New Rules Taking Effect in September: Amended Copyright Judicial Interpretation Ends Free Press Reposting Online

The Supreme People's Court's Decision on Amending the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Copyright Civil Dispute Cases took effect on September 1, 2026, state media reported this week in a roundup of new regulations taking effect in September. The Decision, adopted by the SPC's Judicial Committee on May 25, 2026 and released on August 20, refines and improves the standards for applying law on key and difficult issues in copyright judicial practice — including the determination of whether a work has been published, the boundaries of fair use, and the scope of the statutory license for press reposting — in order to unify adjudication standards, provide clear litigation guidance to parties and give the market predictable behavioral expectations.

On reposting, the Decision narrows the statutory license considerably. The scope of 'newspapers and periodicals' in the original interpretation is now defined as paper newspapers and periodicals approved for publication by the competent authorities in charge of the press, together with digital versions identical to them in content and layout, so as to adapt to the development of network and digital technologies. A new paragraph makes clear that reposting of published works between newspapers or periodicals and internet information service providers, or among internet information service providers themselves, requires the permission of the copyright owner and payment of remuneration. In practice, this ends the long-standing habit of self-media accounts and content platforms 'carrying' press articles with attribution only, without authorization or payment.

On the concept of 'making public' (publication), the Decision removes the original qualifier that a work be made public 'by the copyright owner or with the copyright owner's permission.' It now defines making public as disclosing a work to unspecified persons, without treating actual public awareness as a constituent element. Both academic theory and judicial practice in China already recognized that a work disclosed through another person's infringing act is also made public; the amendment codifies that position.

On fair use, the Decision replaces 'artistic works in outdoor public places' in the original interpretation with 'artistic works in public places,' keeping the text consistent with Article 24(1)(10) of the Copyright Law as amended in 2020. A proviso is added: a person who copies, draws, photographs or records such an artwork may reuse the resulting work in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable scope, but may not, without the copyright owner's permission, install, display or publicly disseminate it again in the same manner. Observers note the amendment is particularly relevant to self-media operators, content platforms and the cultural-creative industries, which must now reassess reposting practices and evidence readiness for copyright enforcement.

Original Link：https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_33977502