On August 20, the Supreme People's Court issued a decision to amend the “Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Applicable Law in Trial of Civil Copyright Disputes”, which will take effect on September 1, 2026. It was decided to further refine and improve the applicable standards of the law, unify the scale of case adjudication, provide clear litigation guidelines for the parties, provide clear behavioral expectations for the market, and ensure the proper implementation of the copyright law in response to key difficult issues such as the publication and determination of works in copyright judicial practice, the boundaries of fair use of works, and the scope of legal permission for newspaper reprinting. It was decided to further clarify the scope of application of legal permission for newspaper reprinting, and to clarify the scope of “newspapers and periodicals” in the original judicial interpretation as “paper newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authority of newspapers and periodicals, and digital versions consistent with their content and layout format” to meet the needs of the development of the Internet and digital technology. At the same time, a section was added to make it clear that newspapers, periodicals, and Internet information service providers should mutually reprint published works, and that Internet information service providers should obtain permission and pay compensation from the copyright holder. According to reports, the intellectual property theory community and judicial practice currently recognize it, and works that are made public due to infringement by others are also public. It was decided to further clarify the criteria for determining “public disclosure”, delete the limitation of “the copyright owner himself or with the permission of the copyright holder” in the original judicial interpretation, and clarify “public disclosure” as disclosing the work to an unspecified person, but without public knowledge as a constituent element. Furthermore, it was decided to further refine the applicable rules for fair use and amend “works of art in outdoor public places” as stipulated in the original judicial interpretation to “works of art in public places”, in line with the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law revised in 2020. At the same time, it was decided to make it clear that those who copy, paint, photograph, or videotape works of art in public places may re-use their results in a reasonable manner and scope in accordance with the law, but they may not set up, display, or publicly disseminate them in the same way without permission from the copyright holder.

On August 20, the Supreme People's Court issued a decision to amend the “Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Applicable Law in Trial of Civil Copyright Disputes”, which will take effect on September 1, 2026. It was decided to further refine and improve the applicable standards of the law, unify the scale of case adjudication, provide clear litigation guidelines for the parties, provide clear behavioral expectations for the market, and ensure the proper implementation of the copyright law in response to key difficult issues such as the publication and determination of works in copyright judicial practice, the boundaries of fair use of works, and the scope of legal permission for newspaper reprinting. It was decided to further clarify the scope of application of legal permission for newspaper reprinting, and to clarify the scope of “newspapers and periodicals” in the original judicial interpretation as “paper newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authority of newspapers and periodicals, and digital versions consistent with their content and layout format” to meet the needs of the development of the Internet and digital technology. At the same time, a section was added to make it clear that newspapers, periodicals, and Internet information service providers reprint published works with each other, and that Internet information service providers must obtain permission and pay compensation from the copyright holder. According to reports, the intellectual property theory community and judicial practice currently recognize it, and works that are made public due to infringement by others are also public. It was decided to further clarify the criteria for determining “public disclosure”, delete the limitation of “the copyright owner himself or with the permission of the copyright holder” in the original judicial interpretation, and clarify “public disclosure” as disclosing the work to an unspecified person, but without public knowledge as a constituent element. Furthermore, it was decided to further refine the applicable rules for fair use and amend “works of art in outdoor public places” as stipulated in the original judicial interpretation to “works of art in public places”, in line with the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law revised in 2020. At the same time, it was decided to make it clear that those who copy, paint, photograph, or videotape works of art in public places may re-use their results in a reasonable manner and scope in accordance with the law, but they may not set up, display, or publicly disseminate them in the same way without permission from the copyright holder.