The Copyrightability of Works of Applied Art in China ‒ Case Note of Guiding Case No. 157 by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China

Rudolf A Rentsch, Raphael Zingg
{"title":"The Copyrightability of Works of Applied Art in China ‒ Case Note of Guiding Case No. 157 by the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China","authors":"Rudolf A Rentsch, Raphael Zingg","doi":"10.1093/grurint/ikad102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With comparatively new copyright laws, China’s courts are still crystalizing the standards of copyrightability. In recent years, case law has particularly clarified that works of applied art qualify for copyright protection, but the enforcement of such claims was long deemed risky in practice due to the uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the protection requirements. Guiding Case No. 157 of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China demonstrates a newfound consistency in the application of copyright protection standards to works of applied art. Doctrinally, the case law analysis highlights that Chinese courts have merged two distinct copyrightability requirements, originality and aesthetics, settling for that which we call a threshold of ‘original aesthetics’. Practitioners litigating international portfolios should be aware of the potential to successfully enforce copyright claims over works of applied art in China. The doctrinal delineation between originality and aesthetics is of importance not only within the scope of academic research, but also serves trial attorneys when pleading copyright infringement cases.","PeriodicalId":487734,"journal":{"name":"GRUR international","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GRUR international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract With comparatively new copyright laws, China’s courts are still crystalizing the standards of copyrightability. In recent years, case law has particularly clarified that works of applied art qualify for copyright protection, but the enforcement of such claims was long deemed risky in practice due to the uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the protection requirements. Guiding Case No. 157 of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China demonstrates a newfound consistency in the application of copyright protection standards to works of applied art. Doctrinally, the case law analysis highlights that Chinese courts have merged two distinct copyrightability requirements, originality and aesthetics, settling for that which we call a threshold of ‘original aesthetics’. Practitioners litigating international portfolios should be aware of the potential to successfully enforce copyright claims over works of applied art in China. The doctrinal delineation between originality and aesthetics is of importance not only within the scope of academic research, but also serves trial attorneys when pleading copyright infringement cases.
中国应用艺术作品的著作权问题——中华人民共和国最高人民法院第157号指导性案例案例说明
中国的著作权法相对较新,法院对著作权的标准尚不明确。近年来,判例法特别明确了实用艺术作品有资格获得版权保护,但由于对保护要求的解释存在不确定性,这种要求的执行长期以来被认为在实践中存在风险。中华人民共和国最高人民法院第157号指导性案例表明,对实用艺术作品的著作权保护标准的适用出现了新的一致性。理论上,案例法分析强调,中国法院已经合并了两种不同的版权要求,原创性和美学,满足了我们称之为“原创美学”的门槛。从事国际投资组合诉讼的从业人员应该意识到,在中国成功执行应用艺术作品版权索赔的可能性。原创性与美学之间的理论界定不仅在学术研究范围内具有重要意义,而且在辩护版权侵权案件时也为审判律师提供服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书