shall bear civil liabilities including ceasing the infringement, eliminating the adverse effects, making public apologies, and compensating for losses. Among these, the amount of compensation shall be determined following a progressive rule: "actual loss → illegal gains from the infringement → royalty fees for rights usage → statutory compensation." If the court ultimately determines the compensation amount through statutory compensation, it shall fall within the range of RMB 500 to RMB 5 million (Article 54 of the Copyright Law). For example, in case No. (2025) Jing 0105 Min Chu 52264, which the author represented, the court held: "Regarding the specific amount of compensation for losses, given that the existing evidence in this case is insufficient to prove the plaintiff's actual losses or the defendant's illegal gains, and considering that the compensation amount claimed by the plaintiff is excessively high, this court will not fully support the plaintiff's claim. Instead, this court will determine the compensation amount in a discretionary manner, taking into account factors such as the originality of the right-holding work involved, the time of its publication, the proportion of the infringing content, the duration of the infringing act, and the degree of subjective fault." Furthermore, reasonable expenses incurred by the rights holder to stop the infringement—such as attorney fees and evidence-gathering costs—may be included in the scope of compensation (Article 54, Paragraph 3 of the Copyright Law; Judicial Interpretation Article 26). According to Article 52 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended in 2020), infringement upon the right of information network dissemination also entails civil liabilities including ceasing the infringement, eliminating the adverse effects, making public apologies, and compensating for losses. The rules for determining the amount of compensation are identical to those applicable to infringement upon the right of reproduction, following the same progressive order: "actual loss → illegal gains from the infringement → royalty fees for rights usage → statutory compensation." Similarly, when the court determines the compensation amount through statutory compensation, the specific amount shall be set within the range of RMB 500 to RMB 5 million (Article 54 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended in 2020).

If an infringement harms the public interest (such as large-scale piracy or infringement involving works created by minors), the competent copyright authority may order the cessation of the infringing activities, issue a warning, confiscate illegal gains and infringing copies, and impose a fine (Article 53 of the Copyright Law). For businesses engaged in illegal activities with turnover exceeding 50,000 yuan, the fine may range from one to five times the illegal turnover; for those with turnover below 50,000 yuan, the maximum fine may reach 250,000 yuan. If the infringement is particularly serious (e.g., substantial illegal gains or repeated infringements), it may also constitute a crime under Article 217 of the Criminal Law. Crime of Infringement of Copyright Criminal liability shall be pursued. If an infringement of the right to transmit information over the internet harms the public interest, the competent copyright authority may order the cessation of the infringing activity, issue a warning, confiscate illegal gains and infringing copies, and impose a fine. In cases where the infringement is particularly serious, it may also constitute the crime of infringement of copyright as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (amended in 2023), triggering criminal prosecution.

The entities directly engaging in acts of reproduction—such as printers of pirated books or operators of infringing websites—are individually liable for infringement. For example, if an individual reproduces another person’s photographic work without permission for commercial promotion, that individual, as the direct infringer, shall independently bear the responsibility for compensation. Similarly, entities directly engaged in the act of transmitting information over a network—such as operators of video websites or cloud storage service providers—are individually liable for infringement. For instance, if an individual uploads another person’s photographic work to a cloud storage service and shares the link without permission, that individual, as the direct infringer, shall independently bear the responsibility for compensation.

1. Contributory infringement liability: Any entity that provides substantial assistance to others in engaging in infringing activities—for example, suppliers of printing equipment for pirated books or platform providers offering server hosting services for websites engaged in infringement—shall bear joint and several liability with the direct infringer if it knowingly or should have known that the other party was committing an infringement but still provided such assistance. (Article 18 of the “Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Information Network Dissemination” extends the application of liability to network service providers.)

2.出版者过错责任： Publishers who fail to exercise reasonable care in regard to authorizing their publishing activities and verifying the source of manuscripts—such as failing to check whether the author holds copyright—shall bear liability for damages (Article 20 of the Supreme People's Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright). For example, if a publisher publishes a novel without examining whether it contains plagiarism and subsequently the work is found to infringe upon the rights of others, the publisher shall jointly bear responsibility with the plagiarist.

For copyright holders, it is important to retain evidence of ownership, such as the original drafts of their works and certificates of copyright registration (Article 7 of the Supreme People's Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright). They should also adopt technical measures—such as digital watermarks—to protect their key works against unauthorized copying. Furthermore, copyright holders need to strengthen the protection of their works in the online environment, promptly monitor and address online infringement activities, and, if necessary, employ technical measures—such as digital watermarks and encryption technologies—to prevent the illegal dissemination of their works. As for online service providers, they should establish and improve copyright review mechanisms, conduct regular inspections of platform content, and promptly remove any infringing content upon discovery, thereby avoiding joint liability due to negligence. For entities responsible for preventing infringement—such as platforms and publishing institutions—they should set up reasonable due diligence review mechanisms (e.g., verifying authorization documents and including clauses guaranteeing rights) to avoid bearing joint liability due to negligence. For rights-holders seeking to enforce their rights, they can secure evidence of infringement through notarization and electronic data preservation (referencing Article 93 of the Supreme People's Court’s Provisions on Civil Litigation Evidence, which outlines the rules for determining the authenticity of electronic data). If necessary, they may apply for pre-litigation evidence preservation (Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Law) to ensure the effectiveness of rights remedies.