Previous 2 / 3 Next

signature indicating the identity of the creator, and below the watermark, there was a photographer's signature and other brand names, indicating that the copyright of the images involved belonged to the author rather than Xmei Image Company or G* Company. Xlu Apiculture Company also inquired of G* Company about the ownership of the images involved by email, and received a reply that the images involved were submitted for publication by the photographer, and G* Company paid royalties to the photographer after selling such images in its own name, but the photographer retained the copyright of such images. Based on this, Xlu Apiculture Company believed that as the contributor retained the copyright, neither G* Company nor Xmei Image Company enjoyed the copyright of the images involved, and the claims of Xmei Image Company should be rejected. Decision On September 17, 2019, the Tianjin Third Intermediate People's Court made the civil judgment ([2019] Jin 03 Zhi Min Chu No.73), deciding that Xlu Apiculture Company shall compensate Xmei Image Company for its economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling CNY8,000; other claims of Xmei Image Company shall be rejected. Xlu Apiculture Company refused to accept the judgment of first instance and filed an appeal. On July 16, 2020, the Tianjin High People's Court made the civil judgment ([2020] Jin Min Zhong No.311), rejecting the appeal, and upholding the original judgment. Xlu Apiculture Company refused to accept the judgment of second instance and applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial. The Supreme People's Court ruled to try the case, and made the civil judgment ([2021] Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No.355) on December 20, 2021, revoking the judgments of first instance and second instance, and rejecting all the claims of Xmei Image Company. Reasons for the Decision The Supreme People's Court held that in addition to the watermark of "getty Images", the images involved were marked with the photographer's signature and other brand names, and "getty Images" was followed by the trademark registration mark ""; therefore, the copyright of the images involved cannot be 2

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Guiding Case No.224: Xmei (Tianjin) Image Technology Co., Ltd. v. Henan Xlu Apiculture Co., Ltd. (Case concerning a Dispute over the Infringement of an Information Network Transmission Right of a Work)

Case Law

Country

China

Country Location

Latitude: 33.86791231798495

Longitude: 104.42719150016907

Country Location (linked Case Law): China

Decision Date: Dec 20, 2021

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Reversed Lower Court

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant/ Acquittal

Keywords

Copyright
Internet

Judicial Body: Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Court Name: The Supreme People's Court of The People's Republic of China

Case Number: (2021）最高法民再355号民事判决 (2021)Zui-Gao-Fa-Min-Zai No. 355 Civil Judgment

Case Summary: This is a guiding case published by the Supreme People's Court.

Company G*, a non-party outside the case, authorized Company A to display, sell and license others to use the company's "getty Images" brand pictures in China, and Company A has the right to file a lawsuit against the infringement in its own name. Company A discovered that Company D used 4 of the above brand images without permission. Company A then filed a lawsuit on the grounds of copyright infringement, requesting an order to order Company D to compensate for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses. In order to support its appeal, Company A submitted evidence such as the authorization confirmation letter issued by Company G* and the website rights statement. The pictures involved had the watermark of "getty Images®" content. Company D argued that the trademark registration mark "®" in the upper right corner of the watermark of the picture involved was not the author's signature indicating the identity of the creator. There was also the photographer's signature and other brand names below the watermark, which showed that the copyright of the picture belonged to the author and not Company D or G company. Company D also asked Company G via email about the ownership of the pictures involved in the case, and the reply it received was that the pictures involved were submitted by photographers, and the company paid royalties to the photographers after selling them in its own name, but the photographer retained the rights to the pictures. Copyright. Based on this, Company D believed that since the contributor retained the copyright, neither Company G* nor Company A enjoyed the copyright of the pictures involved in the case, and Company A’s lawsuit should be dismissed.

On September 17, 2019, the Tianjin Third Intermediate People's Court issued (2019) Jin-03-Zhi-Min-Chu No. 73 Civil Judgment, ordering Company D to compensate Company A for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 8,000 yuan; dismissing Company A's other claims. Company D was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed. The Tianjin Higher People's Court issued the (2020) Jin-Min-Zhong No. 311 Civil Judgment on July 16, 2020, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. Company D was dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.

The Supreme People's Court ruled to retrial, and issued (2021)Zui-Gao-Fa-Min-Zai No. 355 Civil Judgment on December 20, 2021, revoking the first and second instance judgments and rejecting all claims of Company A. The Supreme People's Court held that in addition to the "getty Images®" watermark, the pictures involved were also marked with the photographer's signature and other brand names, and "getty Images" was immediately followed by the trademark registration mark "®". Therefore, this watermark alone cannot determine that the copyright of the picture involved belongs to G* Company. In addition, Company A also submitted an authorization confirmation letter and website rights statement issued by G* Company. However, the authorization confirmation letter can only prove the fact that G* Company authorized Company A, and is not evidence that G* Company owns the copyright to the pictures involved. The rights statement is a unilateral statement. In the absence of other evidence, the copyright ownership cannot be determined based on the rights statement alone. In this case, a certain American image company should further bear the burden of proving that G* Company owned the copyright of the pictures involved, but it failed to prove it. On the contrary, based on the rebuttal evidence submitted by Company D such as the reply email from Company G*.

Court held that in case of disputed copyright ownership, the ownership of works cannot be determined solely based on watermarks or rights statements.

Related Law

Source URL: The official website of The Supreme People's Court of The People's Republic of China

Collection

Primary Documents

(English version) (2021)Zui-Gao-Fa-Min-Zai No. 355 Civil Judgment.pdf
English
Download View
(Chinese version) (2021)Zui-Gao-Fa-Min-Zai No. 355 Civil Judgment.pdf
Other
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Guiding Case No.224: Xmei (Tianjin) Image Technology Co., Ltd. v. Henan Xlu Apiculture Co., Ltd. (Case concerning a Dispute over the Infringement of an Information Network Transmission Right of a Work)

Primary Documents

Notifications