China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

China Updates Evidence Rules on Administrative Enforcement of Copyright Law - China Legal News

Sat, 28 Nov 2020
Categories: China Legal Trends

avatar

 

On 15 Nov. 2020, the National Copyright Administration issued the Circular on Further Improving the Examination and Identification of Evidence for Administrative Enforcement of Copyright Law (关于进一步做好著作权行政执法证据审查和认定工作的通知), which clarified the examination and identification of evidence for copyright administrative law enforcement from three aspects, namely proof of rights, evidence of infringement, and determination of infringement.

(1) In terms of proof of rights, where the complainant makes a copyright infringement complaint, the administrative department in the enforcement of copyright shall require the complainant to provide evidence of the alleged copyright or copyright-related rights. If there is no evidence to the contrary, the administrative department in the enforcement of copyright shall presume the author, publisher, performer or producer of sound recordings signed in the usual manner as the copyright holder of the work, performance or sound recording or the right holder of the copyright-related rights.

(2) In terms of evidence of infringement, infringing works, performances or sound recordings and purchase records; accounts, contracts and processing and production documents involving infringement; screenshots of photos, videos or web pages proving the infringement; the materials proving that the publishers, distributors forge or alter the authorization documents or the acts of the publishers, distributors are beyond the scope of authorization; and other materials that can prove infringement can be used as evidence to prove that the work, performance or sound recording has been allegedly infringed.

(3) In terms of the determination of infringement, where the publisher or producer of reproductions is unable to prove the lawful authorization of his/her publication or production, or the distributor of reproductions is unable to prove the lawful source of the reproductions he/she distributes, the administrative department in the enforcement of copyright shall determine that such act constitutes infringement.

For more about China's intellectual property law, please click here.

For more about China's evidence rule, please click here.

Contributors: Yanru Chen 陈彦茹

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

China Enacts Landmark Private Economy Promotion Law

China enacted its landmark first Private Economy Promotion Law, effective May 20, 2025, to guarantee fair competition, streamline market access via a unified negative list, and bolster private enterprises through financing, innovation, and service support.

China Strengthens Criminal IP Protection with New Rules

In April 2025, China’s top court and procuratorate jointly issued a new judicial interpretation to clarify standards for handling criminal intellectual property infringement cases, aiming to strengthen IP protection, particularly in the service sector.

SPC’s 2024 Typical IP Cases Include AI Face-Swap Ruling

In April 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court released eight typical IP cases, highlighting judicial responses to emerging issues in AI, gaming, and biotech, including a landmark ruling on AI face-swapping copyright infringement.

China Eases Tax Refunds to Boost Inbound Tourist Spending

In 2025, China has lowered its departure tax refund threshold from 500 RMB to 200 RMB and doubled cash refund limits to 20,000 RMB while expanding eligible stores and streamlining processes, aiming to boost inbound tourism spending and promote Chinese products.

Chinese Courts Bolster Pregnant Workers' Rights Protection

In April 2025, China's Ministry of Human Resources and Supreme People's Court released typical labor dispute cases emphasizing stronger protection of pregnant employees' rights, including a case where unlawful job reassignment and salary reduction were ruled illegal.